How would a World War I which breaks out in 1917 look like?

BooNZ

Banned
Each converter at the pilot plant could produce 3 tons of ammonia per day. It may not have had the best catalyst, but it definitely was designed for the production of nitrates at an industrial scale. It was only the construction of enough plants "on a timely basis" that was the problem for the German Army- not the technical difficulties that had by then been solved (even with a slightly sub-optimal catalyst). While 3 tons/day times however many converters is a far cry from the estimated 4,000 tons/day that the German Army alone required, it reduces the problem to one of building enough converters fast enough- a material, labor, and time problem, not a technical one. Give them 3 more years and they might not have built enough converters to make them self-sufficient, but they would be close enough to finish it with much less stress than OTL.

As for funding, Germany is currently paying to store 500,000 tons of nitrates in various stockpiles throughout the country. Once a system is demonstrated to replace that (which it was by October 1914), they'll drop the old stockpile system like a hot rock, even if it means spending almost as much initially to set up ammonia plants.

Yes, that illustrates the point I was making. With time on their hands, the Germans could focus on existing suboptimal solutions to the nitrates supply, rather than the OTL and vastly superior solution adopted in wartime. The OTL solution ultimately enables Germany to be a significant exporter of nitrates, which goes beyond subsidized self sufficiency.

You failed to mention the role of German state. Germany was not Britain. German state would subsidize these factories as part of infant industry policy.

Yes, there is a real possibility the German state would subsidized proven but suboptimal solutions, which would impair the development of the superior OTL solution to nitrates. The thing about state intervention is the state does not always back the correct horses.
 
Yes, that illustrates the point I was making. With time on their hands, the Germans could focus on existing suboptimal solutions to the nitrates supply, rather than the OTL and vastly superior solution adopted in wartime. The OTL solution ultimately enables Germany to be a significant exporter of nitrates, which goes beyond subsidized self sufficiency.
But how does the suboptimal solution to the nitrate supply impair the development of more optimal solutions? I was under the impression that if the plant worked, then the following plant would have some optimizations to the process in terms of things like catalysts, etc, and each plant would be better than the last. By 1917, a good amount of synthetic nitrate plants should have been set up without a war, and exporting of nitrates would probably be planned for the near future.
 

Deleted member 94680

So we're basically saying that a war starting in 1917 means that Germany is intensively planning for a war from 1914 onwards?

Why?

OTL, with the destabilising diplomatic position, Germany had military figures (Moltke, Tirpitz, etc) pushing for a 'preventative' war as soon as the July Crisis began (depending on your view, maybe even from 1912 onwards). Yet even in that situation, Germany only built a single industrial Haber plant in 1913, in Oppau. During the War, the increased demand led to a second enlarged plant being built in Saxony in 1917. The Oppau plant was producing agricultural ammonia when it initially opened, only switching to military production when War broke out. So one would assume that this switch would only come in 1917 ITTL, with the second plant coming online during the War at a later date.

The Haber process isn't a magic bullet to make Germany independent of the nitrate market, without some POD to make the German planning for the War more in depth and industrially minded.
 
Not sure how British BB construction would be between 1914-1918 without a war in 1914?
I don't remember exactly, but the formula for deciding the number of capital ships to be ordered in the last years of peace was along the lines of 140% of what the Germans ordered, 160% of what the Germans ordered or what the Germans ordered plus 2 or 3. Therefore what the British order depends upon the tempo of the German building programme.

The 18 capital ships ordered in the 1909-10 to 1911-12 programmes were built in an average of 27 months. The 5 Queen Elisabeth class ordered in 1912-13 were built in an average of 31 months and the 5 Revenge class ordered in 1913-14 were built in an average of 34 months. However, under peacetime conditions its likely that the Queen Elisabeth and Revenge classes would have been built in about 27 months. The 5 Queen Elisabeth class were laid down between October 1912 and February 1913. The 5 Revenge class were laid down between November 1913 and January 1914. Therefore I think that the:
  1. 4 capital ships ordered under the 1914-15 programme would have been laid down between October 1914 and February 1915 and completed between January and May 1917.
  2. ? capital ships ordered under the 1915-16 programme would have been laid down between October 1915 and February 1916 and completed between January and May 1918 under peacetime conditions.
  3. ? capital ships ordered under the 1916-17 programme would have been laid down between October 1916 and February 1917 and completed between January and May 1919 under peacetime conditions.
  4. ? capital ships ordered under the 1917-18 programme would not have been laid down before this ALT-World War One had broken out. In common with the ships on order at the outbreak of the OTL-World War One it is likely that these ships would have been cancelled before they were laid down.
Also the 4 battleships building for Chile and Turkey in 1914 would have been completed and delivered by 1917.

The 8 Majestic class pre-dreadnoughts (completed 1895-97) would probably have been scrapped by the time this version of World War One breaks out and the 6 Canopus class (completed 1899-1902) might be on the Disposal List. In fact a grand total of 20 pre-dreadnoughts were completed 1899-1904 and a programme for a one-to-one replacement of them might be in hand in 1917 regardless of what the Germans were doing.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I don't remember exactly, but the formula for deciding the number of capital ships to be ordered in the last years of peace was along the lines of 140% of what the Germans ordered, 160% of what the Germans ordered or what the Germans ordered plus 2 or 3. Therefore what the British order depends upon the tempo of the German building programme.

The 18 capital ships ordered in the 1909-10 to 1911-12 programmes were built in an average of 27 months. The 5 Queen Elisabeth class ordered in 1912-13 were built in an average of 31 months and the 5 Revenge class ordered in 1913-14 were built in an average of 34 months. However, under peacetime conditions its likely that the Queen Elisabeth and Revenge classes would have been built in about 27 months. The 5 Queen Elisabeth class were laid down between October 1912 and February 1913. The 5 Revenge class were laid down between November 1913 and January 1914. Therefore I think that the:
  1. 4 capital ships ordered under the 1914-15 programme would have been laid down between October 1914 and February 1915 and completed between January and May 1917.
  2. ? capital ships ordered under the 1915-16 programme would have been laid down between October 1915 and February 1916 and completed between January and May 1918 under peacetime conditions.
  3. ? capital ships ordered under the 1916-17 programme would have been laid down between October 1916 and February 1917 and completed between January and May 1919 under peacetime conditions.
  4. ? capital ships ordered under the 1917-18 programme would not have been laid down before this ALT-World War One had broken out and in common with the ships on order, but not yet begun at the outbreak of the OTL-World War One would have been cancelled before they were laid down.
Also the 4 battleships building for Chile and Turkey in 1914 would have been completed and delivered by 1917.

The 8 Majestic class pre-dreadnoughts (completed 1895-97) would probably have been scrapped by the time this version of World War One breaks out and the 6 Canopus class (completed 1899-1902) might be on the Disposal List. In fact a grand total of 20 pre-dreadnoughts were completed 1899-1904 and a programme for a one-to-one replacement of them might be in hand in 1917 regardless of what the Germans were doing.
As I know, IOTL the 6th QE was cancelled just after the war broke out.
 

Deleted member 94680

One must remember that the German battleship construction programme was based around Tirpitz's 'risk theory' whereas the British battleship building programme, whilst responding to the Germans, was also geared towards maintaining the fleets required for trade and overseas protection.
 

BooNZ

Banned
So we're basically saying that a war starting in 1917 means that Germany is intensively planning for a war from 1914 onwards?

No, mostly just our myopic OP...

OTL, with the destabilising diplomatic position, Germany had military figures (Moltke, Tirpitz, etc) pushing for a 'preventative' war as soon as the July Crisis began (depending on your view, maybe even from 1912 onwards).

I thought Tirpitz was fearful of being Copenhagen'ed - and did anyone ever listen to Moltke? The lack of preparation in Germany is curious, since senior elements within the military were expecting a long war - there was no expectation that France would exit early. Perhaps (my theory) the German military thought England would abide by the (unratified) London Declaration 1909 and Germany could thereby import everything through the Netherlands, or perhaps no one thought about it at all.

Yet even in that situation, Germany only built a single industrial Haber plant in 1913, in Oppau. During the War, the increased demand led to a second enlarged plant being built in Saxony in 1917. The Oppau plant was producing agricultural ammonia when it initially opened, only switching to military production when War broke out. So one would assume that this switch would only come in 1917 ITTL, with the second plant coming online during the War at a later date.

I believe you may be talking about a different nitrate production process, which I suspect was almost uneconomic outside wartime conditions. I have read some of Haber's comments on the subject and he makes it clear the Germans would have needed to seek peace in Spring 1915 if Bosch and his team had not succeeded. The first of a number of those production plants came online in around April 1915.

The Haber process isn't a magic bullet to make Germany independent of the nitrate market, without some POD to make the German planning for the War more in depth and industrially minded.

The methodology executed by Bosch was potentially a [long term] magic bullet, because nitrates production would be cheaper than importing the same. However, without the vast 1914 wartime resources dedicated to the application of the process, most of that capacity would need to still be built in 1917, again during wartime. That said, by 1917 it is likely to be a substantially proven process, so the will be greater confidence in future nitrate supply.
 
Not sure how British BB construction would be between 1914-1914 without a war in 1914?
IOTL the French only had the 4 Courbert class dreadnoughts completed 1913-14. Delaying the outbreak of World War One to 1917 increases that to 12 consisting of 4 Courbert, 3 Bretagne and 5 Normandie class ships plus the Lyon class laid down in 1915 for completion in 1918 in peacetime conditions.

The Russians had no dreadnoughts in commission in August 1914 but did have 12 under construction. IOTL they were only able to complete 7 of them 1914-17, but ITTL it is likely that 11 of them would have been completed by the end of 1916.

The Italians had 3 dreadnoughts in August 1914. If the outbreak of World War One had been delayed to 1917 they would have had 6 at the end of 1916 with 4 Caracciolo class under construction with 3 due to complete in 1917 and one in 1918.

The Austrians had 3 dreadnoughts in August 1914 plus one under construction and 4 on order. If the outbreak of World War One had been delayed until 1917 all 4 improved Tegetthoff class would have been laid down. If construction had proceeded to the schedule in force in August 1914 one was due for completion in June 1917, one in December 1917 and two in May 1919.

The Spanish who were neutral had one dreadnought in commission in August 1914 and 2 more under construction (of which one would be completed in 1915 and one in 1921) with another 3 scheduled to be laid down 1914-15 for completion in 1920. Although these ships were being built in domestic yards much of the equipment was built by British firms, which delayed the completion of Jamie I to the end of 1921. However, ITTL without the interruption of deliveries by British firms it is likely that Jamie I would have been completed by the end of 1916 ITTL. I also think that it would be likely that the 3 ships to be laid down 1914-15 would be approaching the launching stage at the end of 1916 ITTL.

It is likely that the Greek dreadnought Salamis would have been completed before the end of 1916. The Provence class battleship Basileus Konstantinos begun in France in June 1914 would have reached the launching stage by the end of 1916.

The Resadiye (Erin) and Sultan Osman I (Agincourt) would have arrived at Constantinople by the end of 1914. According to Conway's which is my source for this a sister to Resadiye was laid down at a Vickers on 11th June 1914 with a scheduled delivery date of 29th April 1917. Therefore if the Turks had been able to keep up the payments she might have been on the point of delivery when this ALT World War One broke out. Therefore there is the possibility that the British might seize her in the same way that they seized the 2 Turkish ships that were on the point of delivery in August 1914 IOTL. The Turks might be in a better position to maintain their warships in 1917 because according to Conway's the Ottoman Government had concluded and agreement with Armstrong and Vickers for the renovation and extension of the government shipyard in Smyrna (Izmir). According to the source the agreement was made in December 1913 and was to last for 30 years.
 
One must remember that the German battleship construction programme was based around Tirpitz's 'risk theory' whereas the British battleship building programme, whilst responding to the Germans, was also geared towards maintaining the fleets required for trade and overseas protection.
While that is true, it must also be remembered that the battleships and destroyers were concentrated on the Home and Mediterranean stations with cruisers and sloops filling the trade and overseas protection roles. Plus there is also the agreement with the French where they would concentrate on the Mediterranean and the British on the North Sea and English Channel. AFAIK the British had abandoned the Two Power Standard well before 1914 due to the cost becoming prohibitive and because the French and Russian navies were no longer seen as threats.

Therefore I think the British battleship building policy would be a reflection of what the Germans were doing until the American Great Naval Act of 1916, but with World War One delayed until 1917 the Great Naval Act of 1916 might also be delayed by 3 years. Construction of other types of warships would also be a reflection of German policy too. That is because the number of fleet cruisers and destroyers required was based on the number of battleships to be screened and the number of trade protection cruisers and sloops required was based on the potential threat. The biggest potential threat was Germany and provided that most of the German cruisers could be kept bottled up in the North Sea there wasn't a great threat to trade.

Except that under the 1912 revision of the German Naval Law there were to be 72 U-boats by 1920.

If I have time I will do a post to show how the number of submarines, cruisers and destroyers ordered in 1913-14 and 1914-15 was less than in the immediately preceding years. This was a combination of the increasing cost of warships and because the Liberal Government wanted to spend less on the armed forces and more on its welfare reforms.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Therefore I think the British battleship building policy would be a reflection of what the Germans were doing until the American Great Naval Act of 1916, but with World War One delayed until 1917 the Great Naval Act of 1916 might also be delayed by 3 years.
A decisive British victory ITTL might strengthen the opposition among the US Congress
 
This is from a book called German Sea-Power, It's Rise, Progress, and Economic Basis by Archibald Hurd and Henry Castle, which was published in 1913.

Appendix V Britisn and German Building Programmes Mk 2.jpg


The actual German capital ship orders in the 3 years before 1914 were
1912-13 - Two
1 BB - Kronprinz
1 CB - Lützow​
1913-14 - Three
2 BB - Bayern and Baden
1 CA - Hindenberg​
14-15 - Two
1 BB - Sachsen
1 CB - Mackensen​

A second battleship in the 1912-13 programme was sacrificed in an agreement with the British who agreed to delete one ship from their 1912-13 Programme. However, the cancelled British ship was reinstated as HMS Malaya.

The 5 ships that were completed took an average of 40 months to build. The shortest was Bayern which took 30 months to build and the longest was Hindenburg which took 52 months to build (her sisters took 34 and 46 months to build). The 11 German capital ships built in the 1909-10 to 1911-12 programmes took an average of 36 months to build.
 

Deleted member 94680

No, mostly just our myopic OP...

Well we all know that, but I was trying to highlight some of the, shall we say, shakier prepositions being made.

I thought Tirpitz was fearful of being Copenhagen'ed - and did anyone ever listen to Moltke? The lack of preparation in Germany is curious, since senior elements within the military were expecting a long war - there was no expectation that France would exit early. Perhaps (my theory) the German military thought England would abide by the (unratified) London Declaration 1909 and Germany could thereby import everything through the Netherlands, or perhaps no one thought about it at all.

Well Tirpitz maybe but not that I'm aware of and knowing him the solution to being Copenhagened would be to steam to glorious battle and destroy all in sunder. Moltke was definitely listened to, he was head of the OHL, after all. But he was noted as one of the voices pushing for war, if the German leadership were aware of the nitrate shortage (or potential shortage, come blockade) and the opportunity the Harber Process presented to be 'immune' from blockade, then he would surely be one of the people attempting to utilise it. OTL he didn't, why would ATL Moltke be any different?

I believe you may be talking about a different nitrate production process, which I suspect was almost uneconomic outside wartime conditions. I have read some of Haber's comments on the subject and he makes it clear the Germans would have needed to seek peace in Spring 1915 if Bosch and his team had not succeeded. The first of a number of those production plants came online in around April 1915.

I am only going from the reference of the opening of the second plant from this link: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/from-fertile-minds which is a review of the book Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production by Vaclav Smil. If it's a different process, then fair enough but the review doesn't make it sound like that.

The methodology executed by Bosch was potentially a [long term] magic bullet, because nitrates production would be cheaper than importing the same. However, without the vast 1914 wartime resources dedicated to the application of the process, most of that capacity would need to still be built in 1917, again during wartime. That said, by 1917 it is likely to be a substantially proven process, so the will be greater confidence in future nitrate supply.

Well, that's logical but logic doesn't seem to be running heavily on this thread.
 
I don't remember exactly, but the formula for deciding the number of capital ships to be ordered in the last years of peace was along the lines of 140% of what the Germans ordered, 160% of what the Germans ordered or what the Germans ordered plus 2 or 3. Therefore what the British order depends upon the tempo of the German building programme.

The 18 capital ships ordered in the 1909-10 to 1911-12 programmes were built in an average of 27 months. The 5 Queen Elisabeth class ordered in 1912-13 were built in an average of 31 months and the 5 Revenge class ordered in 1913-14 were built in an average of 34 months. However, under peacetime conditions its likely that the Queen Elisabeth and Revenge classes would have been built in about 27 months. The 5 Queen Elisabeth class were laid down between October 1912 and February 1913. The 5 Revenge class were laid down between November 1913 and January 1914. Therefore I think that the:
  1. 4 capital ships ordered under the 1914-15 programme would have been laid down between October 1914 and February 1915 and completed between January and May 1917.
  2. ? capital ships ordered under the 1915-16 programme would have been laid down between October 1915 and February 1916 and completed between January and May 1918 under peacetime conditions.
  3. ? capital ships ordered under the 1916-17 programme would have been laid down between October 1916 and February 1917 and completed between January and May 1919 under peacetime conditions.
  4. ? capital ships ordered under the 1917-18 programme would not have been laid down before this ALT-World War One had broken out. In common with the ships on order at the outbreak of the OTL-World War One it is likely that these ships would have been cancelled before they were laid down.
Also the 4 battleships building for Chile and Turkey in 1914 would have been completed and delivered by 1917.

The 8 Majestic class pre-dreadnoughts (completed 1895-97) would probably have been scrapped by the time this version of World War One breaks out and the 6 Canopus class (completed 1899-1902) might be on the Disposal List. In fact a grand total of 20 pre-dreadnoughts were completed 1899-1904 and a programme for a one-to-one replacement of them might be in hand in 1917 regardless of what the Germans were doing.
Based on the information in Post 92 I reckon that the Royal Navy at the end of 1916 would have a grand total of 73 capital ships as follows:
32 dreadnoughts completed 1907-16
10 armed with 15" guns completed 1915-16
12 armed with 13.5" guns completed 1911-14
10 armed with 12" guns completed 1906-11​
31 pre-dreadnoughts completed 1899-1908
29 first class battleships mounting four 12" guns as follows:
2 Lord Nelson class completed 1908
8 King Edward VIII class completed 1905-07
8 Formidable/London/Queen class completed 1901-01
5 Duncan class completed 1903-04
6 Canopus class completed 1899-1902​
2 second class battleships mounting four 10" guns as follows:
2 Swiftsure class completed 1904​
10 battle cruisers completed 1908-14
3 Invincible class completed 1908
3 Indefatigable class completed 1911-13
3 Lion class completed 1912-13
1 Tiger class completed 1914​
That is an increase of one ship over August 1914 when there were 22 dreadnoughts, 40 pre-dreadnoughts and 10 battle cruisers. There would be 12 ships under construction and 4 planned as follows:
4 battleships (one Queen Elisabeth and 3 Revenge class) ordered under the 1914-15 programme and due to complete in the first half of 1917
4 battleships ordered under the 1915-16 programme and due to complete in the first half of 1918
4 battleships ordered under the 1916-17 programme and due to complete in the first half of 1919
4 battleships planned to be ordered in the 1917-18 programme for completion in the first half of 1920​

My guess is that the ships in the 1915-16 to 1917-18 programmes would have been improved versions of the Queen Elisabeth and Revenge classes in the same way that the twelve 13.5-inch dreadnoughts were divided into 3 classes of 4 ships, with each successive class incorporating minor improvements.
 
This is from a book called German Sea-Power, It's Rise, Progress, and Economic Basis by Archibald Hurd and Henry Castle, which was published in 1913.

View attachment 318263
My guess is that the Kaisermarine would possess 46 capital ships of all types at the end of 1916 with another 7 under construction and 2 planned as follows:
19 dreadnoughts completed 1910-16 plus 4 under construction and one planned.
The 19 completed ships would consist of:
4 Nassau class completed 1910
4 Helgoland class completed 1911-12
5 Kaiser class completed 1912-13
4 König class completed 1914-15
2 Bayern class ordered 1913-14 and completed 1916​
The 5 ships under construction or planned would be:
1 Sachsen class ordered 1914-15 and due to complete 1917
1 battleship ordered 1915-16 and due to complete 1918
2 battleships ordered 1916-17 and due to complete 1919
1 battleship to be ordered 1917-18 for completion 1920​
20 pre-dreadnoughts completed 1898-1908 as follows
5 Kaiser class completed 1898-1902
5 Wittelsbach class completed 1902-04
5 Braunschweig class completed 1906-06
5 Deutschland class completed 1906-08​
7 battle-cruisers completed 1911-16 plus 3 under construction and one planned
The 7 completed battlecruisers would consist of.
1 Von der Tann class ordered 1907-08 and completed 1911
1 Moltke class ordered 1908-09 and completed 1912
1 Moltke class ordered 1909-10 and completed 1912
1 Seydlitz clss ordered 1910-11 and completed 1913
1 Derfflinger ordered 1911-12 and completed 1914
1 Derfflinger ordered 1912-13 and completed 1915
1 Hindenberg ordered 1913-14 and completed 1916​
The 4 ships under construction or planned would be:
1 battle-cruiser ordered 1914-15 and due to complete 1917
1 battle-cruiser ordered 1915-16 and due to complete 1918
1 battle-cruiser ordered 1916-17 and due to complete 1919
1 battle-cruiser to be ordered 1917-18 for completion 1920​

Under the 1912 revision of the Second Navy Law there were to be 41 battleships in 1920 consisting of 24 dreadnoughts and 17 pre-dreadnoughts. As the service life of a battleship was reduced from 25 to 20 years so 17 new battleships would have to be completed 1921-28 to replace the 17 surviving pre-dreadnoughts. Similarly there were to be 20 large cruisers in 1920 consisting of the 11 battle-cruisers completed 1911-20 and 9 armoured cruisers (Fürst Bismarck, Prinz Heinrich, Prinz Adalbert, Friedrich Carl, Roon, Yorck, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Blücher) completed 1900-10. The service life of a large cruiser was set at 20 years by the Navy Laws so 9 new battle-cruisers would have to be completed 1921-30 to replace the 9 surviving armoured cruisers.
 
Top