Could it be a lack of manufacturing capability? Sometimes, knowing how to do something is not quite enough.Btw, my question is still not answered:
Why didn't the British adopt the German propellant? We've only read assumptions on why they didn't. And we know that they studied the German propellant to make their own more stable. But why didn't they just adopt the German formula?
They did not always draw the right conclusions from tests they did, so maybe their top people had problems with seeing what now seems to be blindingly obvious.Btw, my question is still not answered:
Why didn't the British adopt the German propellant? We've only read assumptions on why they didn't. And we know that they studied the German propellant to make their own more stable. But why didn't they just adopt the German formula?
Well its generally accepted that the German chemical industry was the best in the world prior to 1914, especially with regards to organic chemistry. I have read that in some areas the Germans were possibly a decade or more advanced than the British chemical industry.Btw, my question is still not answered:
Why didn't the British adopt the German propellant? We've only read assumptions on why they didn't. And we know that they studied the German propellant to make their own more stable. But why didn't they just adopt the German formula?
Do we know that they actually tested the German propellant? The German ships that were interned at Scapa Flow came there without any ammunition on board. Since WWI did not end in an occupation of Germany the Brits would not have been able to examine everything, including documentation as they did at the end WWII.Btw, my question is still not answered:
Why didn't the British adopt the German propellant? We've only read assumptions on why they didn't. And we know that they studied the German propellant to make their own more stable. But why didn't they just adopt the German formula?
Do we know that they actually tested the German propellant? The German ships that were interned at Scapa Flow came there without any ammunition on board. Since WWI did not end in an occupation of Germany the Brits would not have been able to examine everything, including documentation as they did at the end WWII.
..... If I'm not mistaken, the Entente powers did in fact occupy Germany after the end of the war in much the same manner as post-WW2, with technical missions travelling here and there inspecting German military and industrial sites, seizing archives, etc.
B
Yes we do. I found on wikipedia a history of British cordite a while back. After WW1 the British extensively studied the German propellant and used the result to greatly improve the formula for their own cordite. So, they knew about the German propellant's formula etc etc.Do we know that they actually tested the German propellant? The German ships that were interned at Scapa Flow came there without any ammunition on board. Since WWI did not end in an occupation of Germany the Brits would not have been able to examine everything, including documentation as they did at the end WWII.
Well post-WW1 it was not a proper occupation. The British and French did briefly occupy some parts of the Rhineland after the Armistice in November 1918, but left after the conclusion of Versaille in 1919. It was not a WW2-type occupation in the sense that the German civil authorities (police, civil service etc) were still in command. The allied forces were there purely to ensure that the German military presence had left. So basically there would have been no going through documents or seizure of industrial plant that typically happens in a normal occupation. In this respect the lack of occupation after the conclusion of WW1 led to the post-war German assertion - used by Hitler extensively to undermine the Weimar republic - that they had never been defeated.
Later in January 1923 the French did occupy the Ruhr to seize coal and steel over the continuing dispute about the non-payment of reparations by the Weimar government. So again propellant forumula was not really in their minds they were just seizing material in lieu of monetary reparations. I'd throughly reccomend Zara Steiner's 'The Lights that Failed', which I'm currently working my way through now. It is a pretty indepth account of interwar diplomatic history.
Interesting, I guess we will have to agree to disagree regarding your position about the Inter-Allied Military Control Commission having any real power. IMHO even present day UN weapons inspectors have significantly more inspection authority and enforcement powers than the IMCC did. In that sense any documents shown to the IMCC during the 20's would be ones the Germans allowed to be seen. So sadly what occured in the interwar period was not an occupation in any conventional sense at all. The Weimar government was equally commited to using the interwar period to prepare for war and undermine European peace by circumventing its disarmament obligations under the terms of Versaille...... Hi Kadett. Your reply inspired me to do a bit of homework. You are correct in saying that the post-WW1 Entente occupation of Germany did not occur to the same degree as that conducted after WW2, either in scope or length. But there was established an organization named the "Inter-Allied Military Mission of Control" which had free rein and access over the entire nation of Germany to oversee the disarmament process. This organization remained in operation through 1927 and did not actually wind up all activities within Germany until 1931. Archival data was indeed seized, as I have seen copies of secret WW1 German documents marked with post WW1 British Admiralty stamps.
Interesting, I guess we will have to agree to disagree regarding your position about the Inter-Allied Military Control Commission having any real power. IMHO even present day UN weapons inspectors have significantly more inspection authority and enforcement powers than the IMCC did. In that sense any documents shown to the IMCC during the 20's would be ones the Germans allowed to be seen. So sadly what occured in the interwar period was not an occupation in any conventional sense at all. The Weimar government was equally commited to using the interwar period to prepare for war and undermine European peace by circumventing its disarmament obligations under the terms of Versaille.
AFAIK the IMCC were not given the authority to force their way into German installations or archives. If the German authorities denied access, there was little the IMCC officials could do other than report back to their home governments, who, short of declaring war, could do very little. As it was, the IMCC ultimately left Germany without having achieved disarmanent as the Weimar republic had already clandestinely violated most of the disarmament process as mapped out by Versaille, even by 1924 the Reichswehr was covertly training and equipping with Soviet assistance, carrying out poison gas experiments in the USSR and training tank troops at Kazan. Even inside Germany, the growth of 'flying clubs' and development of heavy industry that made peculiarly heavy agricultural 'tractors', despite lack of agricultural demand :hmmm: was apparent to officials of the IMCC even at this early stage. Indeed by the mid-1920s the IMCC was in practice little more than a joke. Without effective inspection and enforcement mechanisms the IMCC ended up spending most of its time simply reporting German violations by 1925.
Clearly this aspect of things is decidedly off-topic for the thread, but I'm afraid you'll both have to excuse me that I don't buy into the mythology that 'innocent' Germany was being crushed by an "unjust" Versaille settlement and reparations. In other words a "Carthaginian peace", as John Maynard Keynes described at the time. More recent scholarship disputes most of his conclusions. Compared to the terms Germany would have imposed if they had won the First World War - see Brest-Litovsk as a model of German 'peace' - Versaille was actually a joke in many respects.
Finally, as an aside AFAIK American troops (which were a token presence in any case!) left the Rhineland in 1924 at the latest.
...the life of our guns (about 325 E.F.C.) is apparently considerably less than that of German heavy guns owing to their use of cooler propellant. They evidently considered that the life of their guns was long enough to justify the simpler lighter design which is possible when relining is not intended. Experiments with propellants generally similar to the German are in hand, but some time must elapse before any can be adopted to replace cordite M.D. in the Service. Until then it is considered that we should certainly continue to design our guns for relining....
...the small size of chamber is not suitable for a solid cord propellant which we have hitherto adhered to. The question of adopting a tubular propellant [may be resolved as] various experiments are in progress.
The opinion is now held that the tubular shape makes for higher M.V. but reduced accuracy as regards mean differences in M.V.
It is more difficult to manufacture to accurate dimensions than cord or oval. Also, with a propellant such as M.D. cordite which has a volatile solvent (acetone) there would be less uniformity of stick than is obtainable with a propellant (like the German) with non-volatile solvent. Ardeer cordite* has a non-volatile solvent. Again, owing to its form, a tubular propellant is inherently more susceptible to the influence of variations in ballistic conditions, and thus, though actual wear may be less, loss of velocity for a fewer number of rounds may be greater.
It is, however, one of the many things that requires further investigation before we can be in a position to decide finally what to adopt in the future. It is quite certain that we shall be able to improve on cordite M.D.
...