Admiral Beez
Major
That speaks to the ineptitude of the German plan. Even if the Germans bypassed Stalingrad and took much of the Caucus oil fields, what was the plan?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That speaks to the ineptitude of the German plan. Even if the Germans bypassed Stalingrad and took much of the Caucus oil fields, what was the plan?even if captured intact, didn't have the tanker cars or the locomotives to pull them back to Germany
US had these all over
View attachment 759417
View attachment 759416
for moving Crude from place to place, as pipelines didn't crisscross the country yet. Tank cars and loading platforms, that infrastructure really didn't exist in Germany
Or the USSR, either, Most of the Soviet Crude moved by barge.
Haven't you read his book? "Lebensraum" was the plan, with a millenium to work out the details...That speaks to the ineptitude of the German plan. Even if the Germans bypassed Stalingrad and took much of the Caucus oil fields, what was the plan?
Eh? its the choice of catalyst that determines the output fuel. You need a different catalyst after the hydrogenation to get more low carbon liquid fuels(under C11) for gasoline types than if you want heavier diesel or kerosene types that have 12 to 20Carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon chain after the Bergius process to gasify the lignite coal back to the desired liquid fuel.The Germans had a bit of a problem with diesel fuel - it can't be produced from coal
The longer the chain, the faster catalysts will be poisoned. Anyway, the Kriegsmarine consumed the lion's share of diesel fuel regardless of its origin.Eh? its the choice of catalyst that determines the output fuel. You need a different catalyst after the hydrogenation to get more low carbon liquid fuels(under C11) for gasoline types than if you want heavier diesel or kerosene types that have 12 to 20Carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon chain after the Bergius process to gasify the lignite coal back to the desired liquid fuel.
I tried to lookup articles relating to this but couldn't find anything, thus I was asking for references and not proof by assertion.By all means look it up, & recall that a tank in action seldom is 100% fuel-filled.
In fact they tried to re-start oil production at Maykop, which was IIRC the most important oil field they captured but their efforts were only minimally successful. One must remember that they had only 5 months time to try before Soviets recaptured the area.Germany did seize several large Soviet oil fields, but did not bring any equipment or expertise to reverse the Soviet scorched earth and sabotage.
Its the kinetic 'SHOCK!' effect that explodes it, & it blows up violently due this, not by flash-point heat-burn, as such...I tried to lookup articles relating to this but couldn't find anything, thus I was asking for references and not proof by assertion.
And yes, a fuel tank is seldom completely, but unless diesel fuel is heated quite a bit, I don't see how enough would evaporate to produce a flammable fuel air mixture in the tank.
It was WW2 before the US began moving significant quantities of oil by pipeline. The need was triggered by tanker losses in early 1942 to U-boats.even if captured intact, didn't have the tanker cars or the locomotives to pull them back to Germany
US had these all over
View attachment 759417
View attachment 759416
for moving Crude from place to place, as pipelines didn't crisscross the country yet. Tank cars and loading platforms, that infrastructure really didn't exist in Germany
Or the USSR, either, Most of the Soviet Crude moved by barge.
They should've sent Admiral King down the pipeline to Jerkwater...It was WW2 before the US began moving significant quantities of oil by pipeline. The need was triggered by tanker losses in early 1942 to U-boats.
The Big Inch: Fueling America’s WWII War Effort
If you drive north from NIST’s Gaithersburg, Maryland, campus, you will soon reach the famed Mason-Dixon Line marking the border between the states of Mwww.nist.gov
Britain also built pipeline networks in WW2 to move oil products around the country.
The Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS)
The Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS): the top secret network that powered the machines of war...www.historic-uk.com
Great stuff!It was WW2 before the US began moving significant quantities of oil by pipeline. The need was triggered by tanker losses in early 1942 to U-boats.
The Big Inch: Fueling America’s WWII War Effort
If you drive north from NIST’s Gaithersburg, Maryland, campus, you will soon reach the famed Mason-Dixon Line marking the border between the states of Mwww.nist.gov
Britain also built pipeline networks in WW2 to move oil products around the country.
The Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS)
The Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS): the top secret network that powered the machines of war...www.historic-uk.com
When I think of the 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 multibank engine used on some Shermans, I have to wonder what's the best medium tank engine with the least number of cylinders? I assume you can't go any lower than eight cylinders in anything larger than a light tank, such as the M2 Stuart's Continental R-670-9A, 7-cylinder, radial gasoline engine.
Then again, the 28 ton, French Char B1 had an inline 6 cylinder. Though it was very slow.
An excellent example of a little engine that could.The 6 cylinder GM diesel 6004 powered much of the Valentine (c16 tons) production both in Britain & Canada.
An excellent example of a little engine that could.
It would have amazed engine and tank designers of the era that today's 4-cylinder Advanced Combat Engine (ACE) can produce 1,000 hp.
I haven't seen any physical scientific evidence for this to be correct. As far as diesel goes it is quite the opposite.Its the kinetic 'SHOCK!' effect that explodes it, & it blows up violently due this, not by flash-point heat-burn, as such...
The shock intensity from a supersonic solid-shot fired by a sizable tank/anti-tank gun is orders of magnitude higher, though...I haven't seen any physical scientific evidence for this to be correct. As far as diesel goes it is quite the opposite.
If diesel went up so violently from a kinetic shock then no transport of any type would use it, as an accident
creating kinetic shock would cause a devastating explosion every time.
Diesel doesn't simply explode from such shocks. Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy but they don't make
diesel or petrol in a fuel tank explode from the energy they carry. It doesn't happen that way at all.
4-cylinders, sure - but 8 pistons.An excellent example of a little engine that could.
It would have amazed engine and tank designers of the era that today's 4-cylinder Advanced Combat Engine (ACE) can produce 1,000 hp.
Nice! Are there any examples of two pistons per one cylinder engines in WW2?4-cylinders, sure - but 8 pistons.
Junkers Jumo aero-engine, (the Archates/Cummins is a design descendant of that one).Nice! Are there any examples of two pistons per one cylinder engines in WW2?
Gasoline (Petrol) is an aromatic flammable compound. It's vapors burn, not the liquid.The shock intensity from a supersonic solid-shot fired by a sizable tank/anti-tank gun is orders of magnitude higher, though...