Energy plants
- Thread starter Smokey
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Oil plants should have been targeted more, but the destruction of their energy would have been wise. Against common belief, from day one the synthetic oil industry of Germany was a target. Even with Ploesti, Germany could not sustain a war without it's synthetic oil. Unfortunately, the RAF didn't have the capability to wage effective, full scale, destruction of the oil plants. It took the combined effort of both the RAF and USAAF to put real weight down on the oil plants.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I certainly agree with the oil bombings, but I cannot imagine how the energy could have shut down on a larger scale, it wasn´t possible in Korea, it wasn´t possible in Vietnam, hell even in Iraq it was achieved only partly...
Vietnam, Korea and Iraq are hardly comparable nations to the industrial Germany of World War II. I think a heavy bombardment against the German energy resource would have caused major disruption - but the sole bombing effort should have been against the oil. No doubt about that.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
what kind of energy plants were built during those days? fossil fuel burning plants?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
plan_D said:
I agree with you on that. If the RAF and 8th AF began the air offensive against the oil plants in mid 1943, then the Reich would have collapsed far sooner.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
True. I estimate that due to the long distances of deployed forces the Panzer would in serious conditions by early 1944 according to the Reichs fuel reserves in 1943. The bomber fleet would have been forced to disappear by early to mid 1944 as well. I expect the fighter force and subs would still have enough fuel to conduct some service till the total breakdown, in this szenario probably by late 1944.
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
As far as "energy plants," I know every had heard of Hydro-electric and the Dam Busters!
plan_D said:
Actually...
The Americans were first with the experiemental reactor that produced the plutonium for the first atomic bombs. The EBR-I experimental fast breeder in Idaho, USA, was the first to generate electricity, though not for any commerical purpose, it was just an test one basically.
The Soviets strangely enough were the first to connect a nuclear power plant to the national grid on 27th June 1954 in Obninsk, USSR. The British were second with theirs at Sellafield in 1956 (though the British one was much more powerful than the Soviet one) and the US came to the party shortly after in 1957.
Amusingly and infamously, the head of the US atomic energy comission or whatever it was called back then, said that nuclear power would be 'too cheap to meter' and that there would be 1000 nuclear plants in the US by the year 2000. (There isn't even half that amount worldwide) I have strange affection for the 1950s and all the crazy nuclear ideas they had back then (including the NB-36H test aircraft that flew with a nuclear powered engine
).- Thread starter
- #12
I have strange affection for the 1950s and all the crazy nuclear ideas they had back then (including the NB-36H test aircraft that flew with a nuclear powered engine
I know what you mean. The NB-36H is scary, just like the 1950s habit of dropping the odd h device here and there.
I heard one story of a crewman saying 'oh s***' when they accidentally released
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i wan't aware the NB-36H actually flew, i thought it never left the design stage as they thought it'd be too heavy?
