Wasn't steam itself, but the taxation and other legal restrictions that doomed on-road Steam in the UKThe last stand of steam powered wagons was Sentinel in the late 30's. Foden dropped out a few years earlier
Britain Was Still Trying to Make Steam Trucks Happen in the 1930s
Sentinels could chugga-chug-chug their way up to 60 mph, but speed wasn't enough to overcome the inconvenience of steam power.www.thedrive.com
German fuel situation and what to improve on it, 2.0
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Soviets tried with the Yer-2 and Pe-8, but the German invasion kind of spiked development, so limited production
I was thinking of something similar to how coal power plants do it, namely have the pulverizer right beside the boiler, with the newly pulverized fuel blown straight into the boiler without any intermediate storing or handling of the pulverized coal. Of course one would still have to be careful about any coal dust that might escape from small openings here and there.
Or then, as suggested earlier in this thread, store the pulverized coal as a coal-water slurry. Or maybe coal-fuel oil slurry for ships, switching to pure fuel oil when top speed is required?
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,630
- Dec 6, 2006
Pulverizers are big and heavy and vibrate like crazy. They have thick heavy concrete foundations to help dampen the vibrations. Even then if you stand next to one you can feel it. I cannot imagine putting one in a ship.
Last edited:
In the list of crazy scenarios, what if Germany manages to convince Turkey to join the Axis? Turkey could be well poised to help Barbarossa by launching an invasion eastwards with the goal of capturing the oil fields around Baku. Or moving southwards with the goal of capturing the Middle Eastern oilfields and the port facilities around the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
In reality, both the Axis and Allies tried to pressure Turkey to join their sides, but Turkey decided to remain neutral and to stay out of WWII (eventually they "joined" the Allies in 1945 when it was practically a done deal already). Probably a very wise decision on their part. Following the implosion of the Ottoman Empire after WWI Turkey probably had enough internal issues to worry about rather than engaging in yet another major war.
There was a long running "What If" over on the Axis History site a couple of years ago re a German invasion of Turkey. While not exactly what is being proposed here, serves to highlight many of the logistic problems of keeping an army supplied in eastern & southern Turkey.
Everyone thinks of the Middle East theatre as the 8th Army and the fight against Rommel in the Western Desert, Libya and Egypt. But the original Middle East Command took in Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq and in 1941 added the ex-French Syria & Lebanon and also Iran. In Aug 1942 Iran / Iraq was split off into a separate Persia and Iraq Command. But it should also be remembered that Britain did keep army and air forces deployed across whole of the Middle East throughout the war.
During the latter part of 1941, after Barbarossa, when a Soviet collapse was considered a real possibility, forces were being built up in the region with a view to stepping forward to protect the Soviet Caucasian oilfields. A wing of 4 Hurricane squadrons was en route in great secrecy when Japan invaded Malaya on 8 Dec 1941, forcing their redeployment to the Far East.
The HQs managing these forces went under various names during WW2 including 9th & 10th Armies. And units were rotated in and out of these areas as the war went on. So for example the 6th & 7th Australian divisions were in the Palestine / Syria area before being shipped home in early 1942. There were 3 Indian infantry divisions and an armoured division in the region before some went to Italy in 1943/44. The 31st Indian Armoured Division was still in Iraq/Syria area in 1945.
So any assault from Turkey would have been resisted.
I posted previously on this subject. It discuses the advantages of the Bergius process over the FT process.
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
In the build up to D Day there was also a requirement to bomb targets away from Normandy more than Normandy itself which means targets were bombed for psychological not military reasons. It is very difficult to destroy a refinery, you can damage it and it can be repaired. It should not be...ww2aircraft.net
Thanks, interesting. It's interesting to note that post-WWII the Bergius process largely faded into obscurity. Most contemporary xTL (x to liquids, with x typically being coal, biomass, or stranded natural gas) projects seem to utilize Fischer-Tropsch or one of those processes that use methane/methanol as an intermediate step (e.g. MTG, discovered in the 70'ies).
I wonder if it's a questions of the Germans missing something in the day, or is it a question of what the most desirable end products are (high octane gasoline for Bergius vs. straight-chain paraffins with FT, more suitable for diesel or jet fuel than gasoline).
Of course it would have been resisted, but maybe in the 40-42 timeframe when the outcome hung in the balance Turkey getting involved could have tipped the scales in either or both of the Eastern and Mediterranean fronts?
Shortround6
Major General
And yes, there were flying boats and later high altitude recon planes.
Powered by the Jumo 205 series of engines and their derivatives.
However the engines were heavy and they only made sense when the anticipated ranges made the combination of the engines and the fuel load was less than the Gasoline powered engines and their fuel load. The math did not work for short range planes or planes that needed hi performance. In practice the Diesels needed more maintenance and while they worked pretty well at steady speeds over long hours they didn't like rapid power changes or multiple power changes in a short period of time.
The high altitude panes worked because the turbo charged engines were different than gasoline turbo charged engines. Diesel engine exhaust gas temperatures are several hundred degrees cooler than gasoline engine exhaust gas temperatures and the turbochargers didn't need the exotic metals for the turbos to survive.
Not all diesels run on the same fuel. Today's diesel trucks run on fuels with cetane ratings of about 45-55. The Jumo diesels liked 50-60 cetane fuel.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Thats connected to another thing which would have been possible, if perhaps it had been concentrated on fully. Which was using a pre-chamber dual fuel system to
run the engines, which means you can use lower grade "safety fuels" (which are soft of half way beween petrol and diesel), which would have been achievable with a much higher yield than fuels like C3. But that was only really developed experimentally about 1939 ish so realistically too late to figure in long term planning strategy.
- Thread starter
- #91
FWIW, the Ju 86P with Jumo 207 A1 engines was using 315 l/h on max continuous power, at altitudes above 10 km (turbocharger was used). The four engines on the Fw 200C (BMW 323 R1 type) were using 750 l/h (obviously 375 l/h for two engines) on max cont at 5 km of altitude. Two BMW 323N on Ju 86G were using more than 450 l/h (!!??) on max cont at 4 km; the 132F was a bit more frugal - all for max cont.
I know that direct comparison is impossible from this fragmentary data, but fuel consumption figures are pretty attractive for long range A/C, like transports (thousands were produced, with many thousands engines using a lot of fuel), and MP aircraft.
That is very interesting. Care to shed some light on the topic of "safety fuels" as it might've been known back then?
I know that direct comparison is impossible from this fragmentary data, but fuel consumption figures are pretty attractive for long range A/C, like transports (thousands were produced, with many thousands engines using a lot of fuel), and MP aircraft.
That is very interesting. Care to shed some light on the topic of "safety fuels" as it might've been known back then?
I believe the Fischer-Tropsch process was more variable/flexible in both input and output materials so it found a wide use in the chemical industry. Bergius seems to have worked best in fuel and fuel-related products.
AFAIR many FT-facs in the Ruhr area were at least partially fed with byproducts from steel and coke productions and some other industrial gases that could be collected/recovered in chemical processes.
AFAIR many FT-facs in the Ruhr area were at least partially fed with byproducts from steel and coke productions and some other industrial gases that could be collected/recovered in chemical processes.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
My friend Ward Duncan, maintenance chief of the 9th PRS in WWII and later of various X planes at Muroc, said that before WWII his family used to run their tractor on Petroleum Distillates, which I guess are otherwise known as Mineral Spirits. I guess the reason was cost. By the way, the Scud SS-1 ballistic missile also uses petroleum distillates.
There were a number of dual fuel capable tractors, that would start on gasoline to get everything warmed enough to where kerosene would vaporize well, and the farmer would switch tanks, as that was far cheaper to run on.
Mineral Spirits is more refined the Kerosene, and ignites easier, but still not as good as gasoline.
Between the Wars, if you were around an Oil Producing area, there was also a product known as Condensate, or 'Drip' an unrefined liquid that contains Pentane and Hexane mostly, along with Benzene and other Aromatics and Naphthenes, but also some Propane and Butane.
Wasn't the best fuel, but was like a natural Gasoline, of sorts that was also a mix of hydrocarbons- but a consistent mix, unlike Drip
A more proper name for it was Casinghead Gas.
You could buy Drip, or steal it from collections points. It was pretty much banned from commercial sale after the War.
That, and with the postwar cars having higher compression engines, couldn't run well on it. Too low an Octane
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,598
- May 13, 2018
My father being a young man of the 1920s & 30s told of using "well head gas" in their cars. The Kansas plains were dotted with the "peckers" pumping oil into a tank. They were scattered through the farm land, so a can would be hung by a coat hangar beneath a leaky fitting and would collect enough to allow the car to be used on Saturday night. Many astonishing stories were heard by a 1955 teen.
I was thinking of mechanization of agriculture. AFAIU agricultural mechanization only got really going in Germany post-WWII (as opposed to the USA and I think also the UK where it started in earnest already in the late 20'ies or so). This would drastically improve agricultural productivity, allowing a large workforce to be moved to other things. And about 25% or so of the cropland area was needed for horse feed which could then be switched to producing human food. OTOH there would be an increased dependency on inputs of external energy (fuel) and fertilizer (instead of horse manure), which would make agriculture a lot more vulnerable to the eventual bombing of fuel and transportation infrastructure. So maybe a Faustian bargain. Doubly so if the tractors would run on very scarce, and potentially imported, petroleum. Maybe a National Tractor (TM) equipped with a coal gasifier? 
Not to mention there probably weren't time nor resources for this; after the Nazis took power the focus was on rearmament, and a massive program for the mechanization of agriculture would take resources from the rearmament.
Not to mention there probably weren't time nor resources for this; after the Nazis took power the focus was on rearmament, and a massive program for the mechanization of agriculture would take resources from the rearmament.Early Scud's (R-11) used T-1, or RG-1 depending on the source, which are Soviet analogs to the RP-1 rocket fuel used in the Western world. RP-1 is essentially a highly refined form of jet fuel (kerosene), designed to prevent issues due to the very high temperatures in the cooling channels of regeneratively cooled rocket engines (that is, engines which have thin fuel channels in the nozzle for cooling). While liquid fuels have been replaced by solids in military applications, RP-1 and liquid oxygen is a popular and perfectly good propellant choice for civilian space rockets (e.g. Apollo and the Space-X Falcon rockets).
- Thread starter
- #98
If Germany had a better Ag Sector, rather than being two generations behind what the USA was doing, Biodiesel would have been an easy way to extend Diesel fuel stocks
Comparing Horses to Steam
Horses, you're putting in Oats at 8000 BTU/lbs and Hay is similar into these guys. Each Working Farm Horse needs around 25 pounds of Hay and 20 pounds of Oats when doing work. It's not much less when not working hard, you have got to feed them each day, working or not. Then 15-20 gallons of clean water for how much they are working.
Stop feeding, doesn't turn out well for the Horses.
On a wagon, 5-7 mph, with an expected working time of 8 hours, a 40 mile trip for 45 pounds of Fodder and 18 Gallons of water for moving 1.5 tons of cargo. That's your Dual 'One HP' engine.
A 124 HP Sentinel Steam wagon, using 1890s technology, uses 4.3 gallons of water and 7.4 lb. of lump Bituminous coal(12,000BTU/lbs) per mile. If using Lignite, a bit more needed. 6 ton payload.
Top speed 30mph, going from British Road Regulations. The Sentinels could move faster than 30mph, especially the later ones with pneumatic tires, but that's breaking the law. So 30 mph.
So to move 6 tons of cargo 40 miles, that's 175 Gallons of water, 300 pounds of coal and one hour and 20 minutes of time to get to the destination. Two operators, a Driver and Fireman to feed the Boiler.
When the Sentinel isn't working, costs nothing to 'Feed'
Using the horse drawn wagons to move the same amount of cargo, thats 4 wagon loads, 8 horses.
144 Gallons of Water, 360 pounds of Fodder, and takes 8 hours, using at least four operators
The main advantage of ICE over Steam, is that Steam needed about the same amount of prep before and after the Workday as the Horses they replaced, for care/maintenance.
ICE was nearly hop in a go, with far less daily maintenance
Horses, you're putting in Oats at 8000 BTU/lbs and Hay is similar into these guys. Each Working Farm Horse needs around 25 pounds of Hay and 20 pounds of Oats when doing work. It's not much less when not working hard, you have got to feed them each day, working or not. Then 15-20 gallons of clean water for how much they are working.
Stop feeding, doesn't turn out well for the Horses.
On a wagon, 5-7 mph, with an expected working time of 8 hours, a 40 mile trip for 45 pounds of Fodder and 18 Gallons of water for moving 1.5 tons of cargo. That's your Dual 'One HP' engine.
A 124 HP Sentinel Steam wagon, using 1890s technology, uses 4.3 gallons of water and 7.4 lb. of lump Bituminous coal(12,000BTU/lbs) per mile. If using Lignite, a bit more needed. 6 ton payload.
Top speed 30mph, going from British Road Regulations. The Sentinels could move faster than 30mph, especially the later ones with pneumatic tires, but that's breaking the law. So 30 mph.
So to move 6 tons of cargo 40 miles, that's 175 Gallons of water, 300 pounds of coal and one hour and 20 minutes of time to get to the destination. Two operators, a Driver and Fireman to feed the Boiler.
When the Sentinel isn't working, costs nothing to 'Feed'
Using the horse drawn wagons to move the same amount of cargo, thats 4 wagon loads, 8 horses.
144 Gallons of Water, 360 pounds of Fodder, and takes 8 hours, using at least four operators
The main advantage of ICE over Steam, is that Steam needed about the same amount of prep before and after the Workday as the Horses they replaced, for care/maintenance.
ICE was nearly hop in a go, with far less daily maintenance
