Wasn't steam itself, but the taxation and other legal restrictions that doomed on-road Steam in the UK
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
Soviets tried with the Yer-2 and Pe-8, but the German invasion kind of spiked development, so limited productionAs far as I know the Germans were the only people to actually deploy diesel piston powered aircraft in WWII. Not sure why, but I do not think gasoline shortages were a factor. They had some seaplanes that could land and refuel from U-boats so maybe that was it.
Pulverized cola is very hazardous, prone to fires and explosions.
Pulverizer Fire and Explosions |
See attached paper
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.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?
For the original question, I don't think they had any really good options. Other than not starting the war in the first place. Some random things they might (but in reality, probably not) have done:
- Better preparation for Barbarossa, thus succeeding in knocking out Moscow and capturing (and holding!) the Caspian sea oil fields.
- Go all-in on the North Africa campaign, steamrolling Egypt and continuing to the Persian Gulf oilfields. Though hard to see how they could have the logistical capability to do this. Nor how to get the oil home, considering the RN controls the high seas. From the Persian Gulf through Suez to southern France, then through rivers/canals?
There were refineries in the port cities of Haifa, Palestine and Tripoli, Lebanon. These were connected by pipelines back to the oil fields around Kirkuk in northern Iraq. Take Egypt, then Palestine and you eliminate the RN in the eastern Med. The nearest RN bases are then at Malta 1,200 miles to the west and Gibraltar 1,000 miles beyond that.
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.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.
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
So any assault from Turkey would have been resisted.
As far as I know the Germans were the only people to actually deploy diesel piston powered aircraft in WWII. Not sure why, but I do not think gasoline shortages were a factor. They had some seaplanes that could land and refuel from U-boats so maybe that was it.
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 toView attachment 720634
And yes, there were flying boats and later high altitude recon planes.
View attachment 720637
Powered by the Jumo 205 series of engines and their derivatives.
View attachment 720638
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.
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.
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.which means you can use lower grade "safety fuels" (which are soft of half way beween petrol and diesel)
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.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.
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.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
By the way, the Scud SS-1 ballistic missile also uses petroleum distillates.
Steam (coal) powered tractors, cow manure.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.
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 stocksSteam (coal) powered tractors, cow manure.
See here for coal power tractor, pulling 44 plows (yes, this is not realistic for everyday agriculture, even today).
BTW - any worth in mixing coal slurry, biodiesel and methanol for diesel engines?