German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Looking at copying better French superchargers, it was probably the Germans than might've benefited the best?
Adopting the S/C from the G&R 14R 04/05 should've helped the BMW 801 series, while the S-P supercharger mated to the power sections of the 9 cyl radials could've also been explored. Both the BMW 132 and the Bramo 323 were with obsolete superchargers (straight vanes, 'squished' intakes - as it was in vogue for the majority of the radials of the day), and the 132 was even without the 2-speed S/C drive, thus it would've benefited due to the way intake of the air was controlled on the S-P supercharger.

The 'better' 132s, like the F, J, K, M and N, were with a ~245mm impeller, as well as with the fuel injection. The F, J and N were the 'high altitude' models (quite an exaggeration come 1939, but these are BMW's words), where the gearing was set for high speed rotation of the impeller. Max boost at 2300 rpm was 1.35 ata (the F model), or, at, 2400 rpm, 1.30 ata (J and N), but these are just the 1 min ratings for take off. The 5 min ratings were either 1.30 ata on 2250 rpm (F mod) for 810 PS at 3800m, or 1.25 ata on 2350 rpm (J, N) for 865 PS at 3400 m (and 820 PS at 3800 m).
The power vs. altitude rating for the J and N are very close to the HS 12Y-31 (240mm impeller, 10:1 drive ratio; 2400 rpm crankshaft speed, 860 CV at 3150m using 880 mm Hg boost = 34.65 in Hg = about 1.20 ata). The 12Y series of the engines benefited a good deal when a good S/C was installed with the -45; still a 240mm impeller but much better, also turning at 10:1 drive ratio, and was making better power at altitude, while the control system took care of the power at lower altitudes.

Quite a lot of words to say that the S-P supercharger on the German radials would've seen an increase of perhaps 15% power above 4 km vs. even the best versions, without cutting on the low altitude power.
 
The fellow member on another forum mentioned the huge investment of money, manpower and materials used to construct what was possibly the biggest white elephant of the Nazi Germany - the Autobahn of the 1930s. Total cost seems to be 6.5 billions of RM (1 billion = 1 European milliard = 1000 millions here), the cost mostly being that of workforce, since mechanization was kept in minimum on the site so more of workers can be employed.
(however, Germany did not have sufficient number of cars nor enough of fuel to take advantage of the Autobahn network)
Number of workers directly engaged was about 100-120K yearly from 1935 on; similar was the number of workers indirectly involved.

If the Autobahn project was canned (or never attempted) and the more realistic road-building project was enacted, with the budget growing to perhaps just 2 billions of RM, that leaves a lot of money and manpower to spare. Cost of the Sholven* syn fuel pre-war factory was about 130 millions of RM.
Even if the material for the Autobahn cannot translate directly into the material needed for the syn fuel factory, this makes for an interesting comparison - investing the money, material and manpower to make more of the syn fuel factories due to the freed resources from not making the Autobahn would've set the German military to have greater reserves before ww2, and the greater supply of fuel when ww2 starts.

*annual capacity of 240000 tons of AvGas
 
tomo pauk said:
the biggest white elephant of the Nazi Germany - the Autobahn of the 1930s.
Click to expand...

Speaking of white elephants, what about the Siegfried line and the Atlantic wall? Similar to road construction, not saying you shouldn't build anything, certainly some kind of fortifications and mine fields around key points like deep water ports with rail access are worth it. And by all means have the soldiers manning the defenses dig trenches to keep them occupied. But massive bunkers everywhere might well be a waste of resources?
 
And for fuel, given that synthetic fuel was going to be very expensive and available in limited volume no matter what, what about more aggressive exploitation of Hungarian and Romanian oil fields? Couple with transporting crude oil to dispersed refineries in the German heartland?
 
The high energy cost of the cement is often overlooked. So, add the cost of material, cost of energy, cost of manpower - yes, the 'lines' were expensive, thus there is a scope for savings in all these categories.


IMO - Germany needed everything related to petrol & 'carbon' products*. Anything that gets them more is certainly worthy of a good look and investment. A good deal of machinery, buildings and work for the oil facilities countries can be directly and indirectly sourced from Germany itself, and indeed they can refine it in Germany.

* The bucket list includes the oil both from German oilfields and what can be imported, syn fuel, application of coal and producer gas, application of alcohol fuels etc.
 
It makes more sense economically to ship the finished products rather than the crude oil. In fact Britain shut down almost 2/3 of its refinery capacity to conserve shipping space. In addition the remaining large refineries used gas oil from Trinidad rather than crude as the feedstock to further reduce shipping. Refinery throughput sank from 2,428,000 tons in 1939 to 1,120,000 tons in 1941 and reaching its nadir of 908,000 tons in 1943.
Crude oil imports dropped from 2,201,000 tons in 1939 to 992,000 tons in 1941 reaching a low of 535,000 tons in 1943. In the that gas oil imports rose from 709,000 tons in 1939 to 1,114,000 tons in 1941 peaking at 2,386,000 tons in 1944.
 
Indeed, there will be an efficiency cost to be paid in the name of making the system more resistant to enemy action.

In general, it seems that transporting crude to refineries closer to the end markets rather than refining close to the oil wells and transporting refined products became common only post-WWII, for some reason.
 
z42 said:
In general, it seems that transporting crude to refineries closer to the end markets rather than refining close to the oil wells and transporting refined products became common only post-WWII, for some reason.
Click to expand...

I think it is accurate to say that the main reason for the occurrence post-war is due to trade & economics. The balance in cost - by having some refineries overseas vs the reduced costs of production (by the wealthy country off-shoring the work) vs the trade incentives for the country receiving the refinery investment, etc - generally favors the wealthy nation.

Also, in many cases it protects the wealthy nation's own strategic resources. This is part of the ongoing political/social/economic/national security debate going on in the US for the last 80 years. How do you exploit and generate money from your own oil supply, while still ensuring that you will have a readily accessible strategic level of oil 50 years in the future when it might be needed, and maybe preventing a potential enemy from having accessible oil supplies through gaining economic, political, or physical control of foreign oil resources.
 
For the British the cost of transporting in England itself was small. West coast refineries transporting to Scotland or SE England?
But shipping refined products from England to NA around Africa? You might as well ship the refined products from the Americas.
Same even after NA fell and they were shipping to Italy.

Some refineries are built to make certain products from certain feed stocks. US is that boat now. Texas crude doesn't make good automotive fuel. Not saying they can't make it but the percentage they get per barrel makes in uneconomical.
Cost of changing a refinery over for only a small change in yield?
 
@ everyone - is there a ballpark on how much of the crude was extracted from the oil fields in Galizia (south-eastern Poland back then, west Ukraine now) between 1941 and 44?
Also - any good source of German use of the natural gas?
 
tomo pauk said:
Also - any good source of German use of the natural gas?
Click to expand...

Natural gas consumption in Germany was insignificant before the 1970ies. That was around the time when the pipelines from the USSR were built, and I believe that North Sea gas started to come online in that timeframe as well.

Also, natural gas usage is dependent on a pipeline network, which AFAIU is a fairly major infrastructure investment. To some extent cities may have had existing town gas networks that could be repurposed for natural gas.

I don't see how you could construct a feasible scenario where natural gas plays a significant role for Germany during WWII.

 
z42 said:
I don't see how you could construct a feasible scenario where natural gas plays a significant role for Germany during WWII.
Click to expand...

Have you ever saw or drove a car that was powered by the bottled gas?
 
Natural gas, or LPG or other names has several advantaged for internal combustion engines and several disadvantages.
It has around 20,000 BTUs per pound which is higher than normal liquid gasoline. It has a higher octane rating but that can only be used in engines that are built to run on natural gas only. Duel fuel engines have to use slightly lower compression that even the liquid fuel requires.

Problem is that natural gas requires a lot of volume. An awful lot more volume. One gallon of kerosene has more BTUs than over 120 cubic ft of natural gas.
This is solved (somewhat) by storing the natural gas in pressure cylinders or in liquid form under really high pressure.
A modern, standard 100lb LGN tank is 14.5in in diameter and is 48in long and weighs about 75lbs empty.
A gasoline tank (or diesel) tank that size would hold about 34 US gallons or about 205lbs of gasoline.

Now if you are powering short range delivery trucks or busses this may work out rather well. Truck or bus returns to base garage every night and tank is refilled or swapped out. Truck or bus doesn't really care about an extra 60lbs or so fuel tank weight. Long haul maybe possible with suitable fueling stations. Large trucks and Busses are fuel hogs and a 100 LNG tank is not going to get you very far. Yes you can add more fuel tanks.

Now in WW II in Germany most (all?) of the domestic gas used for lighting and cooking (very rare for heating) was carried in low pressure pipes and the gas was generated by coke ovens (heating coal to drive off the gases) which is not the same as LNG, close but not the same. It also means that you can't use the existing pipe lines to supply vehicle fuel at different locations in the city/town unless such a location has a compressor to compress the low pressure in the street pipe to the high pressure needed for the vehicle tank/s. That or you have one/several compressor stations that fill tanks and then distribute filled tanks and collect empties by truck/wagon.

Disadvantage is IC engines are bit more finicky about their fuel than gas lamps or stoves. In WW II most cities were NOT interconnected by gas lines. Exact quality of the gas produced by the cooked coal varied a bit with quality of coal and the temperature and state of 'cooking'. It was done in sealed containers so it is not quite like a coal fired power plant where coal is feed in at near continuous rate.
Long range gas transmission only became a large scale thing after WW II. There were a number of Cities in a few countries that did use 'gas' from wells for their domestic gas but only if there was a well or wells close the city.

A lot depends on what is meant by a "significant role"?
5% or 15% or more?
 
Shortround6 said:
Problem is that natural gas requires a lot of volume. An awful lot more volume. One gallon of kerosene has more BTUs than over 120 cubic ft of natural gas.
Click to expand...

Volumetric density of the LPG Propane is 25.3 MJ/L, that of the LPG Butane is 27.7, and that of the gasoline (petrol) is 34.2. Kerosene is at 35.
Methane indeed has lower volumetric density, requiring that is highly pressurized for automotive applications.


CNG (compressed natural gas, mostly if not exclusively methane) does require a high pressure vessel. The LNG (liquefied natural gas; propane + butane) can go in the simple welded sheet metal container, though, since it is under a far lower pressure.
A CNG kit + a 'normal' truck might've been far easier & cheaper than to make a steam-powered truck (and the LNG truck even more easier & cheaper); granted, steam-powered trucks have other advantages.
A LNG- or CNG-powered agricultural truck should've offered a lot in the terms of freeing the workforce and terrain required for producing the food when compared with horses.

LPG propane has the octane rating of 110, vs. the motor gasolines octane rating of just 68-70 back in the day (80 if you're lucky, or America is footing the bill), and the B4 being at 87-90 oct - that in itself offers some possibilities.
Methane is at 120 oct.

Shortround6 said:
A lot depends on what is meant by a "significant role"?
5% or 15% or more?
Click to expand...
If we're still talking on the forms of natural gas to supplant the use of gasoline and diesel here? Civilian use of the bottled gas (liquefied propane and butane), expressed in the equivalent mass of gasoline, went from 108 K tons just pre-war to 388 K tons in 1943, and then it was down to 210 K in 1944. Civilian consumption of methane was far smaller, topping at 12 K tons in 1943, and was negligible before 1942.
By 1942-43, diesel+gasoline for civilian/economy motoring use went to under 1000 K tons, while gasses (propane, butane, producer gas for cars, methane) were about 450 K in 1942, 650 K in 1943.
(German supply of avgas + motor gasoline + diesel was ~4.6 milions of tons in 1940, ~5.6 in 1943)

If Germany can make a serious push towards getting the gas from the gas fields, the refining (plus what can be gotten from the historical facilities, eg. the hydrogenation process yileded some quantity of the propane + butane) and use of it, they would've be saving the gasoline + diesel for their military.
Doubling the supply of propane + butane (say, another 100+ K tons before the war, to ~400 K tons in 1943 in gasoline equivalent) via greater effort of extraction and refining would've cost Germans far less than making another syn fuel facility to make the same amount of gasoline, while also being much cheaper to run. A tax policy that favors the natural gas powered cars combined with greater supply of these gases would've saved the Germans a nice amount of gasoline already in pre-war time.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
Natural gas, or LPG or other names has several advantaged for internal combustion engines and several disadvantages.
Click to expand...

There might be a typo here, but to clear up potential confusion:

  • LPG: Liquefied Petroleum Gas; a mixture of mostly propane and butane, which liquefies under relatively modest pressure of a few hundred kPa. It's what you might find in cigarette lighters, gas grills, boat/RV/off-grid stoves. In some countries in Asia it's also somewhat commonly used as a motor fuel. And apparently in some areas of the USA it's common to have a propane tank in the yard, for cooking and domestic heating.
  • Natural gas (NG): This is mostly methane with trace amounts of other light hydrocarbons. Pressure in NG pipelines varies, long distance major pipelines up to 10 MPa, others less.
  • CNG: Compressed Natural Gas; NG which is stored in compressed form. Pressure is massively higher than for LPG, typically 20-25 MPa, requiring sturdy and heavy tanks.
  • LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas; To avoid the high pressures of CNG another option is to liquefy the NG. This requires cryogenic temperature, around -162 C. Which requires insulated tanks. Usually only makes sense when talking about large volumes. E.g. tanker ships (or trucks).

Now if you are powering short range delivery trucks or busses this may work out rather well. Truck or bus returns to base garage every night and tank is refilled or swapped out.
Click to expand...

And crucially, the depot or wherever the filling station is, is typically connected to the gas pipeline network. So you don't have to worry about how to transport fuel to the filling station, which would be significantly more expensive and complex than transporting a fuel that is liquid at ambient temperature.

There used to be quite a lot of city buses around here running on CNG due to less pollution than from diesel buses. They seem to have disappeared though, having been replaced by electric buses or more modern diesel buses with better pollution controls. Similarly for cars CNG seems to be on the way out in favor of electrics.


Town gas is similar to the syngas you'd get with a gas generator. Typically it consists mostly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, plus a smaller amount of carbon dioxide and methane.


Yes. Vehicle based NG infrastructures I'm aware of have compressor stations as part of the filling stations in order to bring the pressure up from the pipeline pressure to the significantly higher pressure in order to store a decent amount of fuel in the onboard CNG tanks.
 

LPG was popular in Europe, too. Especially in Italy.
Had a lot to do with the gasoline and diesel being heavily taxed. Even today, the price of LPG that you can get in most of the normal gas stations in Croatia is about 0.80 €/L, while diesel and gasoline are at aout 1.50 €/L; premium diesel and gas are at around 1.80.
 
Somehow I think the problem is not technology but vision or long-term planning with the (too) early start of WW2. And of course hitting the right thing. Germany bet (only) on synthetic fuels. Most (military but also, say, Germania/Berlin) programs were caught off guard by the early start of WW2. And the initial success of military operations. And then they found themselves in a situation where they needed to do it now and immediately. Perhaps the best illustration is the Ju 88 - Ju 288 program. The latter was supposed to replace the Ju 88 around 1942 as a new generation. Without the pressure of war demands. We know the story, even the Ju 188 (as just an improved version with more powerful engines and not a new generation) was delayed for years. So yes, everything related to better logistics should have been launched probably during the Weimar era. Or have (a lot) more eggs in the basket. And just as an illustration, the Tiger tank can run on gas.

Gas Powered Fahrschulwanne Tanks - Tank Encyclopedia

Gasoline shortages imposed the Germany Army the need to devise alternative energy sources to propel their numerous training tanks until 1945.
tanks-encyclopedia.com
 
Zmauky said:
Somehow I think the problem is not technology but vision or long-term planning with the (too) early start of WW2.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

Zmauky said:
And of course hitting the right thing. Germany bet (only) on synthetic fuels. Most (military but also, say, Germania/Berlin) programs were caught off guard by the early start of WW2.
Click to expand...
Zmauky said:
So yes, everything related to better logistics should have been launched probably during the Weimar era. Or have (a lot) more eggs in the basket.
Click to expand...

Again, great points.
Germany would've been a much a greater threat if they did basically everything wrt. the plausible and feasible fuel supply:
- syn/wood/town/producer gas (can also be bottled, easier than the CNG/methane)
- CNG, LPG
- 'distributed' coal/steam power, IOW in road- and field-going trucks and tractors
- alcohol fuels (probably feasible/possible with greater mechanization of agriculture via gas- and/or steam-powered tractors, so there is far less of land required to grow fodder)
- 'classic' fuel - gasoline and diesel - via greater investment in refining capacity and in Romainan, Hungarian and other oil fields that Germany can count on
- synthetic fuel; the best of the lot, but also most expensive, both in the initial investment and during the production
- recycling of the waste oils, like the oils/fats used for food, in mechanical devices etc

Something will need to be axed in order to get there - certainly the Autobahn project, as well as lower investment in the fixed defensive lines.

Good find.
 
tomo pauk said:
- syn/wood/town/producer gas (can also be bottled, easier than the CNG/methane)
Click to expand...

No, it's not easier. In fact, significantly harder. And the tank encyclopedia article linked by Z Zmauky is wrong in saying "Luckily, Town gas or Stadtgas can be bottled. When mildly compressed it easily changes to a liquid state.". Syn/wood/town/producer gas is mostly a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both of which are not liquefiable at ambient temperature.

Phase diagram of CO: https://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/carbon-monoxide#properties

Note in particular that the critical point is at -140C, at higher temperature you cannot "liquefy" it regardless of pressure.

Similarly the phase diagram of hydrogen: https://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/hydrogen#properties

Critical point at ~ -240C.

That's not to say that using compressed syngas as a vehicle fuel behind the lines wouldn't have been possible. The price would be very short range, but OTOH you wouldn't need the hassle of carrying and operating a wood or coal gasifier on the back of the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Japanese logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1936-44
8 9 10
Replies
189
Views
27K
z42
Z
American purchase programs, alternatives and reality, 1937-43
2 3
Replies
47
Views
7K
BobB
B
Soviet purchase programs, logistics and everything, alternatives and realities 1937-43
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
8K
bf109xxl
Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Cold war European combat aircraft alternatives?
Replies
12
Views
221
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register