German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43 (1 Viewer)

tomo pauk said:

IMO, it would've been better.
German access to a good coal - even if it was not perfect coal - was much greater than it was their access to any liquid fuel. Ironically, their access to the coal was improving as Germany was gobbling up the territory. Any boiler design for the steam truck should have the quality of the coal in mind in the time the back-of-the-napkin stage is in.

Click to expand...

Boiler design is not that simple. If you look at locomotive designed for low quality coal the fireboxes are enormous

The British had the advantage of access to Welsh coal which was world renowned for its quality. It typically had a higher heating value of 14,500 btu/lb. If you substitute sub bituminous which has a HHV of 10,000 at best you you have to carry around 50% more coal, reducing your payload. The boiler will be bigger and heavier further reducing the payload. Finally the boiler efficiency is reduced by the high moisture content of the sub bituminous coals requiring yet more coal. Forget about lignite.

Reluctant Poster said:

Boiler design is not that simple. If you look at locomotive designed for low quality coal the fireboxes are enormous

Click to expand...

Nobody said that the boiler design is a simple thing. Start designing and testing ASAP, and then apply the lessons learned.

Reluctant Poster said:

The British had the advantage of access to Welsh coal which was world renowned for its quality. It typically had a higher heating value of 14,500 btu/lb. If you substitute sub bituminous which has a HHV of 10,000 at best you you have to carry around 50% more coal, reducing your payload. The boiler will be bigger and heavier further reducing the payload. Finally the boiler efficiency is reduced by the high moisture content of the sub bituminous coals requiring yet more coal. Forget about lignite.

Click to expand...

No amount of wishing will make Germany have abundance of the anthracite coal, same as with the gasoline/diesel. Planing and setting up towards the machinery that is less efficient but can be easily fueled would've been a prudent move, so any liter of gasoline and diesel saved can go to the vehicles that were the tip of the spear, plus for the trucks supplying these.
Another boon is the application of steam tractors in agriculture to supplant and replace horses, where a lot of manpower can be freed, as well as the arable land that is no longer needed for the horses.

They had been designing and testing in the 1800s. And applying the lessons.

Just forget about anthracite. Wasn't going to happen. Even for the British.

Modern map. Anthracite may exist in Europe but Europe has less anthracite than the US. Maybe the US burned most of theirs in the 1800-1900s but the US coal is about 1% anthracite. Europe has a higher percentage of lignite than the US. Other continents have different proportions. As outlined earlier Bituminous has a huge range.

Lignite beats the heck out of burning wood. Wood has similar heat value per pound (but varies a lot due to type and moisture content) but wood is less dense and you need more volume to hold an equal weight of fuel.
In WW I German steamship coal was of lower quality than British steamship coal and British steamship coal was NOT Anthracite.
Anthracite has problems of it's own for steady burning, it may have a high carbon content but it is more difficult to use than good Bituminous. There was a US railroad that used Anthracite but it ran through the only area in the US than mined Anthracite. Local supply (cost of transportation) outweighed the problems. Whatever advantages it has did not outweigh the cost of transportation for other railroads. Many of which were only a few hundred Kilos away (or less). See
For the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad the use of Anthracite ended during WW I when Anthracite was needed for war production. It doesn't seem to have come back post war? Industry would pay more the Anthracite than it cost the RR to buy and transport Bituminous coal?

The things one learns here.

yulzari said:

The British steam lorries fell out of use in the 1930s because people were not buying them. Economics not government policy.

Click to expand...

Higher taxes and speed limits than what gasoline had.
Steam wagon

Road steam disappeared through becoming uneconomical to operate, and unpopular with British governments. By 1921, steam tractors had demonstrated clear economic advantages over horse power for heavy hauling and short journeys. However, petrol lorries were starting to show better efficiency and could be purchased cheaply as war surplus; on a busy route a 3-ton petrol lorry could save about £100 per month compared to its steam equivalent, in spite of restrictive speed limits, and relatively high fuel prices and maintenance costs.[1]​

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s successive governments placed tighter restrictions on road steam haulage, including speed, smoke and vapour limits[2]​, and a 'wetted tax', where the tax due was proportional to the size of the wetted area of the boiler; this made steam engines less competitive against domestically-produced internal combustion engined units (although imports were subject to taxes of up to 33%).

As a result of the Salter Report on road funding, an 'axle weight tax' was introduced in 1933 in order to charge commercial motor vehicles more for the costs of maintaining the road system, and to do away with the perception that the free use of roads was subsidising the competitors of rail freight. The tax was payable by all road hauliers in proportion to the axle load; it was particularly damaging to steam propulsion, which was heavier than its petrol equivalent.[3]​

Initially, imported oil was taxed much more than British-produced coal, but in 1934 Oliver Stanley, the Minister for Transport, reduced taxes on fuel oils while raising the Road Fund charge on road locomotives to £100 pounds a year, provoking protests by engine manufacturers, hauliers, showmen and the coal industry. This was at a time of high unemployment in the mining industry, when the steam haulage business represented a market of 950,000 tons of coal annually. The tax was devastating to the businesses of heavy hauliers and showmen, and precipitated the scrapping of many engines.[4]​

Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:

Low grade fuels (solid or liquid) should be used in rear areas were it is easy to replenish fuel due to short trips. Using low grade fuel for moving long distance can mean doubling the amount (tonnage) of fuel used for long distance traveled which means less cargo actually moved (might be only 1-2 coal wagons per trip?).

Click to expand...

Diesel Engine efficiency is 38% for 1940s, Gasoline 26% for stuff that is roadbound
boilers and double acting cylinders like the Stanley or Sentinel, 9%


Solid fuel BTU per Pound

Anthracite coal 13-15,000 Moisture content(7-10%)
Bituminous coal 10,500-14,000 Moisture content(8-18%)
Coke 14,500
Sub-Bituminous Coal 8,300 to 13,000 Moisture content(18-38%)
Charcoal 8-9000
Lignite(Brown Coal) 5-8000 Moisture content(33-55%)
Hard Wood 4900-3600 dried
Soft Wood 3100-1900 dried
Live Oak had 3 times the BTU of a cord of Red Cedar or Sugar Pines, and Green had roughly a third to half as much BTU value as dried


No. 1 fuel oil (distillate or kerosene) 19,850 BTU/lb

My original info
A 124 HP Sentinel Steam wagon, using 1890s technology, uses 4.3 gallons of water and 7.4 lb. of Bituminous coal(12,000BTU/lbs) per mile. Lignite is a bit more needed. 6 ton payload Top speed 30mph.
So to move 6 tons of cargo 40 miles, that's 175 Gallons of water, 300 pounds of coal and an hour and 20 minutes of time to get to the destination

OK, use Lignite, 5000BTU instead. 720 pounds of fuel consumed, vs 300 for Bituminous Coal. Not a big hit on the 6 ton cargo load.

Upthread I had Oats as 8000 BTU, so are still ahead burning Oats in steamers rather than feeding horses, if Coal is in short supply, somehow.

Reluctant Poster said:

Finally the boiler efficiency is reduced by the high moisture content of the sub bituminous coals requiring yet more coal. Forget about lignite.

Click to expand...

If this was the case, how did the Eastern US Railroads ever move a ton of cargo when green softwood was frequently used to cut costs from the 1840s to 1870s? Lignite is awesome compared dried wood, let alone green.

Yes, it needed more grate area, as well as more ash to dump and more frequent rodding out the boiler tubes, but was better than any wood burners

@ the knowledgeable people here - what was the % of the end products of the German synthetic fuel processes? IOW, besides the different 'useful' hydro-carbonates (in what percentages?), what else was there in the 'exit'?

marathag said:

My original info
A 124 HP Sentinel Steam wagon, using 1890s technology, uses 4.3 gallons of water and 7.4 lb. of Bituminous coal(12,000BTU/lbs) per mile. Lignite is a bit more needed. 6 ton payload Top speed 30mph.
So to move 6 tons of cargo 40 miles, that's 175 Gallons of water, 300 pounds of coal and an hour and 20 minutes of time to get to the destination

OK, use Lignite, 5000BTU instead. 720 pounds of fuel consumed, vs 300 for Bituminous Coal. Not a big hit on the 6 ton cargo load.

Click to expand...

Very interesting, informative.

But lets expand things (range) a bit. Lets also use Sub-Bituminous Coal or very very good lignite 8000BTU/lb. Coal needed is 450lbs ? except the truck is at the destination dock and and needs to come back to the home dock. So 450lbs of fuel for the return journey where it can load up both cargo and coal a 2nd time. We will assume that the steamer can refill with water at the destination site/dock. If you set up a coaling station at the destination site/dock great, but you have send a truck loaded with coal to replenish the coaling station for how many trips?
This seems to be doable, not great but doable.
Now lets try an 80 mile trip, 350 gallons (imperial?) of water and 900lbs of coal, weight of water is 10lbs per imp gallon. 1750lbs for the extra water. Install water tower/fill point at the 1/2 way point? Without a watering point the 6 ton payload has become a 5 ton payload. This assumes that you can fill up with coal and water and the destination site/loading dock for the return journey.
Anybody want to calculate the fuel, water needs for a Berlin to Warsaw trip?
Steam wagons can work in/near cities. Pick up loads at RR stations or major factories. Where fueling sites can be feed by rail cars. Keep the distances short 30-40 miles (48-64km) and it may work. Even shorter is better.
Railroad locomotives used several technologic advancements over Steam wagons? Super-heaters became common place. Feed water heaters less so. higher pressure.
There is no reason that these could not have been used on steam wagons or steam trucks except cost, complexity and maintenance. What a railroad is willing to put up with to move hundreds of tons per trip may be quite different from what steam wagon/truck operators are willing to put up with for moving 6 ton loads.

While needing nowhere near the amount of infrastructure that a rail road needs, to use a large number of steam wagon/trucks you do need to invest in some infrastructure. Like coaling stations and water stations for shorter turn arounds at the end of trips. Perhaps regional coal/water stations for a number of factories within several km of each other (keeps congestion at each loading dock to a minimum?)

But go back the amount of coal used to go even 40 miles (64km) for a sizeable truck. Now figure out how much wood is needed or even using a wood gas generator.
Buses need less power and mostly have shorter routes.
But there is little savings to be had compared to a large army trying to move hundreds of kilometers in a short period of time. That is very energy intensive.

tomo pauk said:

@ the knowledgeable people here - what was the % of the end products of the German synthetic fuel processes? IOW, besides the different 'useful' hydro-carbonates (in what percentages?), what else was there in the 'exit'?

Click to expand...

I've wondered the same myself, but haven't been able to find anything from the time period. Maybe if one would trawl through the online Fischer-Tropsch archive one might find interesting stuff. For contemporary generation, which we can assume is somewhat, or a lot better than 1930'ies era, roughly:

• Methanol via the ICI process (1960'ies): Yield is very high, something like 98%.
• Fischer-Tropsch synthesis yields a distribution (in terms of carbon chain length) of mostly straight chain alkanes, with the distribution peak depending on how the process is tweaked (temperature, pressure, etc.). If the process is tweaked for production of diesel-type fuels, with a straight FT process you can get about 40% diesel-type fuel. If you had a hydrocracking unit to break apart the longest chains generated, you can tweak the process parameters to generate less of the short-chain alkanes, and the crack the ones that are too long. This can bring the diesel-type yield up to 50-80% range, depending apparently on how much various tricks (catalysts for cracking, maybe add an isomerization unit etc.?).

From the book by C.Douglas:

z42 said:

I've wondered the same myself, but haven't been able to find anything from the time period.

Click to expand...

You can find some information in the German article on the Bergius process on Wikipedia. Generally, I would recommend the German sources on the subject as the most comprehensive. But the question is asked in such a form that I doubt that it can be adequately answered to satisfy the person who asked it.

Shortround6 said:

We will assume that the steamer can refill with water at the destination site/dock. If you set up a coaling station at the destination site/dock great, but you have send a truck loaded with coal to replenish the coaling station for how many trips?
This seems to be doable, not great but doable.

Click to expand...

Part of my comparison was for the steam vs horse drawn wagons, that carried limited Fodder(some grain, no Hay that had to match the grain input, no water carried) so wasn't forced both to carry all 'fuel' needed to move the load. Horses are far longer to 'refuel' and waterthan Steam in any case, and need more of it- less efficient in turning Oat Calorific value to forward motion

Sure, ICE is absolutely the best, but Steam wins for used lower grade fuel, and far simpler to manufacture with 1890s era technology,tooling, techniques and tolerances. Not needing a transmission was a nice perk. few moving parts in the engine itself.
build an ICE with Steam tolerances, and it will be laughably ppoor in efficiency and power


Tradeoff is the Fireman needs to know what he is doing, or risk blowing up the engine.


Steam, even at 200 PSI has tremendous energy. low water level, things go *BOOM*
Trust, but verify with the water injection pump and main steam pressure and level glass is reporting

Fire Tube boilers, as above, are the most dangerous. Watertube are far safer, as less water is under pressure at a given time compared to firetube.

Another war booty thing that Germans might've found useful: a good HMG made in Belgium. They don't have one in service (bar the token examples) until some time in mid-1943, so the 13.2mm HMGs can help them to bridge the gap. Up to the point that the MG 131 is removed from the production plans.
A HMG has it's role as a defensive weapon for the bombers, and might've fit in the places that a 20mm cannon will not. The Belgian gun was also much more potent than the German type, so letting it fly with API ammo will mean easier penetration of the pilot and fuel protection of the enemy aircraft.
French are also making the HMG in that calibre (even though their are not as advanced as the Belgian types), meaning that there is a lot of potential for the good numerical supply both of the guns and ammo.

In any calculation of consumption, it must be taken into account that the means of transport must be returned anyway. And since this is a What if section - I don't see that it is impossible to create an (almost) closed water-steam cycle, after all, some steam cars (passenger cars) did (unlike, for example, the Sentinel wagon) have such systems. That the water in these systems needs to be replenished, but not in quantities like the Sentinel wagon, where (if I'm not mistaken,I) all the steam (water) was consumed end expelled.

Hi,i am new here..in my opinion,they should developed the program Amerikabomber/Uralbomber earlier..or at least had something with the range of B17 to destroy British aircraft industry in UK..also,how could they develop ta152h earlier?

Also,germany could had discovered the oil field of Matzen,in Austria..in 1943 was almost discovered an oil field in Netherlands..and if germany annexed all Poland alone, the ex austroungaric Galizia field could be exploited

tomo pauk said:

Another war booty thing that Germans might've found useful: a good HMG made in Belgium. They don't have one in service (bar the token examples) until some time in mid-1943, so the 13.2mm HMGs can help them to bridge the gap. Up to the point that the MG 131 is removed from the production plans.
A HMG has it's role as a defensive weapon for the bombers, and might've fit in the places that a 20mm cannon will not. The Belgian gun was also much more potent than the German type, so letting it fly with API ammo will mean easier penetration of the pilot and fuel protection of the enemy aircraft.
French are also making the HMG in that calibre (even though their are not as advanced as the Belgian types), meaning that there is a lot of potential for the good numerical supply both of the guns and ammo.

Click to expand...

Good as the FN 13.2mm aircraft HMG was, it was also too big to fit in the cowling of the Bf 109. AFAIU that was one of the main motivations behind the MG 131; something compact enough to fit there. OTOH, since this is a what-if thread, they could have, in addition to all the other rather major modifications they made for the Bf 109F, also have made the cowling a bit longer in order to fit a bigger HMG. Compare for instance how long the cowling is on the VL Pyörremyrsky, which otherwise seems heavily inspired by the Bf 109, but did carry the FN HMG:



Note also that there were two different 13.2mm Hotchkiss calibers, the long 13.2x99mm and the short 13.2x96mm. Any idea of the composition of the captured French HMG's, ammo, and production tools? Seems the FN HMG used the long cartridge, FWIW.

Alexander severus said:

Hi,i am new here..in my opinion,they should developed the program Amerikabomber/Uralbomber earlier..or at least had something with the range of B17 to destroy British aircraft industry in UK..

Click to expand...

German bombers have had a lot of range. What was not there was the escort fighter force, that was both rangy and of high performance, while being numerous.
OTOH, making the 4-engined bombers would've meant that there is less of the pilots needed for the same bomb load delivered.

Alexander severus said:

also,how could they develop ta152h earlier?

Click to expand...

By making the 2-stage supercharged Jumo 213 or DB 603. For these to happen, they will need to make these engines to work in the 1st place.

tomo pauk said:

German bombers have had a lot of range. What was not there was the escort fighter force, that was both rangy and of high performance, while being numerous.

Click to expand...

Returning back to the He112B:
It had comparable performance to the Bf109F, but greater range on internal fuel. Add drop tanks to extend that range and you'll have better bomber protection.