German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43 (3 Viewers)

[Zmauky]

Yes, it matches the accepted thinking (and their own assessments) that Germany did not have the breath for a long, exhausting war. Germany's war in the west was just that - short and devastating campaigns. Poland, respite, Denmark/Norway almost complete before Battle of France, rest, Yugoslavia/Greece finished almost before Barbarossa. And here we come to the USSR and USA problem. It was perfectly clear that the war in the east was inevitable, and on the other hand, Roosevelt's policy was not (excessively) hidden either (like any real politician - say "we never want to go to war" in the elections and then do everything to provoke it). The mustache assessment was that America would not have a greater influence on the war in Europe until 1942 (sorry America - he was right), that's why the decision to get rid of the USSR in 1941 was not illogical (and the declaration of war by the USA does not change the situation on the ground - it can only draw Japan into the equation of war with the Soviets).

Only the assessment (but not only Germany - let's not forget that the rest of the world during the summer and autumn of 1941 was sure of the collapse of the USSR) was faulty.

Whether better logistics (and let's say a better plan of Barbarossa than Halder's) would lead to the collapse of the USSR is a slightly bigger question. But it is not entirely impossible that the fall of Leningrad, Moscow and Ukraine in 1941/2 would reduce the Soviets (at least for a while) to negligible danger and thus provide (them) time to fortify the coasts of Europe and set up air defenses and/or clear North Africa and/or neutralize the UK. That is, to prepare for the arrival in the USA.
Again how successful and what the wallies moves would be - that's up for debate.

So instead of a conclusion, if I may return to logistics.

As usual the answer is not just one magic item. But a combination of gas generators for trucks (much earlier), diesel propulsion for tanks (because it is easier to produce synthetically) steam wagons, and generally less horses for transport (and more food for people) ... would certainly solve the logistics issue.
Admittedly, for that to happen, there would have to be a visionary who would see it and an economic genius who would balance the economy between consumption and the price of oil and the alternatives, at least in the pre-war era.

And the results could deprive us of the possibility of discussing it at all (in terms of a much different world that I'm sure you wouldn't want to see).

Again, this is a conversation about technology, but ultimately it's impossible to avoid the implications of its application and what it would mean for millions of people.

 

[special ed]

As I recall, although I was only one year old at the time, Germany declared war on the U.S. The only time he declared war before attacking, which freed the USA.

 

[Zmauky]

As I hinted, the German declaration of war on the USA did not change anything on the ground, and what exactly was the agreement (or wishes) about Japan's actions towards the USSR in the Germany-Japan agreements, if we have not found out by now, we can only guess.
At least it is clear that Germany expected reciprocity, i.e. a Japanese declaration of war on the USSR.

The war between Germany and the USA was simply not declared. Military aid to the UK (and before that to France), convoy protection zones, Ruben James ... are not exactly a show of neutrality .

 

[SaparotRob]

As I hinted, the German declaration of war on the USA did not change anything on the ground, and what exactly was the agreement (or wishes) about Japan's actions towards the USSR in the Germany-Japan agreements, if we have not found out by …..

 

[GrauGeist]

As I recall, although I was only one year old at the time, Germany declared war on the U.S. The only time he declared war before attacking, which freed the USA.

Germany declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941 in support of Japan, Italy followed soon after.

It was most likely in support of Japan's membership in the Axis, but a huge mistake on his behalf, since the U.S. was still officially neutral with the European Axis nations.

 

[tomo pauk]

BTW - does anyone have some good data on the natural gas production and consumption in Europe and world, 1930 to 1945? TIK of the youtube fame mentioned that plans for 1943 were including the natural gas production/consumption of some 500 000 tons for that year (or it's equivalent in gasoline?).

 

[marathag]

BTW - does anyone have some good data on the natural gas production and consumption in Europe and world, 1930 to 1945? TIK of the youtube fame mentioned that plans for 1943 were including the natural gas production/consumption of some 500 000 tons for that year (or it's equivalent in gasoline?).

World, I do not have.
USA

Most Gas was from Gasified Coal, aka Town Gas not Natural Gas. USA started pipelines that eventually put those plants out of business after the War.
UK didn't start phasing them out til the '60s.

Europe, I have no data, but given the lack of oil production, normally means lack of Natural Gas, as is formed in same geological processes-- while Coal was everywhere.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Many thanks for the overview.
Do you have similar data for the coal types that Germany could've also used back in ww2, coming from France, Belgium, Bohemia, Poland or Ukraine?

Here are the analyses for Polish and French coal:

Coal production of the Axis powers and the occupied countries is given in the following table (thousands of metric tons):

Data is from the following website.

Coal production in Axis European countries 1900-1945 | Statista

During the early 20th century, Germany was the largest producer of coal in Europe.

www.statista.com

Coal production in Allied European countries 1900-1945 | Statista

Of the Allied European countries in the early 20th century, the United Kingdom had, by far, the largest annual coal output in each year.

www.statista.com

Polish coal is estimated
Clearly German coal production dwarfs the contributions of the other countries

 

[Reluctant Poster]

If you really want to understand combustion this is the industry bible:

B&W Steam - Its Generation and Use

The newly released 42nd edition of Steam/its generation and use, a book written and published by B&W, details advances in the production of steam and the utilization of all types of fuels

www.babcock.com

The reference book I have is:

Combustion, fossil power systems : a reference book on fuel burning and steam generation : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1 v. (various pagings) : 27 cm

archive.org

It was published by B&W's major rival Combustion Engineering who were kind enough to give a copy to me. The B&W book is superior but I would just borrow my boss's copy

 

[z42]

Only the assessment (but not only Germany - let's not forget that the rest of the world during the summer and autumn of 1941 was sure of the collapse of the USSR) was faulty.

Whether better logistics (and let's say a better plan of Barbarossa than Halder's) would lead to the collapse of the USSR is a slightly bigger question. But it is not entirely impossible that the fall of Leningrad, Moscow and Ukraine in 1941/2 would reduce the Soviets (at least for a while) to negligible danger and thus provide (them) time to fortify the coasts of Europe and set up air defenses and/or clear North Africa and/or neutralize the UK. That is, to prepare for the arrival in the USA.
Again how successful and what the wallies moves would be - that's up for debate.

It's possible that the USSR would have collapsed with the fall of Moscow. But I think it's more likely that trying to capture Moscow would have resulted in another Stalingrad-esque meat grinder that the Wehrmacht could ill afford. Similarly, winning in NA would have taken huge resources (and what does winning NA constitute? Capture Cairo? Or Palestine, and the Iraq oil fields?), and with the RN roaming in the Med, how to keep your troops supplied?

As usual the answer is not just one magic item. But a combination of gas generators for trucks (much earlier), diesel propulsion for tanks (because it is easier to produce synthetically) steam wagons, and generally less horses for transport (and more food for people) ... would certainly solve the logistics issue.
Admittedly, for that to happen, there would have to be a visionary who would see it and an economic genius who would balance the economy between consumption and the price of oil and the alternatives, at least in the pre-war era.

Yes, maybe. But the German economy was already going full bore with rearmament; if you do more of X you have to do less of Y. Better logistics and more alternative fuels would likely have been useful, but what to sacrifice in order to get those? Sacrifice a couple of the surface warships might have helped a little? And would the army be better if it was motorized but smaller than historical?

As for earlier introduction of gas generators, I think one of the big advantages of gas generators is that you can quickly switch an existing vehicle over to it. So while international trade is still possible, maybe keep using imported petroleum and reap the benefits of cheap and convenient fuel as long as possible. That of course doesn't prevent manufacturing and stockpiling gas generators so they can quickly be taken into use once the foreign fuel taps are cut off.

German industrialists were actually quite opposed to the synthetic fuels program, as they saw that it would never be economical, particularly considering the depressed price of oil on the international market in the 1930'ies. Well, except those industrialists involved in the production of the synthetic fuels, that is. But there's also the foreign exchange situation, which was in quite a critical state already before Hitler took power. The synthetic fuels program was not only in order to insulate the nation from a blockade in case of war, but it was also intended to help with the foreign exchange crisis.