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 forgotten how much the Russian advance removed oil capacity from the Nazis or how much it concentrated the remaining targets to be hit.
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
- Thread starter Readie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I spent 3 great months in Mexico working on the UNDERGROUND piping for the Aramco Berri project in Saudi Arabia. Most of it was the water supply pipe work but there is no reason at all why most of a refinery cant be built below ground level, we have been building railways underground for over 150 years.
Admiral Beez
Major
No one seemed to bomb the oil facilities early on. At Taranto and Pearl Harbour, the fuel farms left essentially untouched. Sumatran oil fields, left intact for the coming Japanese.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Oil refineries, like a lot of industrial targets are actually pretty hard targets.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Very few oil production and transfer facilities were left intact for the Japanese as the Dutch, British and Australians withdrew from the East Indies.
wuzak
Captain
In terms of the synthetic oil plants in Germany, moving them underground would probably have required starting the process well before WW2.
Why was that?
The ventilation, explosion and evacuation issues would be considerable and challenging. The plan to move some oil production plant underground was called the "Geilenberg Plan"
From Wikipedia:
Edmund Geilenberg (born 13 January 1906, Witten-Buchholz-Kaempen – died 19 October 1964, Bassum[1]) was a German official of World War II who headed an emergency 1944 decentralization program, the Geilenbergstab or Geilenbergprogramm (Geilenberg Special Staff), to disperse Nazi Germany oil production.[citation needed] The program included the Cuckoo project[citation needed] for an underground oil plant to be "carved out of the Himmelsburg" North of the Mittelwerk,[2] as well as plans for an oil facility at Ebensee.[3] "Geilenberg used as many as 350,000 men for the repair, rebuilding, and dispersal of the bombed plants and for new underground construction [which] were incomplete when the war ended".[4]
Defenses included a 21 June 1944, order for a minimum number of flak guns to be placed at Pölitz (200), Auschwitz (200), Hamburg (200), Brüx (170, Gelsenkirchen (140), Scholven (140), Wesseling (150), Heydebreck (130), Leuna (120), Blechhammer (100), Moosbierbaum (100), and Böhlen (70);[1] and the Ruhland Fischer-Tropsch plant and other synthetic oil plants were upgraded to be "hydrogenation fortresses" (e.g., the plants in the Leipzig area were protected by over 1,000 guns). In addition to increased active defenses, the facilities (German: Hydrierfestungen) incorporated blast walls and concrete "dog houses" around vital machinery. Similar to the technical experts transferred for the V-2 rocket program, 7,000 engineers were released from the German Army to provide technical support for oil facilities.
As you can see a lot of resources were tied up.
The plan was to decentralise and disperse most of the plants but only 1 may 2 Bergius plants would go underground . The Germans used two major processes:
1 Bergius high pressure hydrogenation.
2 Fischer-Tropsch catalysis.
Bergius hydrogenation involved pressurising an oil coal slurry at up to 700 atmospheres. (10,000psi). The special alloy developed to this was called bondur and resistant corrosion and embrittlement. (Useful for the order for 300 Uranium Centrifuges order pace an the Bamag firm at the end of the war)
The issue was that you need a Lurgi coal gasifier to make syngas which is then converted to hydrogen by pressure swing absorption. The Gasifier needs a liquid oxygen plant. The production of oxygen is associated with the production of nitrogen which can be used to make ammonia (using some of the hydrogen). The ammonia helps desulpherise the coal but is also an important co product in itself for explosives and fertiliser etc. The reactors and piping were so strong they were unaffected by direct bomb hits. However the hydrogen plant was very vulnerable. The plants continued to operate during allied bomb raids with the operators being given special pill boxes. When the plants were shutdown it was on the side that produced syngas. These plants produced 74 RON fuel out of the hydrogenation that could be upgraded with TEL to make 87 octane.
he Fischer Tropsch plants also needed gasifiers, syngas but it didn't need to be conditioned to hydrogen and after desulphurisation was reavted over catalysts to produce diesel or lubricants, the gasoline tended to be low grade, about 46 RON but I think with addition of TEL, some 30% methanol and a little upblending.
These fischer tropsch plants could be only 1/5th the size and dispersal could work with them.
There was a process that looked like fischer-tropsch but produced butanol which could be converted to butylene which could make both synthetic rubber and pure iso-octane. About 22% iso-otane was added to 87 octane fuel to make 97/130 fuel.
Improvements in gasifier and fischer tropsch such as fluidised bed reactors and new catalysts looked like increasing output and making higher octane fuel would have greatly improved the productivity of the system and reduced its costs. If the Germans had the technology they had in 1943 in 1937 their production would be higher due to improved efficiency.
Last edited:
How hard would it be to take out underground oil-refineries and oil-stocks with bombs and technology used in WWII?
While I remember reading that Germany was using the Fischer Troppsch process as early as 1936. When did the Bergius high-pressure catalyzation process come online?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
See https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/bergius-lecture.pdf
He got the 1931 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the process, so it was known before then (indeed, it was known before WW1). It appears to have been applied at an industrial scale for fuel production in the 1930s.
He got the 1931 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the process, so it was known before then (indeed, it was known before WW1). It appears to have been applied at an industrial scale for fuel production in the 1930s.
Glider
Captain
This I admit is partly a guess but synthetic oil d
Tallboys and Grand slam stood a decent chance depending on the depth of the plants
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Depending on the feedstock (it would be tougher if they were using slurried coal, for example), there's going to be an entrance. If its feedstock is coal or lignite, we're talking about rail cars and a pretty big hole. Using something to shut it -- it may not need a Tallboy (although there is no overkill; there's only "that worked quite well."), but it would need accuracy.
Admiral Beez
Major
Sumatra is covered by others above, but Taranto was a night attack and the Brits were short of carriers and aircraft, with CAGs optimized for torpedo strike. Had Cunningham had more than just HMS Illustrious and sufficient fighters to allow a daylight raid with Skuas armed with incendiary bombs, or if still at night, pathfinder flare drops, then hitting the bunker farms would have been possible.
As for Pearl Harbour, the IJN strategy was about gaining a six month window, so hitting the ships, not the fuel they use was the priority. But this was poor planning and understanding of logistics, they should have destroyed the bunker farms, thus reducing the USN's ability to operate far from the US west coast. In what they already knew was a campaign of naval aviation, sinking old battleships did almost nothing to help the IJN's cause.
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
Just curious how much of the six months that would have bought. How much of a reduction in the ability of the Navy and aaf to mount air operations would have resulted? Presumably aviation fuel could have been tankered to Hawaii. Logistics would be a major problem but the fuel and the tankers did exist no?
Please remind (who?) that when a weather event hits the US SE, refineries shutdown or are claimed to receive damage and fuel prices spike.
No, but it made Japanese admirals happy.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
One is that they're being shut down to protect the workers who would be in less than robust office buildings and workshops. The US Strategic Bombing Survey has some information about this: it took a year, over 6,000 sorties, and over 18,000 tons of bombs to put one refinery out of operation. See pp 22-23 of https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421958.pdf.
The Tirpitz was a far easier target to destroy.
---
Edit: corrected grammar error: "they're beings shut down" to "they're being shut down"
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Destroying the bunker farm at Pearl has been discussed several times before. It could have been done but it would have been a lot harder than many people realise. It may have required a 3rd strike, not just a few planes detached from strike one or two.
Most of the tanks contained bunker fuel which is about two steps above tar. (a bit of joke) but the stuff is thick and hard to ignite. The tanks (and ships fuel tanks) have to heated with steam pipes to get the stuff to flow, let alone burn. Each tank was inside a berm to contain spills. You can't rupture one tank and have flaming fuel run all over and set the other tanks on fire one after another.
I have no idea if there were any fire protection systems like pre-piped water cannon or deluge systems or even sprinklers in the tanks.
Bunker fuel in a jar.
Most of the tanks contained bunker fuel which is about two steps above tar. (a bit of joke) but the stuff is thick and hard to ignite. The tanks (and ships fuel tanks) have to heated with steam pipes to get the stuff to flow, let alone burn. Each tank was inside a berm to contain spills. You can't rupture one tank and have flaming fuel run all over and set the other tanks on fire one after another.
I have no idea if there were any fire protection systems like pre-piped water cannon or deluge systems or even sprinklers in the tanks.
Bunker fuel in a jar.
Glider
Captain
That is an excellent read, thanks for posting the link it's much appreciated
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
