OIL

[aspqrz02]

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=990039

It's cited in a number of places, but this is the first one that popped up on a Google search for "Blood for Oil" and WW2 (quoting from Antonucci.

Phil

[PMCN]

One thing about the liberation policy. If Germany had been at war with Soviet Russia such a thing was possible to consider. But it was the Nazi's that invaded and there was just no concievable way they could do that sort of thing...it was alien to their whole way of thinking. I read some comment that they were thinking of killing every male in the Ukraine and sending in the SS studs as an example of...what passed for thought in that group.

Also before dismissing Hitler's decisions out of hand you need to consider why he did what he did. Often enough it was a good thing for him maintaining his power. The divisions in the Nazi power struture kept him safe and in charge. Declaring war on America was foolish but as a show of support for his Japanese allies (who seemed to be winning) not so stupid as it looks now, hard to say on that one. But a lot of his other decisions had method to their madness. But taken from the point of view of "helping Germany win" not necessarily so. The planning for Barbarossa was fairly complex as well with multiple variations that changed over time, the problem was that it lacked focus...or purpose as the Soviets and Germans had just signed a trade pact that gave Germany everything it needed. The diplomats were completely caught off guard when 2 or 3 days later the attack started.

But what is inescapable is the fact that Germany's oil demand was not being met. In the long run they could not sustain mobile armoured warfare without fuel, nor could they compete in the sky without fuel. The only places they could secure that fuel was the middle east or russia. By 42 they had lost at Al Alamein and were in retreat, plus neither the Italian Navy nor the Italian and German Air forces had been capable of wresting control of the Med from the British so that was out; so summer 42 they had to secure those russian oil fields.

If they had not invaded Russia in 41...but instead had massively supported the Italian effort in north africa they could have secured the oil in the middle east plus brought Turkey onboard as an ally (relucant one but with a german army in syria and greece plus Egypt and the Suez Canal in German/Italian hands they would have had little choice) a 42 invasion of the soviet union would have gone much much differently. Iran had a brief Nazi coup that if there had been an army to reinforce it would have brought them on board...plus threatened directly India with the consiquences for the Japanese operations there in 42. But this is a "what if" of epic proportions.

[demyansk]

I agree with you paul and I wrote the piece knowing the Nazi policy, however, I guess I should have stated that had the policy been different, free Russia from communism w/o the Nazi ideology. I know the ideology of Hitler, Himmler, Frank, Heydrich etc,
I still believe the declaration of war on the USA to be wrong from a strategic point of view, would the USA continue to look toward a europe first policy when the axis is not at war with them or fight the Japanese since it was the Japanese who attacked the USA. This will never be answered and public opinion might have played a role in this as far as the usa is concerned., oh well. nice comments, all be nice

[wulfgar]

b) that the Russians destroyed, in effect, 90% of the field's production and managed to continue to fight on without it

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


Only a complete fool would quibble over whether they were actively blown up or passively destroyed ... as it makes plain that a considerable number of the wells were never able to be reactivated and that the rest were taken out of service. "losing 90% of Baku production" in effect.

You really are a fool of the first water and would last about two posts on the above newsgroups before being torn to pieces for your complete, total, utter, absolute lack of a clew and inability to understand even basic things.

Phil

autumn

Squeezing Old Wells for the Last Drop
But at that time, no one knew what the outcome would be. In the summer of 1942, the threat of attack became so strong that the Soviet authorities decided to terminate drilling operations to evacuate the most valuable machinery and equipment further East. By autumn, 764 wells in Baku were sealed and 81 complete sets of drilling equipment together with the personnel were transported to Turkmenistan (Madatov, 129).

Well I'd rather be fool than a liar, because the evidence is that you've made a mistake and wish to hide it.

Now you claim the production was "passively destroyed".

Sorry was that 90%?

Besides the fact the article is crap. If the productive nature of the fields fell, it most likely had a lot more to do with over-exploitation of the fields than sealing used wells. Sealing wells does not degrade the productive nature of a field, in fact the opposite. Ceasing to over exploit a field will lead to improved production later on.

Okay so where does the 90% come in, because Baku was producing way more than 90% of its 1941 production later on?

Only a complete fool would quibble over whether they were actively blown up or passively destroyed

[8|]

[PMCN]

ORIGINAL: demjansk

I agree with you paul and I wrote the piece knowing the Nazi policy, however, I guess I should have stated that had the policy been different, free Russia from communism w/o the Nazi ideology. I know the ideology of Hitler, Himmler, Frank, Heydrich etc,
I still believe the declaration of war on the USA to be wrong from a strategic point of view, would the USA continue to look toward a europe first policy when the axis is not at war with them or fight the Japanese since it was the Japanese who attacked the USA. This will never be answered and public opinion might have played a role in this as far as the usa is concerned., oh well. nice comments, all be nice

I don't consider his act of declaring war on the USA to be sensible. But in the context of the time it might not be as foolish as it looks now. Still it is hard to justify and I make no effort to do so...it is just that hindsight is 20-20.

My best friend's, when I was growing up, grand father fought for the germans initially when they invaded the ukraine and then when he saw how they were treating the people switched over and became a russian partisan and fought against the germans for the rest of the war. For that the russians would have shot him, my friend and his father had they visited the soviet union. The Nazi's could have had the willing support of the Ukraine had their occupation policies been err different (that is too small a word to encompass the reality though). There was a lot of people who could not stand the communists in Russia and with good reason that they could have tapped for manpower but they didn't.

Much like when Gudarian suggested just using the captured T-34s (and copying the design) this was turned down immediately. So far as I am aware they never used them for anything and they had captured a lot of them. The result was the Panther and hence modern western MBTs but still his rather sensible suggestion was turned down since it is was ideologicially impossible to consider. I'm not sure how they got around this mental block with respect to the 76 mm guns they used on the marder series...probably someone with brilliant admin skills reclassified them as something non-russian...or else they did it without asking permission or whatever.

Actually reading several of the books on the games bibliography has me mystified how the germans did as well as they did. Outside of the soldiers on the front line who fought brilliantly (on both sides frankly) the German command structure was too flexible, the occupation policy barbaric and chaotic, the in fighting and politics of the commanders more suited to 3 year olds then adults, and the list goes on. It is at a certain level mind boggling.

[LiquidSky]

Much like when Gudarian suggested just using the captured T-34s (and copying the design) this was turned down immediately. So far as I am aware they never used them for anything and they had captured a lot of them.

They used them for training. There is an interesting story on the bridge being captured at Kalach (Stalingrad pocket) because the Germans thought the Russian tank company that was crossing was part of their training detachment, and waved them through.

[johnnyvagas]

Several months ago, I had play tested the impact the loss of the Caucasus oil field had on Soviet production and movement for aircraft and mechanized units. This included the Axis capturing Baku, Maikop and Grozny. I started the 1942 GC and played it against myself through late spring of 1943. I captured Baku by 1st Week of October 1942.

I play tested this for something like 24-turns after the capture of Baku. I didn’t see any direct impact on Soviet movement rates, fuel stores in units, or reduction in aircraft mission capability.

Like others on this thread, I’ve also been looking into various publications (mostly non-web based) on Soviet war time fuel and oil production for a number of months now. Most sources delving into the Soviet war time economy credit the Caucasus region with producing between 75% and 90% of Soviet wartime oil. Partial Isolation of the Caucasus by the Axis advance in 1942 was – as far as I’ve been able to determine – of great concern to the Soviets.

While I agree that the German capture of Baku and such would not have provided much of an immediate effect on German war efforts, the loss of between 75% and 90% of oil and fuel production should have a significant and relatively immediate effect upon Soviet War Efforts -- IMHO. Certainly some of the difference might eventually been made up via lend lease. However, Anglo-American lend-lease was already providing the Soviet Union with immense amounts of aircraft grade fuel. In addition, the United Kingdom and United States had oil and fuel production as well as oil\fuel transport issues of their own during this time period.

The long and short being I agree with some of the earlier poster’s to this thread that have indicated that based upon their own game testing experiences that the WiTE oil and Fuel production is window dressing. Perhaps this is akin to the lack of importance of Soviet Heavy Industry in WITE which has also been suggested many times on this forum. While I have not play tested the effect the loss of Ploesti has upon the Axis, as I said above, the loss of Baku, Maikop and Grozny has no noticeable effects upon the Soviets.

[LiquidSky]

Hmm..I also find it ironic that the axis was sitting on a large supply of oil the whole time in Libya. They started drilling in 1955.

When I was younger, I worked for a guy who was a Counter-Espionage agent for the British in WW2. His job in 1944 was to track down the Americans who were selling fuel to the Germans. I forget the percentage he told me, but it was fairly high that the Bulge offensive was fuelled by American blackmarket fuel.

[demyansk]

Good points Paul, Yes and I think its for that reason that so many people are fascinated with this time period. I also believe its for this reason that its important to look into the past of our politicians to get some sense of their moral compass. Believe me, after reading hundreds of books on the Nazis and how this group of misfits came to power it still astonishes me. The policies were barbaric, illegal, criminal and the eastern front was a land of barbaric proportions. I am glad I live in the USA and have a nice lake on both coasts.

[aspqrz02]

Note: Russian Refinery technology was between a third and a half as efficient as US refinery technology, and most of the fuel produced was 40-60 octane (and often as low as 20 octane). The technology the US supplied enabled the Russians to upgrade existing refineries and the refineries the US supplied were, of course, state of the art ... so the Russians were quickly able to get more fuel, and higher quality fuel, from the same amount of inputs ... double to triple as much.

[repeated from above, since Wulfgar has either not read, again, or not comprehended, again, what has been witten and/or cited]

And, of course, feel free to actually read the sources cited ... you know, the ones you have claimed don't specifically refer to Baku but which, on even the most cursory examination, actually refer specifically to Baku?

Then get a clew and stop trolling.

And look at the mini-AAR about the effects of losing Baku.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

Remember, the Soviet armed forces were about 85% leg infantry ... only 15% motorised ... and supply for leg infantry units was almost 100% by train and horse drawn waggon rather than motor vehicle.

Just like the German army it fought to a standstill.

Given that the Germans were at least as badly off for fuel as the Russians might have been if they lost Baku already (a combination of inadequate supply sources and inadequate transportation nets to get what there was efficiently to the front), would it have made enough difference to ensure a German victory?

Or merely extended the war until the Allies could get supplies rolling and the new, more efficient (2-3 times more efficient) allied provided refineries and allied upgraded Russian refineries online?

The latter, I strongly suspect.

Phil

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: johnnyvagas

While I agree that the German capture of Baku and such would not have provided much of an immediate effect on German war efforts, the loss of between 75% and 90% of oil and fuel production should have a significant and relatively immediate effect upon Soviet War Efforts -- IMHO.

The question here is how much oil the soviets kept in storage or how many months or years supply they had on hand? What was the size of their strategic reserve? One could be certain that the infrastructure of the Ural armament boom towns was oil intensive.

The soviets diversified production away from the Caucasus for fear of its capture. In game about a third of their production is in the Ural region.

The game only registers the "fuel oil", the stuff used to make gasoline, diesel and Kerosene.

Each fuel factory point will produce 500 tons of fuel per turn at the cost of 500 tons of oil.
Rumanian fuel factories will have their production halved starting from August 1943.

In actual soviet oil production only about a third went to "fuel oil". I'd assume this was the lightest and sweetest crude, the stuff easiest to distill.

The rest must have been used for lubricants, general industrial products, agriculture and crude heating and boiler oil.

Certainly oil is the easy stuff for portable heating which would have been first rate issue with the soviets. Today a nation like the US seems to use half of its crude for fuel oil.

The recent "oil crisis" they term "peak oil" was really only a bottle neck because of the lack of refineries that could process the heavier types of crude. The oil that is "tanking" is the popular sweet light stuff.

Hmm..I also find it ironic that the axis was sitting on a large supply of oil the whole time in Libya. They started drilling in 1955.

The oil that the world went after first was the stuff closet to the surface and the easiest to find and extract. Baku was a region where the stuff used to flow out on the surface.

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Note: Russian Refinery technology was between a third and a half as efficient as US refinery technology, and most of the fuel produced was 40-60 octane (and often as low as 20 octane). The technology the US supplied enabled the Russians to upgrade existing refineries and the refineries the US supplied were, of course, state of the art ... so the Russians were quickly able to get more fuel, and higher quality fuel, from the same amount of inputs ... double to triple as much.

[repeated from above, since Wulfgar has either not read, again, or not comprehended, again, what has been witten and/or cited]

And, of course, feel free to actually read the sources cited ... you know, the ones you have claimed don't specifically refer to Baku but which, on even the most cursory examination, actually refer specifically to Baku?

Then get a clew and stop trolling.

And look at the mini-AAR about the effects of losing Baku.

Phil

Still got no answer....okay just Baku. What was this 90% of production the soviets either passively or deliberately destroyed?

What are you referring too?

One wonders when Germans realized they wouldn't get to Baku in 1943 that they wanted to actively bomb the place. Which would be pretty strange if the Soviets had already "destroyed" the place? The Germans actively bombed Grozny but decided Baku was too risky and distant for the bombers.

I suspect the 90% destruction is just some brain fart you had that you now want to bury.

If you are 20 years read up these issues, just how can you mistake the status of Grozny and Baku?

I'm not calling you a fool or a troll, but merely originally mistaken or mis-read about the issue. The article you quote is a bad piece of work.

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Remember, the Soviet armed forces were about 85% leg infantry ... only 15% motorised ... and supply for leg infantry units was almost 100% by train and horse drawn waggon rather than motor vehicle.

Just like the German army it fought to a standstill.


Phil

Unfortunately it was the 15% that was motorized was the stuff that could conquer and do the damage, the leg stuff was just cannon fodder. They would have had more motorized if they could.

However by all means, go back to a 1st world war military!

Admittedly the leg stuff was brilliant and cost effective for manning check points and general duties. And ultimately more likely to stay in place and hold ground, because when the opponent is something fast moving and you're not. Running away is not such a great option!

[aspqrz02]

Again, Wulfgar, read the cites and the works mentioned in the Bibliographies.

The information you seek is there, if only you weren't so unwilling to look for it.

You can, of course, suspect all you want ... like you "suspected" that the sources cited, the ones you have never actually either a) read or b) been able to comprehend didn't refer to Baku when, quite specifically, on even a cursory examination, they did/do ... but the only way you will assuage your unsupported personal opinions is if you do the hard yards and actually read what you have been directed at.

So, Wulfgar, do the sources specifically mention Baku or not? And not refer to the Caucasus in general as you assert?

Did I ever mention the effects on the Germans, rather than only refer to the effects on the Russians?

Whether you like something or not, basing your opposition to it on a refusal to do even basic research, a complete failure to read carefully what has been posted and a demonstrated incapacity at basic comprehension is not the way to go.

Pity for poor Wulfgar.

Do the reading. Then you will not be so ignorant.

Phil

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Hmm..I also find it ironic that the axis was sitting on a large supply of oil the whole time in Libya. They started drilling in 1955.

When I was younger, I worked for a guy who was a Counter-Espionage agent for the British in WW2. His job in 1944 was to track down the Americans who were selling fuel to the Germans. I forget the percentage he told me, but it was fairly high that the Bulge offensive was fuelled by American blackmarket fuel.

As the front went to and fro, each side during the North African campaign was accusing the other of poisoning the wells with oil that was actually seeping up from below!

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Remember, the Soviet armed forces were about 85% leg infantry ... only 15% motorised ... and supply for leg infantry units was almost 100% by train and horse drawn waggon rather than motor vehicle.

Just like the German army it fought to a standstill.

Unfortunately it was the 15% that was motorized was the stuff that could conquer and do the damage, the leg stuff was just cannon fodder. They would have had more motorized if they could.

Which statement, yet again, shows your complete, utter, absolute clewlessness.

In Blitzkrieg tactics, the German Infantry divisions punched a hole in the front and the Panzer divisions then exploited ... the Russian refinement of mobile war operated pretty much the same. Those Guards Rifle Corps were largely leg infantry as well ... as you would know if you weren't completely uninformed of things military and logistical.

Really, your level of complete and utter ignorance is of the barrel bottom scraping kind. I don't think it's possible for anyone to know less about things military and WW2 than you ...

Get a clew.

Phil

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Remember, the Soviet armed forces were about 85% leg infantry ... only 15% motorised ... and supply for leg infantry units was almost 100% by train and horse drawn waggon rather than motor vehicle.

Just like the German army it fought to a standstill.

Unfortunately it was the 15% that was motorized was the stuff that could conquer and do the damage, the leg stuff was just cannon fodder. They would have had more motorized if they could.

Which statement, yet again, shows your complete, utter, absolute clewlessness.

In Blitzkrieg tactics, the German Infantry divisions punched a hole in the front and the Panzer divisions then exploited ... the Russian refinement of mobile war operated pretty much the same. Those Guards Rifle Corps were largely leg infantry as well ... as you would know if you weren't completely uninformed of things military and logistical.

Really, your level of complete and utter ignorance is of the barrel bottom scraping kind. I don't think it's possible for anyone to know less about things military and WW2 than you ...

Get a clew.

Phil

Actually, the Soviets used mass attack with pretty much everything at the same time after hellish artillery prep. They overwhelmed with numbers, not pretty or tactically sophisticated. But the brute force usually got the job done. Ask Army Group Center circa 22 June '44. No standstill there.

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Again, Wulfgar, read the cites and the works mentioned in the Bibliographies.

The information you seek is there, if only you weren't so unwilling to look for it.

You can, of course, suspect all you want ... like you "suspected" that the sources cited, the ones you have never actually either a) read or b) been able to comprehend didn't refer to Baku when, quite specifically, on even a cursory examination, they did/do ... but the only way you will assuage your unsupported personal opinions is if you do the hard yards and actually read what you have been directed at.

So, Wulfgar, do the sources specifically mention Baku or not? And not refer to the Caucasus in general as you assert?

Did I ever mention the effects on the Germans, rather than only refer to the effects on the Russians?

Whether you like something or not, basing your opposition to it on a refusal to do even basic research, a complete failure to read carefully what has been posted and a demonstrated incapacity at basic comprehension is not the way to go.

Pity for poor Wulfgar.

Do the reading. Then you will not be so ignorant.

Phil

Still can't show this 90% destruction the soviets, passively or otherwise did to the field. If it is there, then quote it!!!

But you can't because it was a brain fart and when you checked the source material again, what you thought you had wasn't there!

And you said Baku........

The Soviets historically lost 90% of Baku Oil production anyway, destroying it when threatened by German advances. Did it make a difference?

[aspqrz02]

Again, Wulfgar, read the cites and the works mentioned in the Bibliographies.

The information you seek is there, if only you weren't completely, totally and utterly unwilling to look for it.

I don't know how much plainer I can be [>:]

If you want confirmation, read the works cited.

The fact that a) you haven't bothered and/or b) haven't got the mental capacity to comprehend it if you have is sad [X(]

Indeed. I said Baku. You said, "No, you don't mean Baku" and the sources I cited "No, they don't mention Baku" when, in fact, on even the most cursory reading, they do.

But its become obvious that you aren't clewless (or not entirely), what you really are is a Troll. [8|]

Phil