Cargo Theory

[el cid again]

USS Guadalupe on 1944.06.26 (Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, Page 143):
7470 tns light, 24,830 tns full = 17000 capacity
90,139 Barrels of Fuel Oil (heavy) = 13,850 long tons
7, 840 Barrels of Diesel (marine)= 1060 long tons
391,202 gals Aviation fuel = 1078 long tons
Total load: ~16,000 tons of petro products

It is 14,910 of products we call fuel. The AVGAS does not count - because it is not fuel in our game - it is supply points - which tankers cannot carry! [I still prefer my proposal to Matrix: use POL, ammo and general supply - it works a lot better] For now, we must only count the "fuel" products. Note that if this data is correct, about 6.57 bbl weighs one ton. [Actually, it varies slightly - all oil is not created equal - but it is close enough for government work, as they say].

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


It is 14,910 of products we call fuel. The AVGAS does not count - because it is not fuel in our game - it is supply points - which tankers cannot carry! [I still prefer my proposal to Matrix: use POL, ammo and general supply - it works a lot better] For now, we must only count the "fuel" products. Note that if this data is correct, about 6.57 bbl weighs one ton. [Actually, it varies slightly - all oil is not created equal - but it is close enough for government work, as they say].

However, my point is that we need to use a full apacity in bbl's. You are incorrect in that we do not use gas in the game. Indeed, the opposite is true for carrier based aircraft when they are aboard carriers!

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The problem is not examples - it is that we need comprehensive data for ALL classes - even the most obscure - and for military vessels never rated in bbls at all.

Then use whatever system seems best for those vessels that data in bbls cannot be found for, however, for those that there is bbl data for then use this data.

[el cid again]

However, my point is that we need to use a full apacity in bbl's. You are incorrect in that we do not use gas in the game. Indeed, the opposite is true for carrier based aircraft when they are aboard carriers!

I am willing to be edified. But I was informed by the programmers and by Joe that this is the case: gas is simply part of supply - aircraft do NOT use fuel at all. In fact, ONLY ships use fuel. Fuel oil for trains - or factories - or home heating oil - or trucks- or whatever purpose is NOT fuel for our purposes. I don't think you can understand the supply system if you do not refer to the definitions - or to what is used.

In the case of aircraft carriers, there is no real change as far as I can see. It may be that air operations are considered to require the expendature of fuel - but it is a misconception to think that means aircraft fuel. It refers to the fuel burned by the ships (ALL the ships - not just the carrier - because the carrier feeds the others) - during flight operations. The power required by a ship increases as a power function of speed - it is a complicated function but it is very large. A carrier is very marginal if it can only steam at 20 knots - and above 20 knots fuel consumption is very great. I see nothing to indicate that aircraft ever consume anything but supply points. In any case, carrier ops are the exceptional case, and as logisticians we must focus on the normal case.

[el cid again]

Then use whatever system seems best for those vessels that data in bbls cannot be found for, however, for those that there is bbl data for then use this data.

There is not enough time to do so. If there were, since the result would be the same, it is not worth the effort to do so. I am confused about why you think this matters: divide dwt by 6.571 and you will have the bbl rating of the ship - to a degree significantly better than 1%. Since our "fuel" is ONLY fuel oil (we don't have to worry about kerocine or gasoline - it is not "fuel" in the game) - this will work perfectly - there is not any great variation in fuel oil density enough to show up in our data set.