OIL

[vinnie71]

In a way we all play for the victory points! [;)]

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Wulfgar, just so I am clear, you are arguing that the Germans could have exploited the oilfields at Baku provided they 1) capture them 2) repair them 3) capture Moscow 4) capture Leningrad 5) capture Stalingrad 6) build over 3 years a massive infrastructure program to connect two waterways 7) Keep the area clear of enemy action 8) construct a large fleet of oil barges 9) move them to the region. And at that point, after only 4 or 5 years and massive industrial expense (the Germans had lots of spare capacity around this time, yes?) then they could have had the extra oil they needed to complete all those projects above. wow, that is so easy the real life Germans must have been such idiots not to do it!

You mean they'd have to capture the oil fields to exploit them?

Why didn't I think of that?[:D]

capture Moscow 4) capture Leningrad 5)

What have these two got to do with it?

6) build over 3 years a massive infrastructure program to connect two waterways

Nope, they just use the portage system already at Stalingrad.

7) Keep the area clear of enemy action

No, no, we leave the enemy there....it's more fun that way!

8) construct a large fleet of oil barges

What's so difficult about that? In fact the Germans could and did build plenty of stuff, their problem was the lack of oil to run it.

Ok, seriously, because the Soviets manage to ship things in the 50s doesn't mean the Germans had any hope, in any scenario that doesn't involve aliens, of doing it in any way. Please please tell me you don't actually think it is possible....

You mean, could they have ported the oil the 50 km overland at Stalingrad? Yes....easy! A tad costly in energy, but they now have that to burn.

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Actually, to settle the argument as to the historical use of the oil fields / refineries by the Germans. If the Germans had captured those fields in any semblance of working order, all it would have taken is a couple of large raids by either the RAF or USAAF to put the oilfields out of commission to an extent to make them useless to the Germans.

Given the large allied presence in the Middle East (which would have been expanded if the Germans threatened to cross the border into Persia / Iraq), it would not have been inconceivable to have some bomber groups based there that would have easily been in range of any captured oil fields.

Why you got an example of a raid on Polesti that actually did anything bar lose the allies a heap of planes?

Operation Tidal Wave was an air attack by bombers of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) based in Libya on nine oil refineries around Ploiești, Romania on 1 August 1943, during World War II. It was a strategic bombing mission and part of the "oil campaign" to deny petroleum-based fuel to the Axis.[5] The mission resulted in "no curtailment of overall product output", and so was unsuccessful.[7].

This mission was one of the costliest for the USAAF in the European Theater, with 53 aircraft and 660 aircrewmen lost. It was the worst loss ever suffered by the USAAF on a single mission, and its date was later referred to as "Black Sunday".

Also, you're thinking in terms of the Germany increasingly without the oil to defend itself.

Basically you're thing is the Germans couldn't have won the war because they lost the war?

The premise is not what happened, rather the reasons why it happened. It seems you can't get your head around it that the major reason for the German defeat was lack of oil.

[paullus99]

Lack of oil? Certainly - it was a problem for the Axis in general, since they didn't have any real significant quantities inside their own historical borders. As far as comparing a raid against Ploesti & Baku, you really can't. Ploesti was heavily defended by significant anti-air assets and was at a very long distance from Allied airbases.

Baku, on the other hand, would be fairly close to potential airbases in Persia & the Luftwaffe would have to displace a lot of assets to try to protect an area they were unfamiliar with, without advanced radar warning, against what could be significant allied raids (multi-hundred aircraft by 1943).

Again, it isn't about the Germans using the captured fields - there were plenty enough ways to prevent them from doing so, but denying those assets to Russia. And the amount of fuel that would be required by Russia (to replace what was lost) might have been replaced, but the tankers necessary to get it there would still have needed to be built (by the US) which would have taken a significant period of time as well.

For a pretty good read on what might have happened, if both Germany & Japan been a little more successful than history - check out "The Moscow Option" by David Downing.

[Karri]

Of course the Germans can exploit Baku oildfields fully, by building a massive fleet of barges and teleporting the Kriegsmarine to Caspian sea to protect it, as well as occupying the whole caucasus without any logistical issues whatsoever. Claiming anything else is just Soviet fanboyism! Also, you don't need refineries to change oil into fuel; no, the german engineers surely had some miraculous way to do this with the simple power of thought.

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Lack of oil? Certainly - it was a problem for the Axis in general, since they didn't have any real significant quantities inside their own historical borders. As far as comparing a raid against Ploesti & Baku, you really can't. Ploesti was heavily defended by significant anti-air assets and was at a very long distance from Allied airbases.

Baku, on the other hand, would be fairly close to potential airbases in Persia & the Luftwaffe would have to displace a lot of assets to try to protect an area they were unfamiliar with, without advanced radar warning, against what could be significant allied raids (multi-hundred aircraft by 1943).

Again, it isn't about the Germans using the captured fields - there were plenty enough ways to prevent them from doing so, but denying those assets to Russia. And the amount of fuel that would be required by Russia (to replace what was lost) might have been replaced, but the tankers necessary to get it there would still have needed to be built (by the US) which would have taken a significant period of time as well.

For a pretty good read on what might have happened, if both Germany & Japan been a little more successful than history - check out "The Moscow Option" by David Downing.

That's cool, the Axis simply invades and liberates Persia from under the heel of the Allied aggressor? After all, why stop at Baku?

I still don't think you have any comprehension of just how limited Germany was by the lack of oil.

It's one thing to build 15,000 ME 109's in 1944. But how many tonns of fuel to train one pilot?

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Of course the Germans can exploit Baku oildfields fully, by building a massive fleet of barges and teleporting the Kriegsmarine to Caspian sea to protect it, as well as occupying the whole caucasus without any logistical issues whatsoever. Claiming anything else is just Soviet fanboyism! Also, you don't need refineries to change oil into fuel; no, the german engineers surely had some miraculous way to do this with the simple power of thought.

The question is moving the Soviets out of the way for sufficient amount of time......after that everything else is not so difficult.

[USXpat]

With 15,000 German oil technicians and engineers, it's a pretty good bet that they intended to set up refining operations in the Caucasus. 

Oil refineries come in lots of different sizes - this link has a picture of a refinery from the 1880's.  http://www.elsmerecanyon.com/pioneerrefinery/history/history.htm - They'd not likely start building massive facilities like the kind that come to mind today which would take years; but would have proceeded incrementally, starting with whatever they could get operational and producing even a few hundred barrels per day - within weeks or a few months.  They'd be running lots of smaller refineries in parallel. 

Also, we are talking about fuel for vehicles in the 1940's - which would require temperatures up to perhaps 400', not that difficult to produce.

Technologically, I don't see a problem with Germany benefiting from Baku/Grozny oil over time (as measured in months). The question is a military one - they came close to reaching Grozny despite all of the problems and various changes imposed by the Fuhrer. Had they remained focused is the "what if" worthy of exploring.

[Farfarer61]

Having taken or destroyed Poesti and Baku early and thoroughly in several games, it has no effect to the victor or loser in the game as currently coded.
You need to establish two things: a)it would have a historical effect and be possible to restore production or such a loss would be devastating to the loser (true)

b) show it would help the game. You lose. The game is about quasi-mobile warfare in Russia and eastern europe. Economics are lip service. Move on, nothing to see here.

[wulfgar]

I'd hazard a guess that the refinery for Maikop would have been in Novorossiysk, which is the major Black Sea port. But they'd need replace the 120 miles of pipeline the Soviets would have ripped out.
The question would be how much of Maikop's annual production of 19 million barrels could be brought back.

There was a 10 inch pipeline running the 500 miles between Baku and Batumi, but that was dismantled and crossing a mountain wasn't very efficient in the first place.

Best bet for a quick fix would shipping with 30 miles of pipe at Stalingrad.

[wulfgar]

Well of course the game isn't bother with the realities too much. The game abstracts fuel production to about equal for the Soviets and Germans. Both start the game with considerable reserves.
Some costs are perhaps ignored entirely. Training a fighter pilot to the most rudimentary level would require about 125 barrels (x160 liter) of air fuel.
How many barrels of crude would that require? At least two barrels of crude to make one of fuel, although the residue was useful for other things. So that's 250 barrels of crude for the most basic pilot training.

Double that was typically expended on ailed pilot training, which is why allied pilots were so good towards the end of the war compared to the Axis counterpart.

Anyway if Germany wanted to train 15,000 pilots to fly the 15,000 ME 109's they produced in 1944. That would take 3,750,000 barrels of crude!!!

Romania’s exports to Germany increased to 13 million barrels by 1941,6 a level that was essentially maintained through 1942 and 1943.

So there you go, 1/4 of Romania's output would be required just to train the fighter pilots required.[X(]

[USXpat]

One could consider some portion of those 15,000 aircraft to be replacements for damaged aircraft and for interim reserves while shifting mainstream production to newer aircraft models.  I would give Speer at least some credit in trying to get ahead of the game.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

ORIGINAL: Karri

Of course the Germans can exploit Baku oildfields fully, by building a massive fleet of barges and teleporting the Kriegsmarine to Caspian sea to protect it, as well as occupying the whole caucasus without any logistical issues whatsoever. Claiming anything else is just Soviet fanboyism! Also, you don't need refineries to change oil into fuel; no, the german engineers surely had some miraculous way to do this with the simple power of thought.

The question is moving the Soviets out of the way for sufficient amount of time......after that everything else is not so difficult.

If you put it in such a vague way, then of course everything is not so difficult. If the Germans achieve the 1000 year reich(getting soviets out of the way for a sufficient amount of time), then maybe it's not so difficult to extract oil from Baku. Whatever the case, there is no way they could have achieved within the historical timeframe.

[aspqrz02]

The best historical comparison would probably be what the Japanese faced in the NEI ... they actually had experts on the invasion fleet, ready to take over, and any allied plans to destroy the wells and/or refineries were applied haphazardly and not always effectively to boot ... yet it took the Japanese till 1944 to get the DEI wells and refineries back to 80% of pre-war production levels (when they needed to exceed those levels to make the conquest work, economically speaking).

The Germans had no plans, evidently, to occupy or get back into operation any wells they captured in the Caucasus, they had no plans to rebuild the drilling/pumping and refinery installations, they had not enough RR tankers for POL as it was ... so, at a guess, they could manage to get it all up and running a year or so later than the Japs, from a mid to late 1942 start, probably ... so, probably 80% production of the nearest ones by early 1945.

Which means it really depends on whether the US can make up the loss of POL to the Soviets ... which they can, easy peasy(ish) ... and, more importantly, whether the Russian morale can withstand it ... which I think it can.

Overall effect? I doubt the Germans would hold the wells and refineries, or, more importantly, the long access route by rail (no cross Black Sea capacity ... no significant tanker fleet there and no significant ports on the Soviet side) in the face of Russian counter attacks.

I'd guess the Germans would get barely a trickle before they'd have to blow it all up and retreat.

YMMV

Phil

[wulfgar]

If you read back you'll note my recommendation is not RR tankers. It's barges with a pipeline between the Don and Volga at Stalingrad.
And my point is not that there not difficulties. My point if the Germans could take Baku and hold it long enough, then for them losing the war was no longer inevitable.

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

The best historical comparison would probably be what the Japanese faced in the NEI ... they actually had experts on the invasion fleet, ready to take over, and any allied plans to destroy the wells and/or refineries were applied haphazardly and not always effectively to boot ... yet it took the Japanese till 1944 to get the DEI wells and refineries back to 80% of pre-war production levels (when they needed to exceed those levels to make the conquest work, economically speaking).

The Germans had no plans, evidently, to occupy or get back into operation any wells they captured in the Caucasus, they had no plans to rebuild the drilling/pumping and refinery installations, they had not enough RR tankers for POL as it was ... so, at a guess, they could manage to get it all up and running a year or so later than the Japs, from a mid to late 1942 start, probably ... so, probably 80% production of the nearest ones by early 1945.

Which means it really depends on whether the US can make up the loss of POL to the Soviets ... which they can, easy peasy(ish) ... and, more importantly, whether the Russian morale can withstand it ... which I think it can.

Overall effect? I doubt the Germans would hold the wells and refineries, or, more importantly, the long access route by rail (no cross Black Sea capacity ... no significant tanker fleet there and no significant ports on the Soviet side) in the face of Russian counter attacks.

I'd guess the Germans would get barely a trickle before they'd have to blow it all up and retreat.

YMMV

Phil

Sorry but there was no way in which the US could make up for the losses in oil facilities for the USSR if Baku fell. As in the case of the Germans using Baku, it is a question of logistics. How on earth would have American petro-chemical products would have traveled from Vladivostok to European Russia on one rickety railroad which was already overburdened with transporting resources from Central Asia? Keep in mind that by taking Baku the Germans would have cut off the Lend-Lease lifeline from Persia, which was the easiest route to reinforce Russia. And forget sending large numbers of tankers to Murmansk since it was connected to the rest of Russia with an even rickitier railroad than the Trans-Siberian. America did not have the ability to make up for all the deficiencies of its allies (though some people seem to think so) and in case Baku fell, the Soviets would have had to find alternate sources of oil, which they could have in real life, within their own borders.

In essence the capture of Baku would have been an essentially negative task - ie denial of these resources to the Russians and the cutting off of the Lend-Lease through Persia.

[aspqrz02]

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

No.

Ergo, the basis of your assumption is completely wrong.

The US supplied pretty much all of the Rolling Stock and Locomotives to Russia through the war, and most of the rails as well (apart from unused line sections that were torn up and recycled by the Russians themselves) ... they also pretty much built up the railway through Iran into Russia from zilch ... IIRC in a very short period of time ... they also supplied an entire refinery (at least one) and all of the high octane fuel that enabled the Red Air Force to outperform the Luftwaffe ...

All in all, a pretty good indication that they would have been able to supply Russia down the TSRR through Murmansk and, I guess, through the 'Stans if they'd had to.

Phil

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

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

No.

Ergo, the basis of your assumption is completely wrong.

We might need the context you are referring from?

Baku's output fell 50% by the end of the war. I'd say the main reason for this was that with most of the Soviet Union becoming a wreck, the demand mysteriously fell.

Soviet production of gasoline by 1945 was at 3/4 the 1940 level. Lend lease supplied about 10% of the SU's wartime consumption. However Soviet Armor ran on diesel, not gasoline. Diesel production didn't fall that much.

The US supplied pretty much all of the Rolling Stock and Locomotives to Russia through the war

I assume here you are trying to be a comedian?

, they also pretty much built up the railway through Iran into Russia from zilch ... IIRC in a very short period of time ...

Which would have come to naught if the Germans took Baku and very handy for the Germans if they invaded Persia.

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

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

No.

Ergo, the basis of your assumption is completely wrong.

The US supplied pretty much all of the Rolling Stock and Locomotives to Russia through the war, and most of the rails as well (apart from unused line sections that were torn up and recycled by the Russians themselves) ... they also pretty much built up the railway through Iran into Russia from zilch ... IIRC in a very short period of time ... they also supplied an entire refinery (at least one) and all of the high octane fuel that enabled the Red Air Force to outperform the Luftwaffe ...

All in all, a pretty good indication that they would have been able to supply Russia down the TSRR through Murmansk and, I guess, through the 'Stans if they'd had to.

Phil

Sorry, but where did you get your info? The US supplied much of the rolling stock and locomotives in the war? Its the first time I've heard this.... That they supplied a lot of trucks, weapons of all sorts, boots, food etc yes, but this I've never heard. And the potential fall of Baku would have only meant that the Germans would have had a nice supply line to overrun Persia (which incidentally wasn't all that hostile to the Axis and why it was occupied by the Soviets and the British). As to them destroying the wells etc at Baku, agaiin this is the first time I've heard it (at Maikop and Grozny it happened but not Baku).

Frankly I think you're overestimation the already hefty US contribution to Soviet war effort during the war and underestimating the real logistic limitations under which the USSR laboured (and modern Russia and former Soviet states still do unfortunately).

[Karri]

If Germans get to Baku they do not get "a nice supply line"; it would be at the end of their logistics(around 3-4 thousand kms from Germany??). As for the rolling stock, I think Soviet production during war was almost zero and almost all new equipment was through LL. However, I recall reading that the number of new equipment was quite small compared to the existing stock.

EDIT:
But this whole discussion is pointless if one side insists that Germans would have no logistic problems rebuilding Baku oil industry and shipping all the oil into Germany, when they in reality had huge difficulties even supplying their troops in the area.

[Aurelian]

I remember posting in some other thread that the American locos were too heavy for Soviet rail, as the track/beddings were not as well constructed.