Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OIL

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: OIL Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 7:48:06 AM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri




How do germans get the barges to Volga? Or protect them while they are there?


How about clearing the entire route up to Stalingrad of enemy forces?

You think the 6th Army was in Stalingrad because they liked the name?

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 31
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 9:39:54 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri




How do germans get the barges to Volga? Or protect them while they are there?


How about clearing the entire route up to Stalingrad of enemy forces?

You think the 6th Army was in Stalingrad because they liked the name?




You don't see any problems getting the barges to Stalingrad(with the supply situation being what it is)? Or any problems patrolling the whole lenght of Volga and the Caspian Sea?

When it comes to logistics clearing the area of enemy troops is just the first step.

< Message edited by Karri -- 2/3/2012 9:42:49 AM >

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 32
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 11:47:01 AM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline
Well, perhaps people better be aware that European Russia is one big flat pancake. Moscow itself is only 150 meters above sea level. And with those big rivers and canals it's possible to move cargo from the Black sea to the Baltic.
In any case the standard route form the Caspian to the Black Sea is up the Volga and down the Don via Stalingrad. Post war they built the canal but would have been a portage system prior. When Germans complained about the roads, we forget the way to get around was via the rivers.
As far as shipping oil to Germany, it's to the Black Sea and up the Danube.



http://www.archipelago.nu/SKARGARD/ENGELSKA/RUSSIA/russian_river_system.htm

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 33
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 12:59:23 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Well, perhaps people better be aware that European Russia is one big flat pancake. Moscow itself is only 150 meters above sea level. And with those big rivers and canals it's possible to move cargo from the Black sea to the Baltic.
In any case the standard route form the Caspian to the Black Sea is up the Volga and down the Don via Stalingrad. Post war they built the canal but would have been a portage system prior. When Germans complained about the roads, we forget the way to get around was via the rivers.
As far as shipping oil to Germany, it's to the Black Sea and up the Danube.



http://www.archipelago.nu/SKARGARD/ENGELSKA/RUSSIA/russian_river_system.htm



Yes, but moving a barge, let alone the required number(assuming the oil wells would be working at all) is no small feat. And where would the barges come from anyways? They are very much needed in central Europe as well. As for Don and Volga, do they link?

The there's the whole Caspian sea, witht he Soviets still on the other side of it(and Allies in Persia). You'd need to move a whole fleet there to protect the shipping.

Assuming that Baku would somehow solve Axis oil problems is a bit silly when you know that Maikop didn't help them one bit. Any such plan would take years to be put into effect.

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 34
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 1:36:27 PM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri



Yes, but moving a barge, let alone the required number(assuming the oil wells would be working at all) is no small feat. And where would the barges come from anyways? They are very much needed in central Europe as well. As for Don and Volga, do they link?

The there's the whole Caspian sea, witht he Soviets still on the other side of it(and Allies in Persia). You'd need to move a whole fleet there to protect the shipping.

Assuming that Baku would somehow solve Axis oil problems is a bit silly when you know that Maikop didn't help them one bit. Any such plan would take years to be put into effect.


http://premier.gov.ru/eng/visits/ru/6044/info/1589/

quote:

The total length of the Volga-Don waterway is 1045 km, with a guaranteed depth of 4 m. Estimated channel capacity of the inter basin transport system for transit between the Azov and Caspian Seas is 16.5 million tons. The average navigation period is 200 days.

Maintenance of the waterway, which can be divided into three sections ¬¬-- the Volga section, the Volga-Don canal and the Don section -- is performed by the Volga, Volga-Don and Azov-Don state waterway and shipping administrations. These federal state administrations' sphere of activity includes management of ports -- Volgograd, Astrakhan, Kalachev, Volga-Don, Liskinsk, Voronezh, Azov and Rostov.

The history of creation and operation of inland waterways and the hydro-engineering constructions built on them is connected with the development of the Russian transport network. People used convenient portages between rivers from the earliest stages of economic development.

Portage between the Volga and the Don at their closest points had been used for many centuries, making the Volga-Don route attractive for transportation.

Peter the Great started construction of the canal in 1697, for both strategic purposes and for trade with the Black Sea countries of the Middle East. More than 30 attempts to connect the Volga and the Don were made between then and 1917, but most were never implemented.

The new Soviet government discussed the construction of the Volga-Don canal back in 1918. The project was assigned a top priority status, and construction works were to be implemented in several stages.

The first part of the Volga-Don canal was the Kochetov hydro-system built in 1919 some 178 km away from the estuary of the Don River. It was built to create backwater to ensure maintenance of depths at the confluence of the Don and its first tributary, the Seversky Donets River. Its commissioning had significant economic importance for the waterways of the Don basin, as it enabled regular transportation of coal from the of Donetsk coal basin and of bread produced on the fertile irrigated land of the steppe.

Between 1949 and 1952 the following infrastructure facilities were put into operation:

1. The 101 km long Volga-Don canal with 13 canal locks, 3 pumping stations, 13 dams and dykes, 7 spillways and floodgates, 22 navigation channels, 2 bulkhead gates, 8 rail and road bridges, ferry crossings, stations, piers and a 100 km channel-side highway. This amounts to 96 hydro-engineering constructions on the channel.

2. The Tsimlyansky hydro-system in Volgodonsk, with 2 canal locks, a hydroelectric power station, an earth dam, outside irrigation system and railway and highway crossings.

3. The Don main irrigation canal, the Nizhny-Don distribution canal and the Azov distribution canal.

The canal gets its water from the Don River. Three pumping stations (with a design capacity of 45 cub. m/s each) pump Don water from the Tsimlyansky Reservoir successively to the Karpovsk, Bereslavsk, and Varvarovsk Reservoirs. This water is also used for irrigation and water supply. The pumping stations are controlled from a single control centre which is part of Marinovsk hydro-system. The pumping stations are currently being refitted. Hydraulic units with an enhanced capacity of 20 cub. m/s instead of the original 15 cub. m/s are being installed at the Karpovsk and Varvarovsk pumping stations. Units of the original capacity are installed at the Marinovsk station, but their number will be increased from 3 to 4, with a total capacity of 60 cub. m/s.

The Volga-Don canal connects all the seas of European Russia in a single system.


(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 35
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 2:27:31 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
So portage, which means overland connection. Doesn't answer any of the other questions.

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 36
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 2:51:45 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 293
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
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!
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....


(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 37
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 3:10:52 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1622
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 38
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 4:18:19 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Well not that easy. Even the Ploesti fields weren't knocked out completely by the RAF and USAAF from bases in Italy and I doubt that in '42 the allies would have had the necessary strength in the air and on the ground to really have an effect in the area, considering that they were stripping this area in particular to reinforce their asian and pacific defences. Frankly, if (big if) the Germans had destroyed Soviet resistance in the Caucasus, even the North African Campaign could have taken a completely different turn. Indian divisions would have have been spread between desert, Persia, ex Italian colonies and defence of India proper. Few British forces would have been available and Australian units were being sent home (ie Pacific) once the Japanese struck.

On the other hand, the only way the Germans could send oil from Baku to the rest of occupied/allied Europe was by taking the Southern Black Sea ports. Which would have meant a greater expenditure of manpower (or at least the stationing of large contingents of allies) and policies that did not make the locals turn hostile. This all the while having to run a war. Frankly the advantage in capturing the Caucasus was limited in war years, since at most the area would have produced the fuel for the southern army groups (given the Volga is in German hands), its food and little else. The whole point of aquiing the Caucasus was essentially in denying its riches to the USSR rather than in aqcuiring resources for immediate use.

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 39
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 4:22:56 PM   
jzardos


Posts: 300
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline
The problem that has been pointed out already is that oil is just window dressing in WitE. You'd have to either be a complete moron as an axis player or just maybe feeling historically silly to go for the oil. It's not going to help the axis player and it will not hurt the Soviet player. Unless somebody can give any concrete examples from any of their games, this is what my experience has been to date. In fact I would go so far as to say that WitE is somewhat seriously flawed because there's no good reason for the Axis gain any territory at all in 42 an onward. Just bagging Sov units is what they need to do, maybe delay the inevitable.

Even if WitE just added certain axis incentives for key areas or cities (i.e. morale boost or reductions for Sov). Maybe some Turkish units are lent? Just something to take the staleness out of 42 and beyond for the axis player. These types of incentives could also apply for the Sov later to make them push attacks early and later in the game.
Make it an optional game setting?

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 40
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 4:33:12 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
In a way we all play for the victory points!

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 41
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 5:27:48 PM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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?

quote:

capture Moscow 4) capture Leningrad 5)


What have these two got to do with it?

quote:

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


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

quote:

7) Keep the area clear of enemy action
No, no, we leave the enemy there....it's more fun that way!

quote:

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.

quote:

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.


quote:

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?
quote:

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.







(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 42
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 5:51:48 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1622
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 43
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 7:03:28 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Karri -- 2/3/2012 7:06:48 PM >

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 44
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 7:09:22 PM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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?

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 45
RE: OIL - 2/3/2012 10:29:41 PM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 46
RE: OIL - 2/4/2012 1:55:16 AM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 356
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by USXpat -- 2/4/2012 2:00:00 AM >

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 47
RE: OIL - 2/4/2012 5:11:18 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 48
RE: OIL - 2/4/2012 5:31:19 AM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 49
RE: OIL - 2/4/2012 7:43:29 AM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline
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!!!

quote:

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.

(in reply to Farfarer)
Post #: 50
RE: OIL - 2/4/2012 3:06:56 PM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 356
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 51
RE: OIL - 2/4/2012 4:22:24 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar


quote:

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.

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 52
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 4:37:36 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 53
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 5:50:01 AM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 54
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 10:30:24 AM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 55
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 1:07:58 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
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



_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 56
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 7:01:49 PM   
wulfgar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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.

quote:

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?

quote:

, 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.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 57
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 7:23:18 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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).

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 58
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 7:59:54 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Karri -- 2/5/2012 8:03:26 PM >

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 59
RE: OIL - 2/5/2012 8:54:04 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2234
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

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.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/5/2012 9:02:57 PM >

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: OIL Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117