Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
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 - 2/6/2012 6:14:07 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
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....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease.

And it's in pretty much any book on Lend Lease, or which covers Lend Lease seriously, better than a coffee table book.

Sad that its the first time you've heard it ... now your lack of knowledge has been, at least partly, assuaged

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
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).


Again, it's pretty widely known ...

http://karbuz.blogspot.com.au/2006/10/oil-logistics-lesson-from-wwii-3.html\

... largely citing ...

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/32_folder/32_articles/32_ww22.html

"By autumn, 764 wells in Baku were sealed ..."

The emergency measures which had been prepared beforehand were set into operation-Azerbaijanis began closing the functioning wells with plans, if necessary, to explode the wells themselves so that the Germans wouldn't get a single drop of oil.

Beginning in late 1943 drilling work in Baku was reestablished. However, the sealing off of a number of wells turned out to be a tragedy. Many of them were impossible to restore. Eventually, the oil extracting had considerably been reduced by the end of the war: in 1945 only 11.5 million tons of oil was extracted.

1941 Production = 25.4 million metric tons

So, the Soviets were only able to get it back to 45% of the 1941 production by 1945. Two years.

Do you seriously think the Germans could have done any better?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
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).


Frankly, I think you simply don't know enough about the actual facts on the ground, as you have demonstrated above, for you to be able to make any such judgements ...

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 #: 61
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 7:15:09 AM   
wulfgar

 

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

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Beginning in late 1943 drilling work in Baku was reestablished. However, the sealing off of a number of wells turned out to be a tragedy. Many of them were impossible to restore. Eventually, the oil extracting had considerably been reduced by the end of the war: in 1945 only 11.5 million tons of oil was extracted.

1941 Production = 25.4 million metric tons

So, the Soviets were only able to get it back to 45% of the 1941 production by 1945. Two years.

Do you seriously think the Germans could have done any better?


Not much comprehension there Phil.

Because the Germans didn't exactly "need" all that.

quote:

Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia.


7.25 million barrels per month were required, which is about 1 million tonns. Or 12 million tonns p.a.

Of that requirement they had 74%.....they needed another 3 million tonns p.a.

11.5 million tons p.a. extra and the 3rd Reich would be having a shorter working week and 6 weeks vacation in the Caribbean.

That's basically the 3rd Reich's problem, after 1941 they were trying to run their war machine with 3/4's of the minimum they required.

The Price to "adequately" train 15,000 fighter pilots is for example 500,000 tons of oil. That's why the Luftwaffe didn't count for much towards the end of the war. They had the planes, but they didn't have enough to really fly missions and had nothing to train pilots with.

In the last months of the war the Germans built 1400 Me 262's. But they sat idle for lack of fuel and pilots. A 100,000 tons of oil would be required to train 1400 jet fighter pilots.

quote:

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease.


And Yes? Big deal, that's hardly anything. Or do you think that is the entire soviet rail stock?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
That they supplied a lot of trucks


Yes, quite alot.....but not everything. The allies supplied 1/5 the SU's wartime production of trucks and cars.




< Message edited by wulfgar -- 2/6/2012 10:06:21 AM >

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 62
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 9:13:26 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Beginning in late 1943 drilling work in Baku was reestablished. However, the sealing off of a number of wells turned out to be a tragedy. Many of them were impossible to restore. Eventually, the oil extracting had considerably been reduced by the end of the war: in 1945 only 11.5 million tons of oil was extracted.

1941 Production = 25.4 million metric tons

So, the Soviets were only able to get it back to 45% of the 1941 production by 1945. Two years.

Do you seriously think the Germans could have done any better?


Not much comprehension there Phil.



I'm sorry you didn't grasp it

I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

Of course, you could try understanding it in context which ... an interesting idea, eh?

The context being the inability of the original poster to understand that -

a) the Germans weren't going to get much, if any, oil from Baku or anywhere else in any realistic and usable timeframe

and

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

because

c) the US and Allies in general supplied the shortfall directly or indirectly

Whether the Germans required it themselves or not was, as you would understand if you followed the argument I made in context, not relevant.

If you wish to erect straw men, fine, but that's your problem

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Because the Germans didn't exactly "need" all that.



Which is completely, totally, utterly and 100% irrelevant as I was commenting on the original poster's lack of understanding that neither did the Russians.

Straw men are fine, but, like I said, feel free to have your left hand argue with your right, but don't tell me that I've argued something I most definitely have not.

quote:

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease.


quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
And Yes? Big deal, that's hardly anything. Or do you think that is the entire soviet rail stock?


No, but do you seriously think that the Russians didn't need the 2000 locomotives that the allies supplied, as well as all the rolling stock to go with it?

If you have figures to show that those locos and waggons were only used to pull trains full of Komsomol cadets on picnic outings and flowers to the Moscow markets, by all means provide them, we would be interested to see them.

It's like aircraft, the Allies provided almost 20% of the Soviet wartime requirements of Combat Aircraft, and 14% overall, and a similar proportion of their tanks, and all of the offroad capable trucks and halftracks (or damn close thereto for the latter) ... but, of course, they didn't really need any of those, they could have put all those holidaying Komsomol Cadets and Flower Growers on to producing more any time they felt like it.

Right.

Pull the other one, it plays "Jingle Bells!"

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 wulfgar)
Post #: 63
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 11:02:37 AM   
wulfgar

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

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



What dark moist spot in the Universe did you pick this plum out of?

90%........Sheesh!

quote:


a) the Germans weren't going to get much, if any, oil from Baku or anywhere else in any realistic and usable timeframe


I'd say they'd have virtually no difficulty getting the 3 million tons p.a. and raising that to the 10.5 million tons the soviets got later in the war.

That wasn't the problem. The problem was clearing the Caucus and Volga up to Stalingrad of Soviet defenders.

quote:

c) the US and Allies in general supplied the shortfall directly or indirectly


The Allies supplied the Soviets with 2.6 million tonns of Gasoline during the course of the war. So that was the refined product of about 5.2 million tonns of crude.

That was only 1/4 of the Caucus 1941 output....you think that would keep the Soviet military running for years?





(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 64
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 1:39:52 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

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



What dark moist spot in the Universe did you pick this plum out of?

90%........Sheesh!


You really didn't bother to read ... or were completely unable to comprehend it if you did ... anything that I wrote in response to the original poster, did you?

Why am I not surprised?

And certainly didn't check the cites I provided ... probably, I guess, because you may be the sort of person who doesn't much like facts disturbing their baseless opinions.

quote:


a) the Germans weren't going to get much, if any, oil from Baku or anywhere else in any realistic and usable timeframe


quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
I'd say they'd have virtually no difficulty getting the 3 million tons p.a. and raising that to the 10.5 million tons the soviets got later in the war.



Ah, so, you prefer your own unsupported personal assertions ... unbacked by anything resembling a fact or a source ... to actual facts as they were on the ground.

Yep.

As I expected.

Well, let's put it plainly, unless you have something resembling a fact to back up those unsupported personal assertions ... they're worth exactly what free advice is

Damn all.


quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
That wasn't the problem. The problem was clearing the Caucus and Volga up to Stalingrad of Soviet defenders.


And that is irrelevant.

It has nothing whatsover to do with what I was specifically referring to.

Again

Not only don't you seem to know very much about this topic, you seem wilfully opposed to actually paying attention to what I actually said and was discussing and/or completely incapable of comprehending it ... it's hard to tell exactly which.

quote:

c) the US and Allies in general supplied the shortfall directly or indirectly


quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar]
The Allies supplied the Soviets with 2.6 million tons of Gasoline during the course of the war. So that was the refined product of about 5.2 million tons of crude.


And this was 80% High Octane fuel for the Red Airforce, which is a considerable factor in what made them so effective against the Luftwaffe as the war progressed.

So?

If you actually comprehended what I said ... and knew anything about the Lend Lease program ... then you might have understood that the bit about "indirectly" above is rather important.

Obviously you were incapable of the former and don't know anything about the latter, or not enough.

If you did you would know that the US supplied modern refinery equipment worth $43 million 1944 dollars to the USSR, capable of producing High Octane fuel amongst other things, and also provided $9 million worth of drilling equipment and a quarter million tons of oil pipeline and another $15 million worth of high tech welding and technical equipment for use in the oil industry.

And, if you had read the sources cited, which you obviously did not bother to do, then you might also have noticed that the technicians shipped out of Baku were used, in conjunction with the above shipments, to open up and/or massively expand the oil extraction processes acrosss the Caspian in Azerbaijan.

Before you ram the second foot further down your mouth might I suggest that ...

a) You stop telling me what the Germans may or may not have been able to do if they did this or that or the other ... since, and you seem to have considerably difficulty in grasping this ... that was never at any point what I was referring to ...

and

b) You actually read up a bit more about the intricacies of the Soviet War Economy and Lend Lease ... which you obviously know not nearly enough about ...

Then you won't look quite so foolish.

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. I've done a fair bit of research on this over the years, and if you do even some cursory checking, you'll find those figures supported.

Of course, you're not really interested in anything other than your own unsupported personal assertions, are you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar]
That was only 1/4 of the Caucus 1941 output....you think that would keep the Soviet military running for years?


See above re the implications of "indirectly" ... and, for your own sake, please do try and concentrate and comprehend this time.



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 wulfgar)
Post #: 65
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 4:59:11 PM   
wulfgar

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Ah, so, you prefer your own unsupported personal assertions ... unbacked by anything resembling a fact or a source ... to actual facts as they were on the ground.

Yep.

As I expected.

Well, let's put it plainly, unless you have something resembling a fact to back up those unsupported personal assertions ... they're worth exactly what free advice is

Damn all.


Okay, cool. The Germans lost how many men was it?, trying to conquer the Caucus. If they succeeded then they'd sit down and drink pear brandy and wouldn't bother with oil extraction.
Or they'd take years to get anything at all because, well, they have to take years.

Anything you say! But then you have such an odd manner of expression, that I won't bother anymore.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 66
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 8:57:32 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
You still do not grasp it.

I really don't care what the Germans did or did not do.

I was not commenting about what the Germans did or did not do.

You are evidently completely, totally, and utterly incapable of grasping that simple fact ... which says a lot about you

I was commenting about what the Russians were capable of doing.

If you ever prove capable of comprehending that then we might get somewhere.

I won't be holding my breath, though.

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 wulfgar)
Post #: 67
RE: OIL - 2/6/2012 9:31:06 PM   
wulfgar

 

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

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


And yes, where did this little cherry plum come from?


(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 68
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 3:20:50 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

quote:

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


And yes, where did this little cherry plum come from?


Oh, I dunno, could it possibly be from the documents/links I have already cited and which you have shown a complete inability to look up?

And, lets face it, even if you did look them up, the evidence suggests you would not possess sufficient acuity to understand them anyway ... since you still haven't grasped I have never been talking about the Germans, and evidently never will.

Wulfgar = Troll

Troll = Plonk

Feel free to read the websites and/or books cited herein or on said websites. Assuming you can.

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 wulfgar)
Post #: 69
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 4:13:22 AM   
wulfgar

 

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

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


Well, you claim that 90% of Baku's oil was lost seemingly because they were "destroyed" by the Soviets.

If by destroyed you mean sabotaged, I'd warrant that not one well in Grozny or Baku were destroyed.

This is not some idle of speculation, this is something purporting to be a hard fact.

The only paragraph with "90%" in the article is this one.

quote:

"Dependence on oil supplies from the Caucasus is the fundamental weakness of Russian economy. The Armed Forces were totally dependent on this source also for their motorized agriculture. More than 90% of oil extraction and 80% of refinement was located in the Caucasus (primarily Baku). Therefore, interruption of oil supplies on any large scale would have far-reaching consequences and could even result in the collapse of all the military, industrial and agricultural systems of Russia."


But there is nothing about 90% sabotaged wells here.

< Message edited by wulfgar -- 2/7/2012 4:15:33 AM >

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 70
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 6:16:52 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Hmm..I dont know.. only took about 5 seconds of searching to find this:

quote:

On August 9, they reached Maikop, the most westerly of the Caucasian oil centers-which turned out to be quite a small source for the Germans. Even under normal conditions, Maikop's production was only one tenth that of Baku's. However, before withdrawing from the city, the Russians had thoroughly destroyed the oil fields and supplies and equipment, right down to the small incidental tools of the workshops. Consequently, by January 1943, the Germans were able to eke out no more than 70 barrels per day there (Yergin, 336-337).

In the summer of 1942, the threat of German 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.



EDIT: Here is a bit more I found:

quote:

Beginning in late 1943 drilling work in Baku was reestablished. However, the sealing off of a number of wells turned out to be a tragedy. Many of them were impossible to restore. Eventually, the oil extracting had considerably been reduced by the end of the war: in 1945 only 11.5 million tons of oil was extracted.



< Message edited by LiquidSky -- 2/7/2012 6:21:16 AM >


_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 71
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 6:22:28 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


I should add that I am fascinated how the Russians evacuated all the oil from Baku. Apparently they used steel cables and towed the tanks over the Caspian. They also evacuated all the drilling equipment and used it to drill new oil fields on the other side of the caspian.

I also like how the efforts at Maikop could only produce 70 barrels a day. Probably burning more oil then that to do it ;)

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 72
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 6:36:49 AM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


Hmm..I dont know.. only took about 5 seconds of searching to find this:

quote:

Consequently, by January 1943, the Germans were able to eke out no more than 70 barrels per day there (Yergin, 336-337).





I'd wager that in January 1943 the Germans were more interested in "ekeing" out Army Group A from the Caucusus than any oil.


_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 73
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 6:38:22 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Please feel free to read the books cited in the website bibliography(ies) as well, as I intimated. As I said, you really do not grasp things easily.

You could also read Antonucci's "Blood for Oil: The Quest for fuel in WW2" which is also cited therein.

Feel free to do so ...

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 wulfgar)
Post #: 74
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 8:17:18 AM   
wulfgar

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


Hmm..I dont know.. only took about 5 seconds of searching to find this:

quote:

On August 9, they reached Maikop, the most westerly of the Caucasian oil centers-which turned out to be quite a small source for the Germans. Even under normal conditions, Maikop's production was only one tenth that of Baku's. However, before withdrawing from the city, the Russians had thoroughly destroyed the oil fields and supplies and equipment, right down to the small incidental tools of the workshops. Consequently, by January 1943, the Germans were able to eke out no more than 70 barrels per day there (Yergin, 336-337).

In the summer of 1942, the threat of German 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.



EDIT: Here is a bit more I found:

quote:

Beginning in late 1943 drilling work in Baku was reestablished. However, the sealing off of a number of wells turned out to be a tragedy. Many of them were impossible to restore. Eventually, the oil extracting had considerably been reduced by the end of the war: in 1945 only 11.5 million tons of oil was extracted.




Yes, Maikop was sabotaged before it fell into the hands of the Germans. We know that, but where does say production fell to 90% of anything, anywhere? But Maikop was the smallest and least important of the 3 fields.
quote:

Maikop produced 19 million barrels annually, Grozny 32 million barrels, and Baku 170 million barrels.

But neither Grozny or Baku were sabotaged in any way. Sealing wells because pumping had ceased is not sabotage.
aspqrz's claim is this.

quote:

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


I assume they are referring to the collective Caucasus fields and not just Baku alone.

No such thing ever occurred to the fields at Grozny or Baku. Because sabotage of the fields wasn't allowed until the Germans were virtually on top of them. To do so prematurely resulted in the arrest, shooting or Gulaging of those responsible for the sabotage work, that was Stalin's order.
There was no 90% loss of production at Baku due to sabotage. aspqrz has simply assumed that somehow the same sabotage was done to Baku and Grozny when it wasn't.
The only thing that at the fields that was done is facilities no longer used were dismantled. Sealing wells as regular industrial work doesn't mean they were sabotaged. That was another of aspqrz's assumptions.

Basically aspqrz is all very new to this but they think they are expert.

This statement is complete and utter cobblers, made by somebody who hasn't got a clue. And it is so dangerously misleading to any novice who reads it.


quote:

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


This statement is just wrong, wrong, wrong!







(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 75
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 8:52:42 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
70 barrels a day is pretty pathetic.

(in reply to wulfgar)
Post #: 76
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 11:32:20 AM   
Paul McNeely

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline
In looking up oil production based on a discussion going on at the HoI2 forums I ran across a website with an artical about the german oil production and utilization in WW2. I wish I could find it as it did a good job summerizing the situation. What I recall of it:
1. The german oil production fell far short of their needs. This impacted their air force in a significant fashion as they could not use high octane avgas plus by the end of the war when they were producing a lot of fighters they didn't have the fuel for them or for pilot training.
2. They needed those russian wells desperately. By the time 42 rolled around they had used up the stockpiles they had captured in the west and especially when the allies hit polesti and their synthetic fuel plants their armour was in desperate fuel straights.
3. At no time after 41 did any campaign bring in more fuel then it cost...something they could not sustain.

If the 6th army had not gotten bogged down fighting for 1 m of riverbank they likely would have been in Baku by the end of the summer. I still recall that the caption of a picture in my History of the Second World War series of magazines for summer 42 is "Von Kleist's panzers roamed at will over the Russian steppes." But Paulus was a staff officer with political connection and he wanted to take over the position of head of OKW so he needed a big victory. The german "fanboys" should pray no one ever implements a command and control scheme similiar to what happened in real life...Gudarian is a prima-prima-primadona. Been reading the books on the bibliography and shaking my head over some of the stuff that happened. They should add in "ego" as a leader trait and add it to the admin cost of removing a unit from the leader.

< Message edited by Paul McNeely -- 2/7/2012 11:34:41 AM >

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 77
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 11:52:08 AM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
This is one outstanding thread on oil production and the Eastern Front. I believe the oil is a by product of the entire invasion and the Hitler regime, mainly Hitler himself never really wanted to believe the statistics of the Red Army. Germany's population in the long run couldn't support a long war due to its size. The only way it could have lasted was by a liberation policy that was established from the very start. I mean, Vlasov's army was a joke and useless by the end of 1944-45. Had a policy been enacted to liberate the people from the Soviet yoke then the oil fields might have been captured therefore, making the entire process much easier since the need for protection in this long enterprise could have been accomplished. Lots of good comments and that's why we play this game. All the what if's, after reading all the books on this invasion its still fascinating that it almost worked and a few tweaks here and there might have made a difference. Luckily, the nut job didn't know what he was doing. Declare war on the USA? Why? We know why but stupid

Question - Did the soviets seal the wells or destroy them, I need to get that book. Where is this book by antonucci? I looked online and nothing.

< Message edited by demjansk -- 2/7/2012 11:58:10 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 78
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 12:39:20 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
I assume they are referring to the collective Caucasus fields and not just Baku alone.


Which, as Jack Lemmon said, merely makes you an ass.

The fact is, if you'd ever bothered to read the quote and the webpage it came from and the associated books listed in the bibliography for that website and the others mentioned then you wouldn't be such a fool.

The cite refers specifically to Baku.

And the fact that you still cannot grasp it is a stunning indictment of just how big a fool you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
Basically aspqrz is all very new to this but they think they are expert.

This statement is complete and utter cobblers, made by somebody who hasn't got a clue. And it is so dangerously misleading to any novice who reads it.


Oh. Really.

It's all here ... cited above ...

quote:

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/32_folder/32_articles/32_ww22.html

"By autumn, 764 wells in Baku were sealed ..."

The emergency measures which had been prepared beforehand were set into operation-Azerbaijanis began closing the functioning wells with plans, if necessary, to explode the wells themselves so that the Germans wouldn't get a single drop of oil.

Beginning in late 1943 drilling work in Baku was reestablished. However, the sealing off of a number of wells turned out to be a tragedy. Many of them were impossible to restore. Eventually, the oil extracting had considerably been reduced by the end of the war: in 1945 only 11.5 million tons of oil was extracted.

1941 Production = 25.4 million metric tons

So, the Soviets were only able to get it back to 45% of the 1941 production by 1945. Two years.


But, of course, you have either ...

a) been totally incapable of comprehending it and following the link provided

or

b) never read it.

I don't have a problem with people who simply don't know something because they aren't particularly well read about a topic, but I do have a problem with people who are wilfully ignorant.

My.

That would be you ...

As for being "new" ... 270 odd posts here for me and around 40 for you ... oh, and something like 20 years worth of posts on this and related topics on soc.history.what-if and soc.history.war.world-war-ii ... thousands of posts there ... trading back and forward with people who, like me, actually have a clew what we are talking about ... something you self evidently do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
quote:

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


" The emergency measures which had been prepared beforehand were set into operation-Azerbaijanis began closing the functioning wells with plans, if necessary, to explode the wells themselves so that the Germans wouldn't get a single drop of oil.


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

_____________________________

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 wulfgar)
Post #: 79
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 12:41:25 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

70 barrels a day is pretty pathetic.


I believe that they managed to extract a total of just under 1000 tons over their entire period of occupation, almost all of which was consumed by the technical units doing the extraction.

The evidence is clear that they would have gotten about as much from Baku ... well, it's clear to everyone except Wulfgar

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 randallw)
Post #: 80
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 12:44:33 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 2/7/2012 1:01:49 PM >


_____________________________

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 Paul McNeely)
Post #: 81
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 12:46:42 PM   
Paul McNeely

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to demjansk)
Post #: 82
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 1:23:35 PM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Paul McNeely)
Post #: 83
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 1:50:23 PM   
wulfgar

 

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

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



quote:

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

quote:

autumn




quote:

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?

quote:

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





(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 84
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 3:03:12 PM   
Paul McNeely

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to demjansk)
Post #: 85
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 6:46:54 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


quote:

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.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to Paul McNeely)
Post #: 86
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 6:47:07 PM   
johnnyvagas

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/28/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 87
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 7:23:45 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


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.



_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to johnnyvagas)
Post #: 88
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 8:51:22 PM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 89
RE: OIL - 2/7/2012 11:15:48 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

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 wulfgar)
Post #: 90
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

0.141