Fuel in cargo space (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Yaab -> Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 8:10:23 AM)


I used to haul lots of fuel in xAKs as cargo, but Symon's post
post here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3733926&mpage=1� made me think twice about this practice.

Was the practice really used widely in the War in the Pacific?

How big were the barrels? Some info I found on the Web says 141,000 barrels would be needed to load the fuel transported by just one US Navy T-2 tanker. That's a LOT.

I am thinking of dumping this practice completely.



wdolson -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 8:36:42 AM)

The standard barrel used by the US was 55 US gallons. Oil is often quantified in barrels too, but those are the old wood barrels originally used to transport oil which were 42 US gallons.

A T-2 tanker had a capacity of 141,000 oil barrels, which is around 6 million US gallons. Put into 55 gallon barrels used in WW II, it would take around 108,000. Small quantities of fuel were moved in barrels for special purposes. Mostly aviation fuel when there was no alternative, such as in the darkest days at Guadalcanal or flying av gas over the Hump into China.

Lubricating oils were the most common use for 55 gallon barrels. Those radial engines required a lot of oil.

Bill



Yaab -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 8:53:15 AM)

Thanks!

108,000 barrels for one T-2 tanker is still an awful lot. Such barrel heaps would have probably buried a small atoll, if the fuel had been used to be delivered this way.



btd64 -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 3:54:39 PM)

I just posted a "EDIT" thought in that thread. I am currently thinking about using the xAK's that show up on the allied side with fuel capablity instead of converting to xAP's. At least some of them. Tankers are in stort supply through out the war. That alone slows down the tempo quite a bit. Just losing 1 tanker hurts. I played Andy's scenario 60 (Nasty) and it got to the point were I was shipping fuel More than running war time opps....GP



tigercub -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 4:11:58 PM)

just because!

[image]local://upfiles/8510/B4AF56884A7343669FD2EF4CAFE2E723.jpg[/image]



Yaab -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 4:15:53 PM)

Interesting.

How hard is it to destroy a barrel farm vs fuel farm with bombers?



witpqs -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/16/2014 4:46:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


I used to haul lots of fuel in xAKs as cargo, but Symon's post
post here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3733926&mpage=1� made me think twice about this practice.

Was the practice really used widely in the War in the Pacific?

How big were the barrels? Some info I found on the Web says 141,000 barrels would be needed to load the fuel transported by just one US Navy T-2 tanker. That's a LOT.

I am thinking of dumping this practice completely.


Good, informative thread. Thanks.



jmalter -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/17/2014 3:36:15 AM)

Related anecdote from Eugene Sledge's "With the Old Breed":

As a newb replacement to the 1st USMC Div based on Pavuvu, he was detailed to scrub empty drums - which seemed a thankless 'make-work' task. Later, he hits the beach at Peleliu & discovers that the water re-supply from 5- & 55-gal containers is contaminated w/ petroleum products. Major oops.



Yaab -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/17/2014 3:26:26 PM)

I don't get it.


The following information is from http://www.qmfound.com/qmcpacific.htm


"Lack of Bulk Storage and Distribution. Allied Class III personnel found they could rely on Australian refineries and their excellent bulk storage facilities for support in the Southwest Pacific until the action moved to New Guinea in 1943. Thereafter their assault had to move forward with limited access to bulk storage facilities. Engineers in New Guinea constructed medium-sized tanks for a few grades of gasoline and diesel oil, and created special dumps and laid aviation fuel pipelines in the vicinity of airports. But even these medium- to small-sized temporary storage facilities failed to meet all needs.

The problem became more acute in later 1943 and early 1944 as the island-hopping campaign got into full swing, and a succession of new bases and sub-bases were built. Larger petroleum vessels had difficulty moving into shallow waters. And when they got in, they often found that hastily built storage tanks were too small to permit complete pacific16.jpg (24923 bytes)unloading of petroleum. What they needed, but seldom received, were smaller vessels capable of hauling fuel between bases and to forward supply points.

Class III products (or POL) consisted of various grades of gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, diesel oil, fuel oil, and an assortment of petroleum based lubricants.

The Packaged Alternative. The virtual absence of permanent type bulk storage facilities and pipelines throughout the Pacific meant that almost all POL was stored and distributed in containers – mostly in 55-gallon drums.

The 55-gallon drums were bulkier, heavier, and more difficult to handle. But they got around that by using forklifts and winches to load drums onto cargo trucks. When these were not available, they simply used planks and manually rolled them onto the trucks. Petroleum Supply Companies also attached pipes and nozzles right on to the drums, and used them to fill vehicles directly. They found that nearly twice the amount of fuel could be loaded on a standard 2 ˝-ton truck using 55-gallon drums rather than jerricans.

Despite a persistent shortage of drums, and the absence of modern bulk storage and distribution facilities, Quartermaster efforts to furnish Class III supplies to Allied troops in the Pacific can be judged an overall success".

----------------------------------

Uhm, so a tanker arrives at a port. It unloads its cargo, which is fuel. But it unloads the fuel to what exactly? Some small fuel tank in the port? Is the tank then emptied into 55-gallon drums to make room for the remaining fuel from the tanker?

I am a land rat and my head hurts.



witpqs -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/17/2014 3:57:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't get it.


The following information is from http://www.qmfound.com/qmcpacific.htm


"Lack of Bulk Storage and Distribution. Allied Class III personnel found they could rely on Australian refineries and their excellent bulk storage facilities for support in the Southwest Pacific until the action moved to New Guinea in 1943. Thereafter their assault had to move forward with limited access to bulk storage facilities. Engineers in New Guinea constructed medium-sized tanks for a few grades of gasoline and diesel oil, and created special dumps and laid aviation fuel pipelines in the vicinity of airports. But even these medium- to small-sized temporary storage facilities failed to meet all needs.

The problem became more acute in later 1943 and early 1944 as the island-hopping campaign got into full swing, and a succession of new bases and sub-bases were built. Larger petroleum vessels had difficulty moving into shallow waters. And when they got in, they often found that hastily built storage tanks were too small to permit complete pacific16.jpg (24923 bytes)unloading of petroleum. What they needed, but seldom received, were smaller vessels capable of hauling fuel between bases and to forward supply points.

Class III products (or POL) consisted of various grades of gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, diesel oil, fuel oil, and an assortment of petroleum based lubricants.

The Packaged Alternative. The virtual absence of permanent type bulk storage facilities and pipelines throughout the Pacific meant that almost all POL was stored and distributed in containers – mostly in 55-gallon drums.

The 55-gallon drums were bulkier, heavier, and more difficult to handle. But they got around that by using forklifts and winches to load drums onto cargo trucks. When these were not available, they simply used planks and manually rolled them onto the trucks. Petroleum Supply Companies also attached pipes and nozzles right on to the drums, and used them to fill vehicles directly. They found that nearly twice the amount of fuel could be loaded on a standard 2 ˝-ton truck using 55-gallon drums rather than jerricans.

Despite a persistent shortage of drums, and the absence of modern bulk storage and distribution facilities, Quartermaster efforts to furnish Class III supplies to Allied troops in the Pacific can be judged an overall success".

----------------------------------

Uhm, so a tanker arrives at a port. It unloads its cargo, which is fuel. But it unloads the fuel to what exactly? Some small fuel tank in the port? Is the tank then emptied into 55-gallon drums to make room for the remaining fuel from the tanker?

I am a land rat and my head hurts.


"The Packaged Alternative." - I believe he is saying that at some point "The Packaged Alternative." made up for the other difficulties. The packaged products (loaded 55 gal drums, et al with nozzles, pipe attachments, etc.) came direct from the US (and maybe even Australia to some degree). He was not saying that there was a transfer at the front from bulk storage to drums and jerry cans, although (of course) such a transfer is implied for many end-use cases.



witpqs -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/17/2014 3:58:19 PM)

And I should add that he is talking about POL, not about fuel oil for ships.



DanSez -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/17/2014 3:59:47 PM)

If I am not mistaken, the game design fudges a lot on the overall concept of fuel - as Air Units/LCUs consume the metric "supplies" -- and those are the 55 gallon barrel types of supplies while the metric "fuel" is the bunker oil used to keep ships afloat. That has heavier viscosity and used in much larger single shot fill-ups so pumping 55 gallon barrels of bunker oil into a Destroyer would be like trying to fill up a swimming pool by drinking water then pizzin' it out.




Symon -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/17/2014 5:07:17 PM)

I am astonished that after 5 years, and over 20 threads on this subject, that people keep bringing it up. …Sigh… .

Answered fully (obviously uselessly) on so many occasions, that I finally put together something that’s brief, kurz, kratke, bref, consiso, on the issue.

I. WiTP-AE is a game with computer rules. The rules are abstractions. It is not reality. Complaining about a rule that does not comport with one’s particular view of reality just puts one on the irrelevant side of the fence, and that’s the attention they will get.

II. AvGas, MoGas, Lubricants, stuff like that are abstracted as SUPPLY. Because they are SUPPLY, they can be loaded on any cargo ship, because they are SUPPLY. It doesn’t matter if they are in barrels, goat skins, fish bladders, or old whiskey bottles, they are SUPPLY. And SUPPLY can be loaded on any cargo ship. End of story.

III. Fuel and oil are different commodities. They are loadable on TKs and AOs. One does not pump fuel into a cargo ship, no matter what the game cost. That is one of the reality things that didn’t get incorporated into the AE game abstraction as we would have liked.

IV. Although the game engine allows it, I would make a hard game rule that only TK and AO vessels can transport fuel/oil. This is a hard scenario rule in Babes Small Map Scenarios.

For them that still don’t get it, I suggest some other forum for your input.

Ciao. JWE



wdolson -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/18/2014 1:57:47 AM)

To clarify about where the fuel goes when you offload it, this is an area where the game's abstractions come in. Bases have capacity limits up to the point where the airfield and port reach size 9. After that point both supply and fuel storage are unlimited. This is actually unrealistic because there were few fuel storage tank farms and if there were such things close to the front lines, they would have been very vulnerable to enemy air attack.

But the game is what it is. It's not really all that accurate, essentially if a base is big enough, it has magic storage capacity for the fuel you deliver. Its not great, but as Symon pointed out, it's ultimately a game, not real life. There are compromises that need to be made to create the game and we just have to live with them.

Bill



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/18/2014 11:56:09 AM)

For those who really want to KNOW, and have an hour or two, this is a definitive summary of WWII PTO base building and facilities. By base, by island, with maps, with each facility detailed as to who built it, its capacities, capabilities, etc. This is not Wikipedia; this is the US Navy's own history site.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/buildbaseswwii/bbwwii3.htm

Even a cursory skim will reveal that US forces, particularly the Seabees, built dozens of tank farms in the march to victory, many relatively small, on dozens of islands. These tank farms were primarily serviced by tankers and AOs.

I have seen old newsreel footage of Seabees using POL tank "kits" similar to those developed for Quonset huts, to throw up tanks very quickly. A concrete base pad using local coral for aggregate, a hub-and-spoke base framework on top, then vertical rings, both welded and bolted, and a final, pre-formed exterior skin in sheets that nested together into a compact shipping mass. Seabees did amazing things in very little time.



jmalter -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/19/2014 4:46:25 AM)

It just boggles me that the logistics in WWII worked at all.

Today we've got near-instant web-coms, Excel spread-sheets, & a world-wide transport net of shipping, trains, aircraft & trucks, all devoted to 'just-in-time delivery'. I can stream a movie instanter, order a new set of tires for delivery to my mechanic's shop, or book travel to Hong Kong (incl. hotel & ground travel).

In the 40s, they used mechanical calculators, typewriters w/ carbon-copies, mimeograph machines, & Morse-code radio-telegraphy. IBM punch-cards were high-tech!

'S hard to imagine what that time was like. Say if a signals unit arrived in Oz & got to its base w/ nearly all of its personnel complement, but had no typewriters? How long would it take to requisition or beg/borrow/steal enough typewriters & paper & carbon-paper to get the unit running?

Our game is tough, because of its exhaustive detail. But we've got computer-support, and the WWII war-economies had none.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/19/2014 11:20:53 AM)

Try to describe carbon paper to someone under 40. Or even White-Out. I agree with you on the logistic puzzle. And they did it so FAST.

Of course, part of the answer was they had massive amounts of waste. Mega-tons of gear and supplies shipped to the Pacific that was left, burned, dumped at sea, etc. But when I look at the link I posted and see that we had resources to build USMC recreation centers on the other side of the world, complete with bars, baseball, and juke boxes, how did Japan ever think they were going to win?



wdolson -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/19/2014 11:33:28 AM)

John Keegan the British historian was a child during WW II. I think he was 12 when the war ended. He described his interactions with soldiers during the war. He said that not long after the war started British soldiers' uniforms showed a lot of signs of cost cutting. Then the Americans showed up. One day in the spring of 1944 he was walking down a country road and an American troop convoy went by, which was a common sight where he lived. As he walked along the shoulder suddenly something hit him and then something else hit him and his first reaction was anger that the Americans were throwing things at him until he looked around. They were pelting him with chocolate bars. He had so many he had to take off his shirt and turn it into a makeshift bag.

As he picked up his booty he figured any army that had enough chocolate to pelt a single English country boy with more of it that he'd seen in his life was going to win. The Germans didn't stand a chance.

I think he also said he formed a fondness for Americans that day.

Bill



Yaab -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/19/2014 11:33:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

To clarify about where the fuel goes when you offload it, this is an area where the game's abstractions come in. Bases have capacity limits up to the point where the airfield and port reach size 9. After that point both supply and fuel storage are unlimited. This is actually unrealistic because there were few fuel storage tank farms and if there were such things close to the front lines, they would have been very vulnerable to enemy air attack.

But the game is what it is. It's not really all that accurate, essentially if a base is big enough, it has magic storage capacity for the fuel you deliver. Its not great, but as Symon pointed out, it's ultimately a game, not real life. There are compromises that need to be made to create the game and we just have to live with them.

Bill


Understand it is abstracted, but one thing puzzles me.

An xAK convoy brings 6000 fuel as cargo to a base with port level 2. The base can hold 9000 fuel points before spoilage kicks in. Let's assume this represents a small fuel farm tank at the base.

6000 fuel points brought by ships will roughly translate into 50,000 barrels of 55-gallon capacity. The barrels are unloaded at the base.

Then what? How is then the fuel re-pumped into the fuel farm's tanks?

The reason I am asking this question is, that with the help of concentrated naval support squads, I can unload xAKs with cargo fuel faster then I can unload tankers. Next turn after the unload, this barrelised fuel can be used to top-up disbaned ships . Once you get the system going (port sizes+naval support) there is no need for tankers to move fuel. I guess it was Bullwinkle who said that all his TKs were employed off-map in his last PBEM and he moved fuel by xAKs on-map.

I know that DBB-C mitigates the practice somewhat with the reduced cargo of its xAKs, but the ratio of fuel in cargo space is the same - 50 %. Can it be brought further to 20-30%?








rustysi -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 1:01:49 AM)

quote:

II. AvGas, MoGas, Lubricants, stuff like that are abstracted as SUPPLY. Because they are SUPPLY, they can be loaded on any cargo ship, because they are SUPPLY. It doesn’t matter if they are in barrels, goat skins, fish bladders, or old whiskey bottles, they are SUPPLY. And SUPPLY can be loaded on any cargo ship. End of story.

III. Fuel and oil are different commodities. They are loadable on TKs and AOs. One does not pump fuel into a cargo ship, no matter what the game cost. That is one of the reality things that didn’t get incorporated into the AE game abstraction as we would have liked.


D***... darn you, Symon, there you go again all reason and logic. What are we to do with you.[:D] Now I 've got another practice to change in my game play. All that supply I need to bring to Miri to get the oil facilities repaired, and I can't bring back fuel. Thought I was being efficient. Turns out I was using a 'bad' practice.

Ya know as I've gotten older it seems I get slower and slower on the uptake. I recall seeing something on a cable channel a while back showing a cruise liner being refueled in port. That stuff literally has to be pumped onboard. It nearly has the consistancy of tooth paste. For the vessel to get it to 'flow' to its boilers it needs to be heated. Imagine trying to get it into/out of barrels. Now, when it comes to the nautical my experience extends only to pleasure craft one takes to our Great South Bay here on Long Island (not the Pacific one[:-]). Even that is lilmited, to quote 'Oddball' from 'Kelly's Heros' (a U.S. movie for those of you who might not be familiar) "I only ride in 'em. I don't know what makes 'em work. Woof, woof, woof"[:D] So I don't know if this is a modern technology or not, but I still doubt that bunker fuel has the consistancy of my home heating oil.

quote:

6000 fuel points brought by ships will roughly translate into 50,000 barrels of 55-gallon capacity. The barrels are unloaded at the base.

Then what? How is then the fuel re-pumped into the fuel farm's tanks?


So Yaab all that being said, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time here or anything, the answer is as Symon points out... you don't.[:(] That type of 'fuel' simply would not be transported in a cargo vessel. With the exception being those vessels that have a small inherent fuel capacity (and that's not in barrels either).

BTW being a late comer to this forum (even though I read as many old posts as I could stand, as I wanted to get invloved) this is the first time I've come across this type of post.




witpqs -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 2:47:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Try to describe carbon paper to someone under 40. Or even White-Out. I agree with you on the logistic puzzle. And they did it so FAST.

Of course, part of the answer was they had massive amounts of waste. Mega-tons of gear and supplies shipped to the Pacific that was left, burned, dumped at sea, etc. But when I look at the link I posted and see that we had resources to build USMC recreation centers on the other side of the world, complete with bars, baseball, and juke boxes, how did Japan ever think they were going to win?

They still sell White-Out ya big Moose! [:D]



Yaab -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 5:52:31 AM)

Thanks for all the answers. So, for the sake of realism I am quitting the practice of moving fuel as supplies in xAKs.

Now, does the AI move fuel by xAKs?

BTW, it seems the game does not allow you to load an xAK with 5000cargo/200 liquid capacity with fuel ONLY in the liquid space. I tried both ways (supply and fuel) and both spaces are used each time.



Symon -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 1:44:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
D***... darn you, Symon, there you go again all reason and logic. What are we to do with you.[:D] Now I 've got another practice to change in my game play. All that supply I need to bring to Miri to get the oil facilities repaired, and I can't bring back fuel. Thought I was being efficient. Turns out I was using a 'bad' practice.

Rest easy rustysi. It’s not a ‘bad’ practice. The game allows it, it’s described in the manual, and has penalties associated with it. No harm, no foul. It is an abstraction, after all.

Carrying fuel/oil only on TK/AO is simply one of our Babes house ‘realism’ rules. It’s something that works well in our smaller map, shorter time scenarios, but it takes a total grog to use it GC; It does have a bunch of interesting implications, though.

FYI, the small ‘fuel’ capacity of some xAKs is there because there was often a small “liquid” tank in the hold area. This was for chemicals, solvents, naptha, mogas, lubricants, etc. Rarely, if ever, for bunker fuel, and never for crude. These liquid things are all subsumed as supply, so the most realistic thing is just get rid of ‘liquid’ cargo and add it to general capacity, but that would be a pita, and it doesn’t hurt to just keep it, so …. just load it up with supply.



Q-Ball -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 4:02:17 PM)

It makes sense to limit fuel haulage to TK/AO as a HR.

I have to say even before reading this, I rarely used AK to haul fuel, mostly because AKs are not a very efficient way to carry fuel.....they burn alot for what they actually move. As Japan, I only really used it when sending empty AKs from the SRA to Japan, just picked up fuel so they wouldn't be empty. I'll fill that with RESOURCES from now on.



Yaab -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 4:49:37 PM)

I guess it is different for Japan, but Allied can freely use this practice.



IdahoNYer -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 5:18:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Carrying fuel/oil only on TK/AO is simply one of our Babes house ‘realism’ rules.


Frankly never thought about this as an abstraction until this thread. Interesting discussion.

Symon - would love to see the full list of your Babes house 'realism' rules...



Symon -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 7:39:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Symon - would love to see the full list of your Babes house 'realism' rules...

Oh, gosh. Many of them are built into the small scenario OOBs and won’t make sense for standard or GC play. But there are a few Naval things that might make sense for normal AE, so long as you are a real grog with a high sphincter coefficient.

The first, you know: oil/fuel only on TK/AO. Reasons therefor have been described.

The second is only AP/AK, APA/AKA vessels may conduct amphibious invasions; xAP/xAKs are NOT invited. Obviously this requires some tweaking of IJN ships after the freebie period. They must have a certain mix of xAK-t ships and AK ships. They must have a one-to-one relation of AK ships to their special “shipping engineer” units. That was how they did it. But it requires those special Babes LCUs, so it’s not that applicable to a standard GC game.

BTW, xAPs were used as “transport” ships to get troops (often sans weapons) from point to point. They were NOT, simply NOT, amphib vessels. And if they weren’t, what would one think of an xAK? Can you say doo doo?

The third is that there is no KB. Actually there is a KB but not in the form that the game uses for its point push. All carrier TFs are based on their CarDiv organization. So the KB is actually 3 individual Cardivs sailing in concert. This is good for both sides. Nobody gets a game engine gorilla. It has advantages, for both sides, of bifurcation targets.

These exist as a modality to obviate the “cheat the game” stuff that’s so prevalent. This is only a few, but others are wrapped up in the Babes LCU changes.

Hope this helps. JWE



geofflambert -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 11:20:04 PM)

What's the current consensus on using AKs and APs to refuel TFs at sea? I haven't done it much in quite a while, but when I played the allied side I did it a lot.



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/23/2014 11:37:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

What's the current consensus on using AKs and APs to refuel TFs at sea? I haven't done it much in quite a while, but when I played the allied side I did it a lot.


I see nothing wrong in doing so this was a standard practice, DDs in particular where always milking some bigger ship due to their high speed and low fuel storage capability



IdahoNYer -> RE: Fuel in cargo space (11/24/2014 1:10:58 AM)

Thanks Symon, appreciate the feedback



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.347656E-02