What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#871

Post by Takao » 11 Feb 2020, 14:45

The only time I am aware that the Japanese used unrefined crude oil was for operation A-GO, when Japan did not have the necessary reserves to operate a large fleet over a long distance.

This is not an "option", but an act of desperation...Unrefined fuel will quickly corrode the associated piping and boilers, as well as, the impurities will also lead to clogging. As a one off, it may work without any harm, but prolonged use will require an extended refit period to replace the fuel lines & boilers.

Unrefined fuel that is particularly aromatic will be explosive, and was the direct cause for the losses of Shokaku & Taiho.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#872

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Feb 2020, 17:20

Takao wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 14:45
The only time I am aware that the Japanese used unrefined crude oil was for operation A-GO, when Japan did not have the necessary reserves to operate a large fleet over a long distance.

This is not an "option", but an act of desperation...Unrefined fuel will quickly corrode the associated piping and boilers, as well as, the impurities will also lead to clogging. As a one off, it may work without any harm, but prolonged use will require an extended refit period to replace the fuel lines & boilers.

Unrefined fuel that is particularly aromatic will be explosive, and was the direct cause for the losses of Shokaku & Taiho.
To be specific, the Japanese were able to use the Tarakan crude in its natural state because of the specific properties of the Tarakan crude. It was sufficiently light that it could be burned in ship boilers without refining, but it was also sour - that is, it had a high sulfur content - which is what corroded the boiler tubes. It also contained large quantities of naphtha, which was the highly volatile element that doomed Shokaku and Taiho.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell


User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#873

Post by Takao » 11 Feb 2020, 17:22

Rob Stuart wrote:
09 Feb 2020, 15:03
So clearly you're assuming that war between Japan and the Americans, British and Dutch would still break out in December 1941 despite Hitler deciding not to invade Russia in June 1941. You're forgetting that one of the reasons why Japan went to war when it did and against whom it did was the knowledge that the Soviets were unlikely to threaten Japanese interests while involved in a desperate fight to hold off the Germans.
Well, prior to the German invasion, the Japanese & Russians had signed their own non-aggression treaty. So, even without a German-Russian war, the Japanese have reasonably secured their northern border areas. Let's also not forget, that Japan maintained the quite large Kwantung Army in it's northern border region. Then there are the Japanese military attaches keeping a close eye on the Trans-Siberian Railway. So, in all likelyhood, the Japanese will know in advance that the Soviets are preparing to go on the offensive - the caveat being if the Intel will be believed, as it was not in the months prior to August Storm.


Rob Stuart wrote:
09 Feb 2020, 15:03
If Germany had not invaded Russia in June 1941 then the Japanese might not have occupied French Indochina the following month, in which case the US oil embargo which prompted Japan to go to war might not have been imposed. Alternatively, if the Japanese had still occupied French Indochina, then the US reaction might have been different if the British were in a more desperate situation than they were historically.
Your forgetting one of the main reasons Japan joined the Tripartite Pact - to get German help to negotiate a treaty with Russia. Historically, this German "help" failed when German-Russian political relations deteriorated, and Japan was left to her own devices.

However, now with no war, that implies that German-Russian political relations have not deteriorated. Thus, Germany would be in a position to help Japan negotiate with Russia. Possibly achieving a non-aggression pact or other treaty earlier than was done historically. Thus, possibly moving up Japan's timetable for conquering Malaya & Singaapore.

The US reaction to the Japanese invasion of Southern Indochina would very likely have been the same as historically. The decision was made by politicians who were paying little heed to their military advisors who were asking for more time to prepare US forces. Further complicating matters was the Western belief that Japan would not initiate a war she could not possibly win.


Rob Stuart wrote:
09 Feb 2020, 15:03
Or, once it was clear that Hitler was spending 1941 attacking the British, Stalin may have provoked a war with Japan that summer aimed at securing his position in the Far East prior to any 1942 war with Germany.
Stalin's position in the Far East was secured with the non-aggression pact with the Japanese, and would remain secure while Japan was engaged in the South. Further, by provoking a war with Japan, it would bring in Germany - initiating exactly what Glenn is trying to avoid.

Although, it would be interesting to see if Germany reneged on the Tripartite Pact and sold Japan down the river, what the Japanese reaction to this German stab in the back would be?

So too would it be interesting to see the Italian reaction to Germany killing off Japan. They pull all their battleships out of the Atlantic & make a separate peace.


Rob Stuart wrote:
09 Feb 2020, 15:03
(In 1939 Stalin invaded Finland in order to prevent the Germans attacking Russia through Finland, and in late June 1940 he seized Bessarabia and northern Bukovina from Romania in part because it was clear that Germany could not attack him that year.)
I was always under the impression that it was the defeat of France, and the impotence of Britain in 1940 that was the driving cause. After all, Germany had agreed that these territories were in the Russian sphere of influence, as had been spelled out in their non-aggression pact.


Rob Stuart wrote:
09 Feb 2020, 15:03
To sum up, you cannot assume that Japan and the US would still enter the war in December 1941 if Russia is not invaded. You've made the classic error of "what if" proposers of saying that if X did not happen then Y would happen while dubiously assuming that Z would not change.
Well, for the reasons above, Japan attacking South is a reasonable presumption with or without a German attack on the USSR. Germany had been trying to get Japan to go South and conquer Singapore since November-December ,1940 and more overtly since January, 1941, and Japan was in the process of repositioning her forces to do so. The only question would be the US response if Japan only attacked British & Dutch territories. But, in the face of such open aggression by Japan, it would most likely bring the US into the war.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#874

Post by Takao » 12 Feb 2020, 00:07

Richard Anderson wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 17:20

To be specific, the Japanese were able to use the Tarakan crude in its natural state because of the specific properties of the Tarakan crude. It was sufficiently light that it could be burned in ship boilers without refining, but it was also sour - that is, it had a high sulfur content - which is what corroded the boiler tubes. It also contained large quantities of naphtha, which was the highly volatile element that doomed Shokaku and Taiho.
Crude oil for the fleet was drawn from not only Tarakan, but Sanga Sanga & others, although the USSBS does not specify the location of the "others."

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#875

Post by Richard Anderson » 12 Feb 2020, 00:43

Takao wrote:
12 Feb 2020, 00:07
Richard Anderson wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 17:20

To be specific, the Japanese were able to use the Tarakan crude in its natural state because of the specific properties of the Tarakan crude. It was sufficiently light that it could be burned in ship boilers without refining, but it was also sour - that is, it had a high sulfur content - which is what corroded the boiler tubes. It also contained large quantities of naphtha, which was the highly volatile element that doodmed Shokaku and Taiho.
Crude oil for the fleet was drawn from not only Tarakan, but Sanga Sanga & others, although the USSBS does not specify the location of the "others."
Yes, Iwas using Tarakan as shorthand. I believe the Sanga Sanga fields tapped crude with similar characteristics. The problem was the same properties that made the Indonesian crude burn straight from the ground were the same that made it so dangerous. The other problem is it is unlikely Romanian, German, Hungarian, or Austria crude had the same property.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#876

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 12 Feb 2020, 04:22

Takao wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 14:45
The only time I am aware that the Japanese used unrefined crude oil was for operation A-GO, when Japan did not have the necessary reserves to operate a large fleet over a long distance.

This is not an "option", but an act of desperation...Unrefined fuel will quickly corrode the associated piping and boilers, as well as, the impurities will also lead to clogging. As a one off, it may work without any harm, but prolonged use will require an extended refit period to replace the fuel lines & boilers.

Unrefined fuel that is particularly aromatic will be explosive, and was the direct cause for the losses of Shokaku & Taiho.
A few years ago I directed this question of unrefined fuel to a retired merchant marine engine room crewman. His response was "Thats insane" He went on to explain that burning low grade, badly refined, & otherwise inferior oil at best causes very inefficient steam generation & degraded speed. Clogged pipes & damaged burners were another better case. Andy (Mortensen) explained volatiles in the fuel are just one way these cause engine room fires. The flow is not consistent and surges can be very bad. He remarked how third rate operators running old and worn ships would burn bad fuel "f...ing" their boilers & turbines.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#877

Post by glenn239 » 12 Feb 2020, 19:40

Richard Anderson wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 03:46
No, the issue is that you cannot show that the decrease of KM reserves of Bunker C and diesel would be due to increased consumption of them on the Ostfront. Given that HFOs and diesel were not a major item of consumption by the Heer, you're going to have a difficult time showing how it would.
No, that's not the issue at hand. That Bunker C was not used in vehicles and aircraft on the Eastern Front is a given. The question is whether or not the Axis warships that used the ship fuel oil required it due to the properties of the boiler equipment itself, or whether this was the cheap stuff that was most useful to put in ships because the other refined products were more important. Rob is saying "can't", as in they couldn't use unrefined oil in warships. I've always assumed it was "won't", that oil could be used in warship boilers. But, in looking after Rob posted, the matter is hazy - he might be right.

If Rob is correct then any Axis strategy based on the capture of Gibraltar is going to suffer periods of fuel drought in which operations with heavy warships will be curtailed, or rendered altogether impossible for intermittent periods. This will significantly ease the RN's burden in the Atlantic. Synthetic would not be able to rectify the shortfall from what I've read. But, Soviet supply could, meaning that even if the Axis are short bunker fuel they could, since Barbarossa has never happened, barter with the Russians to obtain it.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#878

Post by glenn239 » 12 Feb 2020, 19:47

Rob Stuart wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 14:04


Diesel is not the issue since most of the ships we are discussing burned oil.
Then why did you include the figures for diesel fuel reserves in your post?
Because the information I was copy-pasting contained it.
Will you or will you not concede that you have no proof that the invasion of Russia had any direct impact on German naval fuel oil reserves?
So far I see no direct proof that the invasion of Russia effected the KM's fuel rations for warships.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#879

Post by glenn239 » 12 Feb 2020, 20:19

Rob Stuart wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 14:33

Well, it is necessary to recognize that in the absence of a German invasion of Russia in 1941 many post-June 1941 events might change. You cannot simply assume for the sake of simplicity that events in the Far East during the second half of 1941, which were profoundly effected by the invasion of Russia, would still happen exactly as they did historically.
Not for the purposes of providing a snapshot in time of what an actual scenario might have looked like. Trying to predict the exact world fleet disposition in December 1941 if Germany does not invade the USSR - do you like rabbit holes? Because you're proposing going down a lot of them if the point is to start guessing which rabbit hole the real world might have looked like!
I am making no such argument.
Yes, you are. You stated that Barbarossa had a knock on effect, that the lack of it would prevent Japan doing as it did historically. And historically, Japan brought the US into the war by attacking it. Therefore, you are arguing directly that no Barbarossa = US neutrality into 1942. I agree with you. It probably does mean exactly that. However, since the US neutrality patrols would be ever-expanding, for the purposes of this discussion I don't necessarily see US neutrality as meaning a freer hand for Axis Atlantic naval operations. In fact, with the US neutral it may well hinder them more, since battle with US forces must be avoided at all costs, (whereas if the US was at war it would be game on anywhere anytime).

Proposing that Hitler should have spent 1941 defeating the UK rather than attacking Russia is not unreasonable as a "what if" but suggesting that Franco would let the Axis powers attack Gibraltar through Spain and/or overtly base surface ships in his ports is highly questionable, and it is bordering on the completely loony to propose that Hitler would do these things without Franco's agreement...
We're discussing the scenario in which the Axis occupy Iberia. By "Iberia" meaning Spain but not Portugal. Spain could not stop this happening. Franco therefore either goes along with it, in which case Spain joins the war on the Axis side, or Franco opposes it, in which case Germany still occupies Spain and Franco either dies in a coup or is arrested by the German army or flees abroad and is arrested and faces war crimes for atrocities during the civil war. In any case, Germany occupies Spain, Gibraltar falls after some period of siege, and the discussion continutes.
or that the Italians would move the bulk of their surface navy to Spanish ports. And how in hell would a German occupation two more Western European countries, Spain and Portugal, make it more likely that the US would remain neutral???
After doing nothing while Germany invaded Belgium, France, Norway, all the democracies, it seems unlikely to me that the occupation of fascist Spain and its murderous war criminal regime would be the tipping point. The real question is whether the US would have gone to war with Germany before Germany and the Soviet Union were at war.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#880

Post by Richard Anderson » 12 Feb 2020, 22:19

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2020, 19:40
No, that's not the issue at hand. That Bunker C was not used in vehicles and aircraft on the Eastern Front is a given. The question is whether or not the Axis warships that used the ship fuel oil required it due to the properties of the boiler equipment itself, or whether this was the cheap stuff that was most useful to put in ships because the other refined products were more important. Rob is saying "can't", as in they couldn't use unrefined oil in warships. I've always assumed it was "won't", that oil could be used in warship boilers. But, in looking after Rob posted, the matter is hazy - he might be right.
Fundamentally it depends on the nature of the crude. If it is light and volatile "brown" crude then it can be used as an expedient bunker fuel as the Japanese did to their regret. However, I believe that most European crude the Germans had access to was "black" and required refining. The Germans have the further problem that their high-pressure steam turbines as used in so many KM ships were very temperamental operating with even the "safer" Bunker C. I doubt very much they would be willing to risk the Japanese experiment even assuming they had access to suitable crude.
If Rob is correct then any Axis strategy based on the capture of Gibraltar is going to suffer periods of fuel drought in which operations with heavy warships will be curtailed, or rendered altogether impossible for intermittent periods. This will significantly ease the RN's burden in the Atlantic. Synthetic would not be able to rectify the shortfall from what I've read. But, Soviet supply could, meaning that even if the Axis are short bunker fuel they could, since Barbarossa has never happened, barter with the Russians to obtain it.
Indeed, as I mentioned in another thread, synthetic was mostly sourced to the Luftwaffe since it could more easily generate higher-octane levels. Refined crude was used for bunker and other heating fuels, diesel, and gasoline production, along with the other usual products such as lubricating oils, kerosene, and the like.

Yes, the Germans did obtain crude from the USSR under the Pact and so likely could have continued receiving it, but it was never going to be in the quantities they needed given the output of the fields and the Soviet requirements for the same. In 1940, 620,000 tons of crude were shipped from the USSR to Germany...a drop in the bucket of the 29,414,000 tons produced, but it seems unlikely they would increase that.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#881

Post by Takao » 12 Feb 2020, 22:36

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2020, 19:40
Synthetic would not be able to rectify the shortfall from what I've read. But, Soviet supply could, meaning that even if the Axis are short bunker fuel they could, since Barbarossa has never happened, barter with the Russians to obtain it.
Probably not...Russia was not producing that much naval fuel herself.
In 1940, a total of 29,414 million tons of oil was processed at domestic refineries, producing only 883,600 tons of aviation gasoline, 3.477 million tons of automotive gasoline, 5.6 million tons of kerosene, 1.274 million tons of ligroin, 1.459 million tons of diesel fuel, 413,000 tons of naval oil, 9.8 million tons of fuel oil, and 1.469 million tons of various lubricants. Of the 883,600 tons of aviation gasoline produced domestically in 1940, an overwhelming proportion was avgas with low octane numbers of 70 to 74.
http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#882

Post by Rob Stuart » 13 Feb 2020, 01:09

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2020, 20:19
We're discussing the scenario in which the Axis occupy Iberia. By "Iberia" meaning Spain but not Portugal.
"Iberia" includes Portugal and Andorra, in addition to Spain. Using "Iberia" when you mean Spain is like using "Scandinavia" when you mean Sweden.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#883

Post by Rob Stuart » 13 Feb 2020, 16:00

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2020, 20:19
Rob Stuart wrote:
11 Feb 2020, 14:33
I am making no such argument.
Yes, you are. You stated that Barbarossa had a knock on effect, that the lack of it would prevent Japan doing as it did historically. And historically, Japan brought the US into the war by attacking it. Therefore, you are arguing directly that no Barbarossa = US neutrality into 1942. I agree with you. It probably does mean exactly that. However, since the US neutrality patrols would be ever-expanding, for the purposes of this discussion I don't necessarily see US neutrality as meaning a freer hand for Axis Atlantic naval operations. In fact, with the US neutral it may well hinder them more, since battle with US forces must be avoided at all costs, (whereas if the US was at war it would be game on anywhere anytime).
You are quoting me out of context here, because you do include the statement to which I was responding. I wrote "I am making no such argument" in response to your claim that:
glenn239 wrote:
10 Feb 2020, 21:31
If you are arguing the Germans should occupy Iberia and cancel Barbarossa to keep the Americans neutral into 1942 or beyond, then you are arguing for the German occupation of Iberia as a precondition for a vital strategic necessity - the neutrality of the USA. Correct? If so, good point.
I was making no argument about what the Germans should or should not have done. I was simply questioning your assumption that war between Japan and the US would have broken out as and when it did even if Germany did not attack the USSR in 1941.

And even if we assume that war with Japan would still break out as it did, it does not at all follow that the UK would still be in a position to send to the Far East the same reinforcements that it did historically. In your "what if" scenario you have the Axis navies and air forces putting a lot of additional pressure on the Royal Navy in 1941, in the Atlantic and the Med. Surely you're assuming that this will result in more RN ships being sunk or damaged - and not only large ships but also the destroyers needed to escort them. This would most likely mean that, for example, Prince of Wales, Repulse and Indomitable would not be sent to the Far East. Historically Churchill urged Roosevelt to take a hard line with the Japanese, but if the British are weaker in the Far East than they actually were then Churchill might very well have asked Roosevelt not to take any steps which would provoke the Japanese into going to war. If Roosevelt consequently did not freeze Japanese assets in July 1941 and cut off its oil imports, then the Japanese may have postponed their war until after Hitler invades Russia in 1942.

You wish to assume that Japan goes to war as it did because you want to limit the number of rabbit holes you go down. In fact, you've opened up a huge can of worms by proposing that Hitler invades Spain instead of Russia, and just because it suits you you cannot say that only the worms you want to talk about will get out of the can.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#884

Post by Takao » 14 Feb 2020, 19:11

Roosevelt taking a light- handed approach with Japan does nothing to ensure that the Japanese do not enter the war. The light-handed approach could easily be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the Western Allies - Britain cannot defend her territories, and the US will not/can not, and Japan moves South anyway.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#885

Post by glenn239 » 14 Feb 2020, 19:14

Rob Stuart wrote:
13 Feb 2020, 01:09
"Iberia" includes Portugal and Andorra, in addition to Spain. Using "Iberia" when you mean Spain is like using "Scandinavia" when you mean Sweden.
Taking Gibraltar and forcing Spain into the war had advantages for the Axis. Occupying Portugal would achieve nothing in addition to that, and would ensure the Allied occupation of the Azores. Not occupying a neutral Portugal looks like the more advantageous option - at least in 1940. After the US entered the war an the Azores were occupied, perhaps a different story.

Locked

Return to “What if”