Tobruk

[Jon G.]

Argh. Remind me not to have the dial set to 'extra stupid' when replying to your posts.

I guess the 100 tons of avgas delivered by sailing ship somewhat qualifies the virtual blockade the Axis forces found themselves under in November-December 1941 - and also puts van Creveld's claim that the North African Luftwaffe was reduced to one sortie per day in December to rest.

It seems that standard issue tank fuel was in the high 70s octane range, so probably could have been used as tank fuel without any problems.

[Urmel]

The whole 'virtual blockade' nonsense is just another bit of rubbish originating with von Mellenthin (that book deserves to be banned, for the amount of misinformation and falsehood it contains).

Ships came through throughout the operation. At appalling cost in ships and men lost, and resource effectivenesss that makes your average American look downright frugal, but come through they did.

Van Creveld is right though - after the withdrawal from the Gazala position, at least for a few days, the GAF was reduced to 1 sortie per day. Increased distancce to target, falling back on less well stocked aerodromes, and loss of stocks on airfields overrun were the cause.

[Urmel]

Some info on B4 fuel:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=24915

[Jon G.]

Interesting stuff on fuel, thanks. Very nice to have it confirmed that B4 and C3 were indeed synthetic fuels. I've been looking for that information for a long while.

As I recall (and you shouldn't really trust me when I do, see above), the Ritterkreutz-chasing gentlemen of the JG27 had only recently traded in their C3-marked Bf 109 E-7s for B4-using Bf 109 F 4s.

Von Mellenthin probably had comfortable retirement days down in South Africa thanks to his book. I've seen it everywhere.

[Urmel]

That's correct. Two Staffeln were still moving back after conversion, and got stuck at Treviso due to weather.

[Urmel]

See [url=http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/20 ... ours-1941/]this link for a critical look at van Creveld's figures.

I have updated this entry to correct my view on van Creveld's numbers for Tripoli and Benghazi.

http://wp.me/phMWl-js

[Urmel]

regarding Tobruk van Creveld states it had 1,500 t/d theoretical capacity with realistic capacity of 600 t/d. Given the amount of sunk shipping in the harbour, that's probably realistic. The theoretical also appears realistic, compared to Benghazi, and Tripoli.

[Urmel]

Looking in Nowarra's book on the Ju52 there isn't too much detail about 1941 but there IS about 1942, when the LW was responsible for flying fuel from Benghazi forward to Derna - by way of Maleme on Crete!

On 21 jabuary 1942 General Rommel once again took the offensive on the North African front. Panzerguppe Afrika broke out of the Marada/Marsa-el-Brega position, overran the forces of the 10th British Corps near Agedabia and captured Benghazi on 28 january. The advance then continued in the direction of Derna, but came to a halt on 7 February near El-Gazala, west of Tobruk. The air transport units had been given the order to fly, with all serviceable Ju52s, aircraft fuel from benghazi to Matuba. From ther it was taken by 25 Ju52s twice daily via Crete to Derna. In effect, this was a waste of fuel. A Ju52 needed 2400 litres of fuel for the return flight from Maleme (Crete) to Tobruk and as much as 3200 for the trip to Benghazi. Since the fuel tanks of the planes were not sufficiently large for the return flight, part of the fuel brought to the new site had to be used for the return journey. This meant that only 2000 lites of fuel remained for the North Africa Corps after a flight to Tobruk, and only 1200 litres after a delivery to Benghazi. 6000 lites of fuel were needed to take 18 soldiers from Brindisi via Maleme to Tobruk, and 3800 litres for the trip from Athens to Tobruk. Since fighter portection for the Ju52s was rarely available, the planes had to rely on their own defence. This worked reasonably well until the beginning of May, since 2nd Fliegerkorps constantly attacked Malta and the British fighters there were kept busy. Meanwhile, KG zbV400 had arrived at Brindisi and flew personnel to Crete, who were then taken on to Derna.

Further to that, ULTRA intercepts caught the building up of a supply base in Crete. On 2 January they reported that 5 ships with 1,229 tons of Beer Four were in Suda. That was about 25 times the amount of B4 in the forward area in North Africa at the time!

[phylo_roadking]

The British acted covertly against the Crete end of the air bridge; there were IIRC at least two commando raids on airfields on the island. One of the raiding parties arrived with Billy Moss and the Kreipe kidnap party.

[Orwell1984]

The British acted covertly against the Crete end of the air bridge; there were IIRC at least two commando raids on airfields on the island. One of the raiding parties arrived with Billy Moss and the Kreipe kidnap party.

Some more details on British commando attacks on airfield in Crete:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Albumen

[waldzee]

Tobruk? Not sure, unless the British were in the business of supplying Jerry with fuel?

Crete is my guess.

B4 was the 87 octane. No idea if tanks ran on that, I am afraid. But delivery to Derna is a good indicator for use as Luftwaffe fuel at that point in time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can run vehicles on aviation fuel- its the other way around that leads to trouble.
Higher octane is just wasted octane in low octane vehicles

[phylo_roadking]

B4 was the 87 octane. No idea if tanks ran on that, I am afraid. But delivery to Derna is a good indicator for use as Luftwaffe fuel at that point in time.

Kinda rich for the Heer's tanks The Maybach HL120 TRM in the PzIV ran on 74 octane petrol, for example. Page 8 here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/88694462/Armo ... agen-IV-F2

You can run vehicles on aviation fuel- its the other way around that leads to trouble.
Higher octane is just wasted octane in low octane vehicles

Not necessarily See the long thread on the 21st Army Group's Austin K5 trucks in September 1944 And one on the P-38's engine problems in RAF service.

It depends very much on how the higher octane rating is achieved I.E. what blend of which anti-knock agents..and then what volatiles are put back in to restore full flammability after "diluting" it with TEL or whatever. Some are of course fine - but some are a hell's brew for internal combustion engines, leading to rapid wear and early failure.

[waldzee]

B4 was the 87 octane. No idea if tanks ran on that, I am afraid. But delivery to Derna is a good indicator for use as Luftwaffe fuel at that point in time.

Kinda rich for the Heer's tanks The Maybach HL120 TRM in the PzIV ran on 74 octane petrol, for example. Page 8 here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/88694462/Armo ... agen-IV-F2

You can run vehicles on aviation fuel- its the other way around that leads to trouble.
Higher octane is just wasted octane in low octane vehicles

Not necessarily See the long thread on the 21st Army Group's Austin K5 trucks in September 1944 And one on the P-38's engine problems in RAF service.

It depends very much on how the higher octane rating is achieved I.E. what blend of which anti-knock agents..and then what volatiles are put back in to restore full flammability after "diluting" it with TEL or whatever. Some are of course fine - but some are a hell's brew for internal combustion engines, leading to rapid wear and early failure.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I recall the thread ON THE austin engines- but do not agree with the conclusions.

refer to:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182132-1.html
I suspect slipping distributors, faulty points, etc- or carbon hot spots on poorly finished edges. Passed off as gas troubles

[Urmel]

Just an example, on 12-2-42 5 Ju 52 brought 14 tons B4 to North Africa from Crete, according to ULTRA. My guess is that this was net, and it shows (if the report is correct) that the Ju 52 could either be overloaded, or they siphoned fuel out of the aircraft tanks, since for a mission loaded from and return empty to Crete they didn't need full tanks, I would guess?

[phylo_roadking]

but do not agree with the conclusions.

I'm sure you do. However - those conclusions that HAVE been confirmed by Tom's exhausting trawl through Kew do stand.

I suspect slipping distributors, faulty points, etc- or carbon hot spots on poorly finished edges. Passed off as gas troubles

Which were/are strangely missing from ANY record or period comment at all on the K5 "issue". From anywhere by anyone.

"However, in general, detonation is a very rare event and is usually caused by fuel or ignition problems."

....in aircraft engines - which were a slightly different beast to the sort of engines fitted in softskin lorries!

Just an example, on 12-2-42 5 Ju 52 brought 14 tons B4 to North Africa from Crete, according to ULTRA. My guess is that this was net, and it shows (if the report is correct) that the Ju 52 could either be overloaded, or they siphoned fuel out of the aircraft tanks, since for a mission loaded from and return empty to Crete they didn't need full tanks, I would guess?

Where in North Africa???