Why was Germany short on oil?

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Post Reply
Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

#46

Post by Art » 31 Aug 2007, 12:41

Here is the table showin the sources of Germany's fuel supply in WWII from "Die Deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939-45", Berlin, 1954. The book was based on the research made in already in 1945.
Image
As far as I see the figures here are in most cases either close to those from tables 6 and 14 of USSBS or coincide with them. So either the international conspiracy for concealing the real statistics on German fuel balance existed or the data from the Bombing Survey should be taken as more or less reliable.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#47

Post by Jon G. » 01 Sep 2007, 05:24

Thanks a lot for those numbers, Art. They do seem to correlate reasonably well with USSBS figures if we consider that the USSBS does not take fuel oil and lubricants into account. Overall, though, the USSBS has slightly lower numbers than your source has. But the tendency is the same in both sources - namely German 'peak oil' in 1943.

Would you happen to have a yearly breakdown of Romanian oil deliveries to Germany? Most texts I've read dodge the subject - the USSBS quite deliberately so, because its Oil Industry Report's main focus is the air attacks' effect on the synthfuel industry. If we're looking for bias*, the USSBS authors may have had a certain interest in understating the figures for imported oil in order to make the strategic air campaign appear to have a greater effect than the case actually was.

*Which, of course, does not devalue the usefulness of the USSBS as a credible source as per my earlier post.


Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

#48

Post by Art » 01 Sep 2007, 12:55

Jon G. wrote:Thanks a lot for those numbers, Art. They do seem to correlate reasonably well with USSBS figures if we consider that the USSBS does not take fuel oil and lubricants into account.
The table 6 contains the domestic production of fuel oil and lubricating oil, but there is no data for imports and others. And it seems that what I translated as "gas fuel" is called "Liquefied Gases" in USSBS
Would you happen to have a yearly breakdown of Romanian oil deliveries to Germany?
Unfortunately, no, though I would be interested to them too. I can give some data on the Soviet oil exports to Germany. Between 11th February 1940 and 11th February 1941 722 thousands of oil products were delivered to Germany in accordance with the trade agreement of 11.02.40. Of them:
57,5 thousand tons of aviation gasoline
138 thousands - automotive gasoline
40 thousands - kerosine
273 thousands - petroleum gas oil
179 thousands - fuel oil
75 thousands - lubricating oil
The amount of oil products to be delivered according to the trade agreement amounted to 808 thousands, so the deliveries continued after 11.02.41 but I didn't find the precise figures. At least by 11th February the Soviet obaligations in regard to aviation and automotive gasoline were fullfilled almost comletely, so it's reasonable to assume that no additional amount of gasoline was delivered after February. And I think that gas oil can be rated as diesel fuel. According the the new trade agrrement concluded on 10th January 1941 the USSR had to deliver 982 thousands tons of oil products to Germany between 11.02.1941 and 11.08.1942 including 227 thous. tons of kerosine, 325 thous. tons of fuel oil, 325 thous tons of gas oil, 96,5 thous. tons of various lubricants and 8 thous tons of paraffin. It's intersting that the German side refused from further purchasing of gasoline. Between 11.02 and 22.06 185 424 tons of oil products were delivered
As some additional information in 1939 3160 tons of soviet oil products were exported to Germany in 1939 and 657 398 tons in 1940. Unfortunately, no figures for 1941.

Redbeard
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 01:10
Location: North America

Only Jon's sources allowed.

#49

Post by Redbeard » 02 Sep 2007, 04:20

Jon G.

I've not only provided the source and authorship and page number but actual quotes for the numbers/ratios and terms you dispute over and over again.
That's all I am required to do here to prove that I am not just making these things up.
If you want to attack where they get their numbers from, then I suggest you take it up with them instead.
I'm sure Professor Becker will be just as interested in being corrected by you.
The same with the Oxford Companion to World War II.
Otherwise you just come across as trying to hound anyone who disagrees with you.
Especially as a moderator, you are only making this forum look like a "use my sources only" club.
And if you wish to reject the USSBS and its findings altogether, you must make an effort to provide alternative figures, or show us where the USSBS was wrong. Do not reject it out of hand because you think it is biased with an idle reference to present-day matters. That is very non-conducive for the discussion.
What is your problem? Is the world really that black and white to you?
And no I don't have to go through everyone's data and say who I think is right and wrong.
All I have to do is prove that an authority like Becker(a respected authority on the issue) gave me this number and Oxford(a respected historical publication) is where I actually quote numbers for.

And how can I be rejecting the USSBS work altogether if my very source used cites it as top of its reference list?

In fact, the
"The Role of Synthetic Fuel
In World War II Germany"
implications for today?
Dr. Peter W. Becker
Just because someone like Becker doesn't agree with all the USSBS findings does not mean he reject them all.
So I quote an expert familiar with the USSBS that disagrees with you, big deal. It's not the end of the world.


If moderators here support hounding people who literally quote let alone cite historians and historical works, that disagree with those they like, then that is hardly the 'history not shared is lost' attitude offered.

Personally I don't care you feel that other historical analogies between periods are 'not conducive'.
If I say Asians today don't trust the Japanese because of the Greater East Asian conflict, I'm sure you aren't going to object.
Members here are making connections between other periods in history all the time, you only seem to feel it's wrong when it doesn't support your premise of USSBS as Gospel here.
Hold that thought. Where do you think the USSBS, or any other period source for that matter, gathered its data on eg. German oil production?
Oh for crying out loud. Take it up with Becker and the Oxford sources.That's why people quote and cite sources.
You have so far only provided us with a theory which speculates what might have happened if only Romania had given more oil to Germany.
Yeah, so?
Big deal. Sue me.
Members will often speculate about matters related to questions.
Someone here wrote Germany had no oil of its own.
Big deal. You aren't all over previous debatable comments.
The increased Romanian oil production which you're assuming is not borne out by the facts as the USSBS and other sources - League of Nations, Frey's article - which I've taken the time to post here present them. Disagree with the numbers if you like, but make an effort to provide alternative numbers.
Big friggin deal!
The % I used came from actual sources. Take it up with them.

I can't believe a moderator is going around telling members that it isn't enough that they use quotes from actual sources.
All you are doing is convincing me and my buds here, that this forum's moderators will hound out anyone who uses sources they don't agree with.

As I wrote, you'll just have to forgive me for using sources you don't agree with and accept that we disagree. I have.
I'm not even trying to defend Becker or Oxford as the end-all, just that I happened to use them on the issue.
But you obviously find that unforgiveable.

So PLEASE. Since their quoted % have upset you THAT much, go take it up with them.
I would be interested in seeing your sources for Rommel paying for gas at French gas stations during his 1940 advance across the Meuse to the Channel coast.
History Channel
Tanks
iirc, that British fellow with the moustache.
Ok, someone just told me his name was David Fletcher of the Royal Armoured Corps, Tank Museum Bovington...apparently it was on again just this week.

Man you are upset if you have to attack everything I say, even antecdotes.
I guess that's why you think if someone doesn't take the USSBS as gospel, they must be rejecting their work whole-heartedly.

I even quoted counter-points to my supposition that would make it difficult if practical at all. Even pointed out where we agree and even I have doubts about my own supposition, but to you, anything that isn't in total agreement with you is obviously unforgiveable.
Why, then, were German fuel stocks apparently smaller in the early war years than they were mid-war? Because the USSBS provides false figures?
What are you, the USSBS fairy-godmother or something? Is it your Bible?
Did you or a relative work on it yourself? You writing a book using it as your foundational source? (funny thing is, it is Becker's first listed source lol).

Have you been paying attention from the start of my reply here?

My whole point was that the Nazis were bad at running the German and Reich economy.

You seem so determined to argue with anything I write, you've even forgotten my original point.
And for crying out loud, get off your "my interpretation of the USSBS figures makes your Becker and Oxford liars", we get it already.
Go tell Becker you know better, and Oxford and their sources.

The only thing you've convinced me, (and from their passed criticism of forums, probably any friends I've invited to come take a gander at this forum) is that in this forum, a moderator will hound out anyone who uses sources they don't like.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Only Jon's sources allowed.

#50

Post by Jon G. » 02 Sep 2007, 09:42

Redbeard,

I am not 'hounding' you. I am simply disagreeing with you. You present an idea that Romania could have provided far more fuel to Germany if only she had wanted to, and further that all this extra fuel would have made a great difference to the German war effort.That idea is not supported by the facts as the USSBS presents them - in part because imports always constituted only a fraction of total German oil supply, in part because Germany historically had more oil mid-war than she did during the early war.

To wit:
Redbeard wrote:Jon G.

I've not only provided the source and authorship and page number but actual quotes for the numbers/ratios and terms you dispute over and over again.
That's all I am required to do here to prove that I am not just making these things up.
What you have provided is a mis-reading of numbers. Firstly by quoting only part of Becker, secondly by ignoring that the majority of Germany's fuel came from domestic synthfuel plants:
Redbeard wrote: [citing The Oxford WW2 Companion]...Oxford Companion to World War II
Page 890
"Ploesti, Romanian town situated north of Bucharest, which provided as much as 60% of Germany's crude oil supply (see also RAW MATERIALS); about 40 refineries, producing some 400,000 tons of refined petrol annually, were located there." ....(over 80% of Rumania's production was from Ploesti)...same paragraph, re: Aug 1, 1943 raid..."The raid destroyed 42% of Ploesti's total capacity, *but it had only been running at 60% capacity and within weeks was producing at a higher rate than before the raid...
That sounds grand. Just remember that only about 30% of Germany's oil came from imports.

In the same post, you also quote Becker:
...Even before the Russian prospects had come to naught, Romania had developed into Germany’s chief overland supplier of oil. From 2.8 million barrels in 1938, Romania’s exports to Germany increased to 13 million barrels by 1941,6 a level that was essentially maintained through 1942 and 1943.7 **Although the exports were almost half of Romania’s total production, they were considerably less than the Germans expected. There were other reasons as well why the Romanians failed to increase their shipments. Foremost among these was Germany’s inability to make all of its promised deliveries of coal and other products to Romania. Furthermore, although Romania was allied with Germany, the Romanians wished to husband their country’s most valuable resources...
In my reply to that post, I pointed out to you that what you call a 50% production loss in fact was a 50% refinery loss. I did that by quoting the part of Becker which you left out:
I wrote: [quoting from Becker]: Finally, the air raids on the Ploesti oil fields and refineries in August 1943 destroyed 50 percent of the Romanian refinery capacity...
In this context, the difference between refining capacity and production capacity is very important.
Redbeard wrote:If you want to attack where they get their numbers from, then I suggest you take it up with them instead.
I'm sure Professor Becker will be just as interested in being corrected by you.
The same with the Oxford Companion to World War II.
Otherwise you just come across as trying to hound anyone who disagrees with you.
Especially as a moderator, you are only making this forum look like a "use my sources only" club.
Really, Redbeard, if you can't tell disagreement from 'hounding', then I can't help you. My problem is not with Becker or the Oxford Companion. It is with your mis-interpretation of their data.
...And how can I be rejecting the USSBS work altogether if my very source used cites it as top of its reference list?
You do that by writing this:
Redbeard wrote:...As even he points out disagreement with, I don't trust the USSBS as a source either.
The USSBS is an American military organization...
It is intellectually dishonest by you when you claim to distrust the USSBS only when it is shown to falsify your theory. After all, when we refer to the USSBS (and also Art's more detailed numbers), it is evident that most of Germany's oil came from domestic synthfuel production.
Redbeard wrote:In fact, the
"The Role of Synthetic Fuel
In World War II Germany"
implications for today?
Dr. Peter W. Becker
Just because someone like Becker doesn't agree with all the USSBS findings does not mean he reject them all.
So I quote an expert familiar with the USSBS that disagrees with you, big deal. It's not the end of the world.
Where does Becker substantially disagree with the findings of the USSBS?

Yes, he writes that Romania only shipped about 50% of her oil production to Germany, but a) he sources that to to the minutes of an April 1943 Zentrale Planung meeting, b) he makes it clear that increased oil imports would mean higher coal and steel exports [to the detriment of synthfuel production], and c) given that Romania's oil production was declining already pre-war, how can we know if Romania also shipped just 50% of her total oil output also post April 1943?

In fact, considering the provenience of Becker's source, how can we know for sure if Romania exported just 50% of her oil to Germany in 1943? 24% of Germany's oil came from imports that year. What does that tell us about the other years, where imports covered ~30% on average of German oil needs?

For what it is worth, Germany achieved 'peak oil' in 1943 regardless.

Until September 1943 Romania was also serving Italy's oil needs, perhaps we can find an explanation why her oil exports to Germany weren't larger in April 1943 there?
...
Hold that thought. Where do you think the USSBS, or any other period source for that matter, gathered its data on eg. German oil production?
Oh for crying out loud. Take it up with Becker and the Oxford sources.That's why people quote and cite sources.
Your theory is only supported by your selective quoting of Becker and by your mis-reading of the Oxford WW2 Companion's excerpt about the Aug 1 1943 air raid on Ploesti. I am not 'hounding' you when I point that out.
You have so far only provided us with a theory which speculates what might have happened if only Romania had given more oil to Germany.
Yeah, so?
Big deal. Sue me.
Members will often speculate about matters related to questions.
Someone here wrote Germany had no oil of its own.
Big deal. You aren't all over previous debatable comments.
I'm simply disagreeing with your theory. I'm sorry you're taking that so personally. I do not think that your proposal that Romania could have provided so much more fuel to Germany stands up to closer scrutiny.
The increased Romanian oil production which you're assuming is not borne out by the facts as the USSBS and other sources - League of Nations, Frey's article - which I've taken the time to post here present them. Disagree with the numbers if you like, but make an effort to provide alternative numbers.
Big friggin deal!
The % I used came from actual sources. Take it up with them...
For what it is worth, Becker's article and the Oxford WW2 Companion are both secondary works, whereas the USSBS serves as source for our purposes, in the absence of actual, contemporary data on Romanian oil deliveries to Germany. What I am taking up with you is your erroneous reading of their data.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#51

Post by Jon G. » 03 Sep 2007, 09:16

In the interest of adding more data to this thread I have cribbed some numbers about Germany's fuel situation at selected times during the war from an article by W. G. Jensen entitled The Importance of Energy in the First and Second World Wars from the Historical Journal, vol. 11, no. 3.

First is a table showing Germany's oil inventory on the eve of war:
Image

Although Soviet deliveries - as per the numbers posted by Art (thanks, Art!) - helped, these are very slim oil stocks for a major war. As it turned out, the Germans had in fact overestimated their oil consumption. In part because the campaign in the west ended up being shorter than anticipated, but even the Luftwaffe's fuel use fell far below projections - from September 1939 to September 1940 the Luftwaffe used 860,000 tons of aviation gasoline, well short of the estimated 1.8 million tons.

The Germans hoped to catch up by increasing synthfuel production. That can also be read into the figures posted earlier - synthetic fuel production was increasing until 1943. This table shows total German oil production and consumption:

Image
The overwhelming majority of this fuel was synthetic - the few oil wells in Germany, Austria and Poland were used mainly for producing lubricants, for which there was no good synthetic substitute.

But even with a highly optimistic prognosis for how much synthfuel would eventually be produced, the Germans attacked the Soviet Union with a surprisingly small stocks of fuel reserved for the purpose:

Image
'Long vs. short war' discussions should take this into account. Projections based on 1940 consumption levels gave Germany a full year of fuel reserves, but as can be seen only a fraction of it was set aside for Barbarossa. And, as can be seen from the table further above, the Germans entered the war with too pessimistic assumptions on fuel use - only to make too optimistic calculations for 1941 fuel use, based on how much (or rather, how little) fuel they had used in 1940.

Most of Jensen's numbers are sourced to W. Birkenfeld: Der syntetische Triebstoff 1933-1945

Gothard
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: 09 May 2005, 01:45
Location: Tustin, California

#52

Post by Gothard » 06 Oct 2007, 04:58

The Ploesti Fields were fairly Unique. Remember that Germanies Fossil Fuel Needs declined dramatically as the war progressed. Romania was the shrewdest of all the Axis trading partners and the German balance sheet economy didnt fly well with Romania. As long as production was kept at a certain level the germans were forced to make do. Fossil Fuels were used for lubricants, diesel fuel and mixed to provide Aviation fuel. Alternative fuels were the mainstay of the german army and the Supply was maintained throughout the war at a fairly comfortable level. The major issue with fuel was transporting and stockpiling it. Hitler had a tendency to toss units to the 4 winds and this caused a breakdown in distribution. The loss of Ploesti coincided with the attacks on the viaducts, the loss of silesia and the isolation of the ruhr as well as the interdiction of the german canal system. By the time the Germans realised how desperately they needed the romanian oil it was way out of ewach and they desperately fighting to hold the last deposits in Hungary due to the breakdown of the Synthetic fuel industry.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#53

Post by Jon G. » 07 Oct 2007, 10:06

If we estimate that 95+% of German fossil fuels were imports, then 1941 - when Soviet imports were available for half the year - is the peak year for German fossil fuels as per Art's table above. If we consider that Soviet sources were cut off post-Barbarossa, the drop in fossil imports does not seem all that dramatic to me.

Synthfuel production ramped up as the war went on, of course, so fossil fuel took up a smaller percentage of overall German fuel production and use. But to me, that does not denote that German fossil fuel needs were decreasing, rather that the synthetic alternative took up the slack left by declining or stagnating imports from the rest of Europe. I'm fairly sure that if more fossil fuel could have been found in occupied Europe, the Wehrmacht's fuel consumption would have increased correspondingly.

Also, I was under the impression that the oil from tiny German oil and the slightly larger Austrian wells were used predominantly for making lubricants. Romanian oil was never available without political concessions, and pre-war foreign currency was an acute issue. Synthfuel, as I understand it, was primarily distributed to the Luftwaffe, save for a little high-octane fossile-based avgas, which was reserved for reconnaissance units.

Finally, the losses of Silesia and Romania weren't contemporary: Romania and her oil wells were lost to the German war effort in the late summer/autumn of 1944, whereas the Upper Silesian industrial area was only attacked by the Soviets in January 1945. The Germans hung on to parts of Silesia right up to the end.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

#54

Post by Art » 08 Oct 2007, 14:10

Rather incidently I came across the statistics on Romanian oil production and export in 1933-43
Year/Crude oil production(tons)/Oil products export(tons)/Incl. Germany(tons)/Percentage of export to Germany
1933/7377/5886/200/3,4%
1934/8446/6547/444/6,8%
1935/8376/6613/863/13,1%
1936/8704/6885/1072/15,6%
1937/7150/5668/435/7,7%
1938/6594/4495/704/15,7%
1939/6 226/4175/849/20,3%
1940/5738/3493/1147/32,8%
1941/5520/4072/2715/66,7%
1942/5624/3374/2164/64,1%
1943/5323/3159/2511/79,5%
Source: M.Meltykhov :The Bessarabian problem..." with references to G.Ravash "From the history of romanian oil", translated to Russian, Moscow,1958 and I. Karyatin "The Romainian oil industry...", Moscow,1961
Hope it will be useful.
Quite naturally the export ot Germany had grown rapidly after 1940, it's interesting, however, that this esport consumed less than a half of the total oil production.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#55

Post by Jon G. » 09 Oct 2007, 08:58

Art wrote:...Hope it will be useful.
Absolutely it is. Thanks (again!) for adding some highly useful numbers to this thread. I've never before seen Romanian oil exports to Germany specified except in the most general of terms.
Quite naturally the export ot Germany had grown rapidly after 1940, it's interesting, however, that this esport consumed less than a half of the total oil production.
Well, presumably the rest was set aside for domestic Romanian use? I find the percentages you quote interesting. Until June 1941 there was still some Soviet oil to be had for the Germans. I interpret the slightly higher (in absolute numbers and also in percent) fraction of oil exported to Germany in 1944 as a sign that Italy was no longer a Romanian oil customer post-September 1943.

Are Romanian oil exports to Italy mentioned in the book you quote from?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#56

Post by Jon G. » 25 Jan 2008, 11:03

As a rather belated addendum to this thread, here follows a table of Romanian oil exports 1938-1943 measured in barrels per day:

Code: Select all

 
               1938    1939    1940    1941    1942    1943

Germany       20,806  26,760  29,690  60,076  37,943  37,387

German army     -       -       -        715   7,693  14,903

Italy         11,670  13,104   7,121  15,859  17,859   8,149

Bulgaria       1,660   1,952   1,976   1,105     904     449

Greece         4,169   1,568   3,889     212     638     541

Switzerland    1,850   2,370   1,920   2,236   1,830   2,000

France         6,024   4,957   1,810     404   1,716     305

Turkey         1,116     633   3,087   1,206      30     266

Hungary        4,139   1,900     720     -       -       -

Others        34,223  25,884  18,907   2,610   1,200   1,246

Bunker fuel    7,004   5,573   3,014     323     299   1,176

...table cribbed from Robert Goralski & Russell W. Freeburg: Oil & War. How the Deadly Struggle fof Fuel in WWII Meant Victory or Defeat, p. 345

I'm a little puzzled why the table distinguishes betweeen oil for 'Germany' and 'German army'. Since the customer 'German army' is only evident from 1941 on, it could simpy mean oil delivered directly to the Ostheer without being channeled via Germany first? Post-1940 deliveries to France must mean Vichy. I interpret 'bunker fuel' as fuel for oil importers' tankers, although I am open to other suggestions.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#57

Post by Victor » 26 Jan 2008, 15:43

Regarding Romanian refining capacity in thePrahova valley area

Ploesti refineries:
Romano-Americana refinery: 1.25 million tones/year
Concordia-Vega refinery: 1.5 million tones/year
Standard-Petrol refinery and Unirea-Speranta refinery: 1.3 million tones/year
Astra Romana refinery: 2 million tones/year
Columbia-Aquila refinery: 0.3 million tones/year

Creditul Minier refinery at Brazi: 0.6 million tones/year of high octane aviation fuel

Steaua Romana refinery at Campina: 1.75 million tones/year (third largest in Europe)

Grand total: 8.7 million tones/year

Th entire refining capacity was far from being used entirely. After Tidal Wave, according to Romanian reports 40% of the threoretical cracking (?) capacity was lost, but in practice only 15% was actually lost. Also 45% of the distillation capacity was lost, but since only 50% was actually used, that left a 5% reserve. However, this was an overall situation. The Creditul Minieri Brazi refinery was totally knocked out. It was the most modern refinery at Ploesti and was able to produce high-octane aviation fuel. This was an important success as it did not recover.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#58

Post by Jon G. » 26 Jan 2008, 17:46

Thanks a lot for that information, Victor. The situation you outline with surplus refinery capacity obtained throughout occupied Europe, which had plenty of unused oil refinery space with most imports cut off. As I understand it, some Romanian oil was exported to Germany as unrefined crude.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#59

Post by Andreas » 26 Jan 2008, 22:05

German army is different for the reason you mentioned I should think. Probably handled under a separate agreement.

Bunker fuels are fuels for all kinds of shipping and (more important today obviously) aeroplanes.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
Bronsky
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: 11 Apr 2003, 10:28
Location: Paris

Re: Why was Germany short on oil?

#60

Post by Bronsky » 11 Jun 2008, 16:16

Art,

Looking up the very useful figures from the original table that you posted (drawn from the USSBS), there are adding errors. The "from stockpiles" total for 1940 is 42, not 242. Total imports for 1943 is 1,860 and not 1,862.

The good news is that these don't carry over to the "totals" section because it's drawn from the source figures and not the section subtotals, the bad news is that the "totals section" has its share of errors, too!

Here are some that I spotted for Part VI "Totals":
Motor fuel totals for 1942 and 1943 should be 2,202 and 2,399
Diesel fuel totals for 1940 and 1944 should be 1,355 and 1,356
Fuel oil totals for 1940 and 1942 should be 1,072 and 1,143

So the last section should look like this (with apologies for the formatting, and moderators are free to edit this post to make it look cleaner)

Year - 1940 - 1941 - 1942 - 1943 - 1944
VI. Totals - 6,089 - 8,120 - 7,725 - 9,088 - 5,788
Avgas - 965 - 1,260 - 1,492 - 1,990 - 1,044
Other motor fuel - 1,919 - 2,543 - 2,202 - 2,399 - 1,500
Motor gas - 225 - 275 - 321 - 390 - 210
diesel - 1,355 - 2,097 - 1,823 - 2,081 - 1,356
fuel oil - 1,072 - 1,244 - 1,143 - 1,294 - 972
lubricants - 553 - 701 - 744 - 934 - 706

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”