Was Oil the Germans "Weakest Link"?

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
User avatar
Brian Von Stauffenberg
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:12
Location: UK

Was Oil the Germans "Weakest Link"?

#1

Post by Brian Von Stauffenberg » 03 Apr 2002, 21:40

I have just found some interesting production figures for production of Steel, Coal and Oil by the Germans and Russians from 1941-1945.
Figures in Millions of Tons.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

Coal
Germany 246 258 269 281 -
Russia 151 75 93 121 149

Steel
Germany 31 32 35 35 -
Ruassia 18 8 10 12 12

Oil
Germany 6 7 - - -
Russia 33 22 18 18 19

If im not wrong the Germans used the coal to produce synthetic oil, but what the heck did they do with the rest of all that coal?

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Was Oil the Germans "Weakest Link"?

#2

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 03 Apr 2002, 22:12

Brian Von Stauffenberg wrote:I have just found some interesting production figures for production of Steel, Coal and Oil by the Germans and Russians from 1941-1945.
Figures in Millions of Tons.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

Coal
Germany 246 258 269 281 -
Russia 151 75 93 121 149

Steel
Germany 31 32 35 35 -
Ruassia 18 8 10 12 12

Oil
Germany 6 7 - - -
Russia 33 22 18 18 19

If im not wrong the Germans used the coal to produce synthetic oil, but what the heck did they do with the rest of all that coal?
Can you cite the sourse of the data? Coal used in metalurgy. According to your links Germany overproduced USSR in steel. That kind of production consumes huge ammounst of high qualty coal.


User avatar
MICHAELM82
Member
Posts: 287
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 05:53
Location: California

#3

Post by MICHAELM82 » 03 Apr 2002, 22:19

Hi,
I dont think oil was the weakness, take the Ardennes Offensive they had it but couldnt get to it!
Mike

User avatar
Matt Gibbs
Member
Posts: 3005
Joined: 23 Mar 2002, 01:46
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

In a way

#4

Post by Matt Gibbs » 03 Apr 2002, 22:46

Getting the oil into useable fuel was the problem for Germany with all the bombing. I recall reading somewhere that Germany was running petrol vehicles on virtually totally synthetic fuel towards the end of the war and the US troops were discouraged form using captured fuel supplies because in caused havoc with the engines - being poor quality. I am sure huge quantities of coal produced were used in the steel and electrical generating industries.
Regards

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

#5

Post by Ovidius » 03 Apr 2002, 23:13

I'll have to go a little Off-Topic here... :oops:

Ever since he first came on the old forum, oleg has babbled endlessly about the industrial capacity of the USSR, claiming that it could win the war against Germany without Lend-Lease.

Well, it seems that in spite of the fact that the former USSR had the richest high-grade coal and iron ore resources of the planet, not even in their "top year" of the war(1944) could they overproduce Germany in terms of the two basic raw materials for any weapons industry and energy production: coal and steel. The same year, with all bombings, the steel production in Germany was almost three times bigger than in the entire USSR.

Therefore, the massive imports via Lend-Lease of steel rails and other basic but vital steel products were a vital relief for the Soviet steel production, allowing the available steel to be used for more sophisticated products(tanks, guns etc). The same for the railroad rolling stock(about 80 locomotives built in the USSR and 1,100 of them brought in from the USA.

Also, the German superiority in coal production meant automatically an advantage in energy production, since hydroelectricity was less used prior to WWII due to huge costs of the dam building.

Not to mention here the German advantage in terms of industrial capacity(although plagued by sabotages and resistance movements from France to Poland and from Denmark to Italy), high technology etc.

You see, USSR needed two things: Lend-Lease, to free her strained industry(what could be saved and rebuilt behind the Urals) for war production, and a threat that would keep part of the German troops and equipment busy in other place. The Americans had provided the first, the Brits the second(North Africa). Ivan had only to fire his PPSh-41 and eat his American canned beef, unlike the Germans who were endlessly pushed from all sides(ground, sea, air).

~Regards,

Ovidius

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#6

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 03 Apr 2002, 23:35

Ovidius wrote:I'll have to go a little Off-Topic here... :oops:

Ever since he first came on the old forum, oleg has babbled endlessly about the industrial capacity of the USSR, claiming that it could win the war against Germany without Lend-Lease.

Well, it seems that in spite of the fact that the former USSR had the richest high-grade coal and iron ore resources of the planet, not even in their "top year" of the war(1944) could they overproduce Germany in terms of the two basic raw materials for any weapons industry and energy production: coal and steel. The same year, with all bombings, the steel production in Germany was almost three times bigger than in the entire USSR.

Therefore, the massive imports via Lend-Lease of steel rails and other basic but vital steel products were a vital relief for the Soviet steel production, allowing the available steel to be used for more sophisticated products(tanks, guns etc). The same for the railroad rolling stock(about 80 locomotives built in the USSR and 1,100 of them brought in from the USA.

Also, the German superiority in coal production meant automatically an advantage in energy production, since hydroelectricity was less used prior to WWII due to huge costs of the dam building.

Not to mention here the German advantage in terms of industrial capacity(although plagued by sabotages and resistance movements from France to Poland and from Denmark to Italy), high technology etc.

You see, USSR needed two things: Lend-Lease, to free her strained industry(what could be saved and rebuilt behind the Urals) for war production, and a threat that would keep part of the German troops and equipment busy in other place. The Americans had provided the first, the Brits the second(North Africa). Ivan had only to fire his PPSh-41 and eat his American canned beef, unlike the Germans who were endlessly pushed from all sides(ground, sea, air).

~Regards,

Ovidius
Ovidious in 1944 which acidently was the higest year for LL delivery it amounted to 12% of Sovie Wra production, This is the number from British research now I would like you to prove that USSR would die in 19441 without that 12 percent – with you being an economist and all. Also USSR relied on oil for energy production – not on coal.


Here is the yearly tonnage of LL to the SU.

in 000s tons.

1941 -- 404
1942 -- 2,747
1943 -- 5,370
1944 -- 6,964
1945 -- 4,115

van Tuyll, "Feeding the Bear", quoting Seaton, "Russo-German War"

2 million tons were lost in transit

1 million tons were still en route as of 20.9.45

Notice years '41 to '43 total (8,521) and '44 and '45 (11,079)
Last edited by Oleg Grigoryev on 04 Apr 2002, 00:38, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Brian Von Stauffenberg
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:12
Location: UK

The source of my Information

#7

Post by Brian Von Stauffenberg » 03 Apr 2002, 23:37

Ostfront"Hitlers war on Russia 1941-45" by Charles Winchester, Osprey Publishing.

User avatar
Arpad88
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 12:59

Hmm the defeat of the Reich?

#8

Post by Arpad88 » 04 Apr 2002, 07:05

Hmm

Well I have 5 major premises that led to eventual defeat of the Reich-

1. Oil
2. Enigma/Espionage
3. The USA!
4. Manpower
5. Treatment of 'comraden'

Firstly oil was oil that drove them 'eventually' to a standstill. Though one must remember the Ardennes battle was simply lost to massive American/British airpower - Christmas Bombing Raid on the Frontline was the biggest in the war. Little wonder the Germans were hard pressed to keep their new land acquisitions. If the weather continued to be horrid I do not see why a determined Wermacht could not have made it to Antwerp?! True though by 45 oil was worth more than gold to them, so to speak and most of the gas guzzling tigers could not mention to far from home turf without running out of gas!

As for the Luftwaffe and their chronic training shortages lack of gas made it even worse! My grandfather remembers boys (some as young as 14) in Austria receiving basic/advanced flight training in gliders as their was little gas to power prop planes! Little wonder the USAAF and RAF chalked up a enormous amount of kills against such pilots!

In my humble opinion though the Enigma was the Reich greatest Achilles heel. The enigma might have a few trillion combinations but human error/poor security led to its downfall. It was derived from a American version and adapted originally and with the lax Luftwaffe (also some Wermacht com units) made it somewhat easy for British SIGINT to have a field day.

The Reich very nieve in thinking it could not be broken, thus giving the British the news of the day (pretty much every day) reguarding whats going on in Hitlers Fortress Europe. Even with the added new 'cog'
the British SIGINT soon found the key after a German officer sent a repeat code twice. Knowing how the Germans 'acted' largely shortered the war for the allies for I think by 3 years atleast. In my opinion without Enigma Britain would have been caput in 1940 without any advanced warning of raids even with radar. The war may have ended by late 1943. Though this is only speculation but.

The British secret service at the time ran rings around the SS and Abwehr . The SS and their 'blonde cowboys' stood out like purple elephants in a Mardi Gras and were easily found in Britain and elsewhere. The Abwehr had their greatest success though, even for them they were still squabbling with the SS, not to mention their leader was a traitor to the Reich. The British are belived to have (some of these details are secret to this very day as they are held by M15?) infiltrated right up to Reich high command. Abwehr only had good SIGINT but was quickly compromised by Enigma.

Perhaps if Hitler and Mussolini had not been as foolish in 41 to declare war on America things may have turned out allot differently. True Americas Military force(manpower) was powerful to a extent it was its knockout punch in was miltary ams production;where it dwalfed German production greatly. As they were not repayed by Japan for decalring war on America (ie Japan starts a second front in Siberia) there was little hope Germany could get some breathing space from Russia and her hordes of soldiers with 'Dutch Courage' so my Grandfather said so often. Though not to be understated the Russian was a ferocious and cunning soldier (perhaps due to their Viking and in Siberia Mongol blood). With Russia arms production safetly tucked away over in the Urals little wonder Germany was fighting a war of attrition it simply could not win.

In 1939 Germany had a Army which was the most powerful in Europe (to and extent) by April 1945 even Albania had a bigger 'official' army! Numerous military blunders by high command (including Der Furer) led to the needless sacrifice of Hundreds of Thousands of Wermacht and Axis soldiers lives. Constant squabbling over who 'gets to call the shots' and petty power play only made it worse. Much like King Hitler and his feuding nobles as an analogy. Training originally the finest gradually wore down to less than a week in the Wermacht, 1 month from the end. With less trained man to fight wars on more than 3 major fronts its little wonder that the heroic struggle was doomed to failure.

When my father finished his Tour in the Ukraine in late Jan 44, then posted back to his home in Hungary (later scattered remenants of he and his unit made it to Austria by wars end) he was astounded as to how the locals had been treated. They were all Arayans yet the High Command (not realising the resouce until too late) and the SS/Gestapo treated them like sub humans. Strange how Sweeden colonised modern Russia in around 1000AD, Hitler did not read much history books I spose. They hated the Commies and longed to be free, yet they treated as a conquered people seemingly with no where to go.

I belive if Hitler had realised in the Baltics he could raise maybe 2/5 armies (up to 5+ million troops) under Ukrainian/Baltic nationalists and turned them against the hated Bolsheivics it could also have given Germany a extra trick in the somewhat rigged game of roulette in the Russian Front. Really strange how later in the war Hitler had formed some 'legionairre' Wafen SS units willy nilly most of whom were not even Arayan.

well thats my 2c worth.

Cheers
Karl

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#9

Post by Logan Hartke » 04 Apr 2002, 07:42

Lend-Lease

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/973.php

http://members.aol.com/althist2/aug00/makeah.htm

I found the first link the most interesting and te best of them as far as figures go. On the third link, you have to scroll down a bit to find the part about LL.

Respectfully,
Logan Hartke

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#10

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 04 Apr 2002, 08:49

Logan Hartke wrote:Lend-Lease

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/973.php

http://members.aol.com/althist2/aug00/makeah.htm

I found the first link the most interesting and te best of them as far as figures go. On the third link, you have to scroll down a bit to find the part about LL.

Respectfully,
Logan Hartke
Link # 1 is faithfully copied data from Sokolov – the same guy who after some calculations estimated German loses at Prokhorka at 3 tanks. Link number two claims that USSR received 700000 trucks while real number was about 450 thousands. Ina any occasions no source takes into the consideration Soviet pre-war stocks.

User avatar
Brian Von Stauffenberg
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:12
Location: UK

Oleg

#11

Post by Brian Von Stauffenberg » 04 Apr 2002, 10:41

Oleg, what are your sources for the Data on the Trucks and the Tank Losses?

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Oleg

#12

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 04 Apr 2002, 22:37

Brian Von Stauffenberg wrote:Oleg, what are your sources for the Data on the Trucks and the Tank Losses?
I use Glantz as source on German tank loses. My data on trucks comes form recent Russian research, which used vehicles registrations as a base for its calculations.

User avatar
Brian Von Stauffenberg
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:12
Location: UK

In My opinion

#13

Post by Brian Von Stauffenberg » 04 Apr 2002, 22:46

What i have read from many sources is that the Russians didnt have effective motorised Divisions until they recieved American Trucks and armour, these deliveries coincidentally coincided with Bagration offensive and allowed the Soviets to use the Blitzkrieg tactics that had been succesfull for the Germans earlier in the war.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: In My opinion

#14

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 04 Apr 2002, 23:24

Brian Von Stauffenberg wrote:What i have read from many sources is that the Russians didnt have effective motorised Divisions until they recieved American Trucks and armour, these deliveries coincidentally coincided with Bagration offensive and allowed the Soviets to use the Blitzkrieg tactics that had been succesfull for the Germans earlier in the war.
Brian if you check figures for American you would see that its deliveries of American armor were insignificant than compared to Soviet production. In regards to trucks - Here's the ratio of LL trucks (not even based on Krivosheev, simply strength reports of the Red Army):

6.22.41 - 0%
1.1.42 - 0%
1.1.43 - 5.4%
1.1.44 - 19.0%
1.1.45 - 30.4%
5.1.45 - 32.8%

So by 1944 (Bagration) they amounted to 30% of Soviet park; no doubt that helped but I don’t see it as critical – that is making difference between winning and loosing (Soviet infantry used tanks to ride into the battle if you recall). When the Red Army went over to the offensive, it retook the territory lost in 1 year -- July '43 to July '44. The fact that the German momentum was REVERSED as early as November '41 and again November '42 clearly demonstrates that Germans were overmatched. If the adversaries were equal, then the side with the offensive momentum would have the advantage. Soviet operations without LL would be more limited in scope but they still would be there.
As Glantz has an opinion that without LL it would take Soviet Army additional 12 to 18 months to finnish the war if it was left to its own devices – it seems to be reasonable estimate. That said I do believe that LL was extremely useful to USSR – it saved great many Soviet lives .

User avatar
Brian Von Stauffenberg
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:12
Location: UK

Good Point

#15

Post by Brian Von Stauffenberg » 05 Apr 2002, 18:10

Good point well made Oleg, IMHO the major factor in the decisive gains of 43/44 were due to the superior no`s of men the Soviets had mobolised by this time(and women), of course many of these people had seen the Barbarity of German occupation and this increased the number of dedicated and willing soldiers the Soviets could recruit, the fact that they were more able to send these people to the combat zones with increased mobility (partly due to LL) merely speeded up their gains and helped them use Blitzkrieg, my opinion is that even if this level of transport was not available they would still have suceeded but it would have taken longer and cost more lives. :wink:

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”