More European oil fields discovered before WW2

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

From OP:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm
Still, between 1938 and 1943, synthetic fuel output underwent a respectable growth from 10 million barrels to 36 million. The percentage of synthetic fuels compared to the yield from all sources grew from 22 percent to more than 50 percent by 1943. The total oil supplies available from all sources for the same period rose from 45 million barrels in 1938 to 71 million barrels in 1943.27
Matzen alone would cover that gap if the May 1941 study claimed the military needed 87 million barrels a year to cover military needs. However that was with the expansion of the synthetic oil industry from 1938-43. With Schoonebeek, Matzen, and part of the Hungarian output, plus maybe some more from Romania if given the requested coal there would likely still need to be some expansion of synthetic oil output, but it would be fine with the expansion to 1943. So the historic investments up to then would probably still have to happen, but then needs with be met by all sources until bombing in 1944 wrecked them.

However that then prevents the Caucasus campaign as conducted IOTL; the original plan to seize and secure Stalingrad first if the attack is even launch at all would stay the plan, rather than revising it to take the oil as quickly as possible. Don't split AG-south until Stalingrad falls and only advance to Maykop in 1942 IF that was even part of the plan ITTL with oil resources being secured. If its not the plan then perhaps Stalingrad is the halt line.
USA-EF-Decision-26.jpg


Instead this happened IOTL:

blau.jpg
 

Deleted member 1487

What happens then if AG-South rushes for Stalingrad in 1942, secures it in August like shown in the first map in the plan above, and either sits still or just advances to Maykop and focuses on taking Tuapse and Novorossiysk for the winter, instead of rushing for Grozny?
 

Angrybird

Banned
What happens then if AG-South rushes for Stalingrad in 1942, secures it in August like shown in the first map in the plan above, and either sits still or just advances to Maykop and focuses on taking Tuapse and Novorossiysk for the winter, instead of rushing for Grozny?

Destroy the Soviet oil fields through bombing?

The Caucasus supplied between 75 and 85% of Russian Oil - if the Germans can manage to cut supply of oil from the south to the north - then Russian industry and the Army as well would be in big trouble by the middle of 1943.

In this TL German units in the south would not be overextended as OTL - so it is resonalbe to assume that Uranus would be repelled just as Mars was historically.
 

Deleted member 1487

Destroy the Soviet oil fields through bombing?

The Caucasus supplied between 75 and 85% of Russian Oil - if the Germans can manage to cut supply of oil from the south to the north - then Russian industry and the Army as well would be in big trouble by the middle of 1943.

In this TL German units in the south would not be overextended as OTL - so it is resonalbe to assume that Uranus would be repelled just as Mars was historically.
Probably once they opt not to go for oil in 1942 (or at least Baku) and Stalingrad falls. When they see that they couldn't take Maykop intact and they couldn't go south due to the late season, plus troops around Stalingrad aren't bogged down fighting in the city they can hold the flanks, while being able to call back troops near Maykop if that was the objective for 1942 much more easily than troops worn down going after Baku.

Not sure if the Soviets would be that crushed if Stalingrad falls and Caucasian oil is badly damaged, they had a lot of production, more in total than Germany would have ITTL, outside of the Caucasus even if it was only 30% of their total output.
 
oh look, another lets make the Germans better thread

why no mention of possible increased UK oil/gas exploration in the Irish Sea and west of the Shetlands? - perhaps the British realise they have a vulnerability by shipping everything via tanker from the US, caribbean and Middle East

or does that not fit the narrative?
 

Deleted member 1487

oh look, another lets make the Germans better thread

why no mention of possible increased UK oil/gas exploration in the Irish Sea and west of the Shetlands? - perhaps the British realise they have a vulnerability by shipping everything via tanker from the US, caribbean and Middle East

or does that not fit the narrative?
Oh look another post about how the Allies immediately have an equal or greater counter to anything that helps the Axis that has no bearing on the point of the thread. And seriously where is the 1980s technology going to come from to exploit sea floor deposits of oil or gas? And why does the POD have any effect on British policy toward their own energy?
 
Reading the US monograph on German planning for the war in the East from 1940-42 Case Blue was pretty much exclusively about seizing oil for fighting the US and British. They pretty much assumed the Soviets were beaten and any subsidiary effects of the Volga traffic being interrupted was gravy. Perhaps Stalingrad becomes the focus then of interrupting Volga traffic and AG-South doesn't split at all.

Not sure where, but apparently their bottleneck of supply was coking coal, not iron ore, specially when the captured Ukraine as there was a huge mining area west of the Dniepr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue#The_oilfields

Case blue was divided into 4 phases, the 4th and obviously last phase of grabbing the oilfields was only indicated and hinged upon the completion of the other 3 phases, which were planned in detail, namely 1) a pincer attack and the capture of the city voronesh, 2) aforementioned forces proceed south along the don and encircle with yet another attack from the area of charkov in another pincer attack large soviet formations. 3) the southern wing of the army group pushes east towards the volga with the objective to capture or at least establish a position near stalingrad so artillery could shell and cut off the volga traffic!
 

Deleted member 1487

Case blue was divided into 4 phases, the 4th and obviously last phase of grabbing the oilfields was only indicated and hinged upon the completion of the other 3 phases, which were planned in detail, namely 1) a pincer attack and the capture of the city voronesh, 2) aforementioned forces proceed south along the don and encircle with yet another attack from the area of charkov in another pincer attack large soviet formations. 3) the southern wing of the army group pushes east towards the volga with the objective to capture or at least establish a position near stalingrad so artillery could shell and cut off the volga traffic!

Yet during Case Blue #3 was jettisoned and the Volga not cut off first; instead the rush south of the Don was prioritized over #3 being completed first. So #4 and #3 ended up being failures, as they ran out of sequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue#Opening_phase
Splitting of Army Group South

Believing that the main Soviet threat had been eliminated, desperately short of oil and needing to meet all the ambitious objectives of Case Blue, Hitler made a series of changes to the plan in Führer Directive No. 45:

There is no evidence Hitler was opposed by, or received complaints from Franz Halder, the Chief of the General Staff, or anyone else, about the directive until August 1942. The new directive created enormous logistical difficulties with Hitler expecting both Army Groups to advance along different logistics routes. Logistics lines were already at breaking point with ammunition and fuel shortages most apparent, and it would be impossible to advance using the present conservative supply rates he demanded. The divergence of the two Army Groups would also open a dangerous gap between the armies, which could be exploited by the enemy. Moreover, no effective deployment of tactical resources was made in light of the task at hand. Inexplicably the Italian Alpine Corps, of the Italian Army in the Soviet Union, did not arrive in the Caucasus Mountains with Army Group A, instead remaining with Paulus' Sixth Army. Army Group A was therefore expected to operate in mountain terrain with only three mountain divisions and two infantry divisions unsuited to the task.[31]


The splitting of Army Group South enabled the launching of Operation Edelweiss and Operation Fischreiher, the two main thrusts of the army groups. Both groups now had to strive for their goals simultaneously, instead of achieving them consecutively on a phased basis.[27] The success of the initial advance was such that Hitler ordered Fourth Panzer Army south to assist First Panzer Army in forcing a crossing of the lower Don River.[32] This assistance was not needed, and Kleist later complained that 4th Panzer Army's vehicles clogged the roads, and that if they had carried on toward Stalingrad they could have taken it in July. When it turned north again two weeks later the Soviets had gathered enough forces together at Stalingrad to check its advance.[33]

If Stalingrad had been focused on and achieved first, either in late July or early August, then the proper forces could have turned south. ITTL if Case Blue as conceived of IOTL had TTL's oil resources behind it not causing a desperate move like splitting AG-South early and upsetting the plan, then both could be achieved in turn if part 4 was to stop at Maykop and focus on opening up the Black Sea ports nearby. With all of the Axis Mountain troops then deployed in that mission, including all the Axis allies, that would leave the best troops to guard the flanks and allow the Romanians and Italians to be focused on the far less intense Caucasian front with some German support in holding the oilfield at Maykop; all mountain troops would then focus on the nearby ports, Tuapse and Novorossiysk:
BlackSeaMap.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet during Case Blue #3 was jettisoned and the Volga not cut off first; instead the rush south of the Don was prioritized over #3 being completed first. So #4 and #3 ended up being failures, as they ran out of sequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue#Opening_phase


If Stalingrad had been focused on and achieved first, either in late July or early August, then the proper forces could have turned south. ITTL if Case Blue as conceived of IOTL had TTL's oil resources behind it not causing a desperate move like splitting AG-South early and upsetting the plan, then both could be achieved in turn if part 4 was to stop at Maykop and focus on opening up the Black Sea ports nearby. With all of the Axis Mountain troops then deployed in that mission, including all the Axis allies, that would leave the best troops to guard the flanks and allow the Romanians and Italians to be focused on the far less intense Caucasian front with some German support in holding the oilfield at Maykop; all mountain troops would then focus on the nearby ports, Tuapse and Novorossiysk:
BlackSeaMap.gif

Well, thanks for reinforcing my point that
"Stalingrad would still have happened, maybe with a little less reckless splitting of army group south into A and B and rushing towards the caucasus. Remember Hitler didnt just want to grab the oil in the south, he wanted to cut off the rest of russia from the supply line that is the volga.

Stalingrad."

With the oil pressure relieved in your what if, there is no need to hectically change the plan. Stalingrad was still the best area of cutting the volga traffic and would have been proceeded with, as it was a vital goal, not just gravy :)
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not 100% that Stalingrad would still happen without the need to rush for oil, I'm just saying that IF it did happen they would be much more conservative and cautious then they were IOTL without the need for that oil immediately. Of course we could argue that with all that oil available in 1941 Germany might not opt to attack the USSR until it had defeated Britain...or it might have gone ahead anyway.

The question is that if Stalingrad fell in late July/early August and Maykop was seized and Baku/other oil sources bombed in the Caucasus, what happens then? Assuming the flank attacks are beaten off because the Romanians and Italians are used in the Caucasus, not holding the flanks as IOTL, and the Black Sea ports are taken over the winter with the Axis forces basically stopping to defend Maykop instead of advancing, what happens in 1943 without the massive deficit in manpower? I'm assuming the Italians and Romanians are the primary force in the Caucasus for the campaign, especially once Uranus is attempted and all Panzers are pulled back to shore up the flanks.

Without the losses in manpower and equipment, plus the ability to use the ports on the Black Sea opposite Maykop, allowing supplies to be shipped in from Romania while increasing amounts of oil are pulled out of newly drilled pumps, can the still overstretched Axis forces hold out much beyond the OTL withdrawals in 1943 from the area? Even if Uranus fails the attacks on the Hungarians at Voronezh are still going to cause a lot of damage, even if Manstein is sent to help them instead of Stalingrad, while Tunisia is still going to be a massive defeat...as will Sicily and the grinding Italian campaign. Eventually the Germans are going to have to pull back even if the inevitable is delayed a few months. The Soviets had the numbers to try again and even with the manpower and equipment savings the Axis is not going to be able to hold; the question is whether Hitler gets it and pulls back before disaster happens; without oil shortages in 1943 though he won't have as much of a reason to try and hold the Volga.

If he does pull back in time and fuel isn't an issue training schools for the Luftwaffe aren't going to be devastate as badly over the winter of 1942-43 and there will be plenty of fuel to churn out new pilots. The synthetic fuel program expansion is over by 1943, so there is extra materials not use there to use for armaments, but the RAF does smash up the Ruhr in the Spring-Summer as per OTL, plus Hamburg. Even without Kursk and the wild collapse of Ukraine due to no Stalingrad, plus a less bloodied LW that can get enough well trained replacements, things are still going pretty bad in 1943, even if they Soviets end the year further east, more bloodied, and the Axis less so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
oh look, another lets make the Germans better thread

why no mention of possible increased UK oil/gas exploration in the Irish Sea and west of the Shetlands? - perhaps the British realise they have a vulnerability by shipping everything via tanker from the US, caribbean and Middle East

or does that not fit the narrative?

Good luck on exploration and exploitation in these areas in the 30's....even if you have an idea there may be something there.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not if the Luftwaffe shoots the B-29s down. I don't know if the Luftwaffe had a figher with the performance to do it, but it would not be kept on the ground for lack of oil.
Depends on whether they have any pilots left after 1944 and the bombing campaign start to wreck the oil industry.
 

Angrybird

Banned
I'm not 100% that Stalingrad would still happen without the need to rush for oil, I'm just saying that IF it did happen they would be much more conservative and cautious then they were IOTL without the need for that oil immediately. Of course we could argue that with all that oil available in 1941 Germany might not opt to attack the USSR until it had defeated Britain...or it might have gone ahead anyway.

The question is that if Stalingrad fell in late July/early August and Maykop was seized and Baku/other oil sources bombed in the Caucasus, what happens then? Assuming the flank attacks are beaten off because the Romanians and Italians are used in the Caucasus, not holding the flanks as IOTL, and the Black Sea ports are taken over the winter with the Axis forces basically stopping to defend Maykop instead of advancing, what happens in 1943 without the massive deficit in manpower? I'm assuming the Italians and Romanians are the primary force in the Caucasus for the campaign, especially once Uranus is attempted and all Panzers are pulled back to shore up the flanks.

Without the losses in manpower and equipment, plus the ability to use the ports on the Black Sea opposite Maykop, allowing supplies to be shipped in from Romania while increasing amounts of oil are pulled out of newly drilled pumps, can the still overstretched Axis forces hold out much beyond the OTL withdrawals in 1943 from the area? Even if Uranus fails the attacks on the Hungarians at Voronezh are still going to cause a lot of damage, even if Manstein is sent to help them instead of Stalingrad, while Tunisia is still going to be a massive defeat...as will Sicily and the grinding Italian campaign. Eventually the Germans are going to have to pull back even if the inevitable is delayed a few months. The Soviets had the numbers to try again and even with the manpower and equipment savings the Axis is not going to be able to hold; the question is whether Hitler gets it and pulls back before disaster happens; without oil shortages in 1943 though he won't have as much of a reason to try and hold the Volga.

If he does pull back in time and fuel isn't an issue training schools for the Luftwaffe aren't going to be devastate as badly over the winter of 1942-43 and there will be plenty of fuel to churn out new pilots. The synthetic fuel program expansion is over by 1943, so there is extra materials not use there to use for armaments, but the RAF does smash up the Ruhr in the Spring-Summer as per OTL, plus Hamburg. Even without Kursk and the wild collapse of Ukraine due to no Stalingrad, plus a less bloodied LW that can get enough well trained replacements, things are still going pretty bad in 1943, even if they Soviets end the year further east, more bloodied, and the Axis less so.

If the Soviets loose Stalingrad - and the Caucasian oil - and get a bloody nose at both Mars and Uranus - Stalin might just sue for peace.
 
I'm not 100% that Stalingrad would still happen without the need to rush for oil, I'm just saying that IF it did happen they would be much more conservative and cautious then they were IOTL without the need for that oil immediately. Of course we could argue that with all that oil available in 1941 Germany might not opt to attack the USSR until it had defeated Britain...or it might have gone ahead anyway.

The question is that if Stalingrad fell in late July/early August and Maykop was seized and Baku/other oil sources bombed in the Caucasus, what happens then? Assuming the flank attacks are beaten off because the Romanians and Italians are used in the Caucasus, not holding the flanks as IOTL, and the Black Sea ports are taken over the winter with the Axis forces basically stopping to defend Maykop instead of advancing, what happens in 1943 without the massive deficit in manpower? I'm assuming the Italians and Romanians are the primary force in the Caucasus for the campaign, especially once Uranus is attempted and all Panzers are pulled back to shore up the flanks.

Without the losses in manpower and equipment, plus the ability to use the ports on the Black Sea opposite Maykop, allowing supplies to be shipped in from Romania while increasing amounts of oil are pulled out of newly drilled pumps, can the still overstretched Axis forces hold out much beyond the OTL withdrawals in 1943 from the area? Even if Uranus fails the attacks on the Hungarians at Voronezh are still going to cause a lot of damage, even if Manstein is sent to help them instead of Stalingrad, while Tunisia is still going to be a massive defeat...as will Sicily and the grinding Italian campaign. Eventually the Germans are going to have to pull back even if the inevitable is delayed a few months. The Soviets had the numbers to try again and even with the manpower and equipment savings the Axis is not going to be able to hold; the question is whether Hitler gets it and pulls back before disaster happens; without oil shortages in 1943 though he won't have as much of a reason to try and hold the Volga.

If he does pull back in time and fuel isn't an issue training schools for the Luftwaffe aren't going to be devastate as badly over the winter of 1942-43 and there will be plenty of fuel to churn out new pilots. The synthetic fuel program expansion is over by 1943, so there is extra materials not use there to use for armaments, but the RAF does smash up the Ruhr in the Spring-Summer as per OTL, plus Hamburg. Even without Kursk and the wild collapse of Ukraine due to no Stalingrad, plus a less bloodied LW that can get enough well trained replacements, things are still going pretty bad in 1943, even if they Soviets end the year further east, more bloodied, and the Axis less so.

Well, you wrote something like this: " Maybe then they post up on parts of the Don instead of advancing past"

What´s the war-winning strategy behind that?

I mean sure, maybe more oil butterflies away the whole barbarossa-event in 1941, but once you are there, you want to win, not dug in behind a river and wait for stalin to die of old age...

A later confrontation between the soviets and the 3rd reich seems inevitable, a postponing might not be favorable for hitler with the red army weakened by purges.

If Barbarossa is attempted in 1941 and turns out as it historically did, you have a strategic situation as Hitler where you can strike at one front, but not on all simultanously...

North at leningrad: worst terrain, least reliable/unwilling ally, arguably the least strategic impact on the enemy, only plus side is that the kriegsmarine is an asset there.

Center at moscow: likely to be the strongest defended area (and historically stalin did expect an attack there and had proper reserves allocated for this attack), arguably the strongest strategic impact on the enemy.

South at Stalingrad and the caucasus: likely to be less defended (and stalin had less reserves allocated there). arguably a noticable strategic impact is possible if you can disrupt the supply of natural resources from the south to the capital (volga) and capture some of them for yourself (the oil-part is not required in here with the additional oil available in your timeline). You have the strongest allocation of allies here.

Now you can choose one, but if you choose the southern strategy, then advancing to the don and then stopping there achieves absolutely nothing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Now you can choose one, but if you choose the southern strategy, then advancing to the don and then stopping there achieves absolutely nothing.
It interdicts economic movement, plus set up bases for bombing Caucasian oil sources, which would happen ITTL Case Blue instead of trying to seize them, and perhaps taking Maykop as another source of oil while denying that region to the Soviets to grow wheat and cotton.
 
It interdicts economic movement, plus set up bases for bombing Caucasian oil sources, which would happen ITTL Case Blue instead of trying to seize them, and perhaps taking Maykop as another source of oil while denying that region to the Soviets to grow wheat and cotton.

why settle for bombing when you can occupy?
why settle for bombing, when you have no dedicated bomber force(see other thread)?
why settle for bombing when you know that this can be defended against and worked around eventually?

why choose a strategy where you plan to settle for bombing from the beginning, in the first place.

I see no war-winning potential in moving to the don (and then dig in there). That is squandering away a year of german strategic offensive capability where they still had a clear edge over the enemy for halfhearted ultimately unconsequential gains, probably the last year where germany had such a clear edge...

A mexican standoff just works for the soviets in the long run. Now they have lost Rostov, Woronesh and the krim, but are confident that the germans can be checked and are out of steam everywhere else...
 

Deleted member 1487

why settle for bombing when you can occupy?
Because they couldn't occupy at all, and they know it especially with sticking to the plan from OTL (4 phases)

why settle for bombing, when you have no dedicated bomber force(see other thread)?
They did have bombers capable of reaching everything when bases in Kuban (He111, Ju88) and did IOTL bomb some of the oil targets inside their reach doing major damage (Grozny/Tiblisi), so could put it out of commission if they tried by September before defenses were organized.

why settle for bombing when you know that this can be defended against and worked around eventually?
Because IOTL they were able to to great effect against the targets they chose and Baku wasn't defended from aerial attack effectively until some time in September. By then the damage would be done.

why choose a strategy where you plan to settle for bombing from the beginning, in the first place.

I see no war-winning potential in moving to the don (and then dig in there). That is squandering away a year of german strategic offensive capability where they still had a clear edge over the enemy for halfhearted ultimately unconsequential gains, probably the last year where germany had such a clear edge...
Given the damage inflicted and the assumption IOTL by the German command that the Soviets had suffered a mortal blow and the move against Stalingrad/Maykop would be the knockout blow (the further rush south was out of desperate need of oil rather than a knock out attempt), at the time that seemed like all that was needed to win. As we know with hindsight Stalingrad and Maykop already were badly overstretching German forces and anything beyond that, impossible due to time tables of the OTL pre-split plan, was logistical beyond their capabilities.

A mexican standoff just works for the soviets in the long run. Now they have lost Rostov, Woronesh and the krim, but are confident that the germans can be checked and are out of steam everywhere else...
Sure, but the Germans thought the Don move was the knock out blow, pushing over a tottering enemy.
 
Top