Battleships as raiders

[Kyle Holgate]

Too hot to do much yesterday (yeah, go figure - a month ago it was snowing here, yesterday 96 degrees! Weird weather...). I was poking around with Fighting steel, and old SSI surface ship wargame that has been tweaked to be more realistic by NWS.

Anyhow I was mucking about with convoy raiding by the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. I had them intercepting a convoy escorted by several DE type ships and a Battleship such as Royal Sovereign or one of the QE class.
Results...

More often than not the BB would be badly damaged by the Bismarck, while the PE took on the escorts that were laying smoke and were a risk as they could make torpedo attacks. In each case, by the time (if it came at all) that the escorts were reduced to a minimal threat, the big ships were low enough on ammo that were I Lutjens, I would probably not bother to attack the merchants - may need some ammo on the way home, ya know?
Now for sure, Fighting steel is a game and may or may not simulate reality very well. It seems to do a fair job, but the point is you never know (I've yet to ever blow up the Hood!). If it IS reasonably accurate though, the major warship as raider idea, if there is an escorting BB - just won't work! You don't have enough ammo to handle the escort and take out the convoy too. Further - in many instances Bismarck took a few hits from the escorting battleship. Bismarck can't afford to take hits - sometimes a turret got KO'd, sometimes flooding damage (maybe fuel tanks? Not covered in the damage system of the game, but in reality thats one reason Bismarck headed for home after the Hood/POW battle).
Unless the merchants stationed here and there by the Germans to replenish the raiders had fuel AND 15, 5.9, 8 and 4.1" shells the big ships will be one shot wonders. If they can find an unescorted convoy they'll sink it - but have to head home for ammo afterwords. IF it's escorted, they may sink the escort and maybe a merchant or two - but that's it - time to head home for ammo.

[JMS]

I have not looked into this for some time, but IIRC the intent was to avoid the convoys escorted by battleships and to sink stragglers and ships sailing alone, not for the value of the cargoes but to disperse enemy warships and disrupt the convoy system by forcing all convoys to be escorted by heavy ships.

And besides, the ships were already paid for, so better use them than having them in port rusting...

[Ed Rotondaro]

Too hot to do much yesterday (yeah, go figure - a month ago it was snowing here, yesterday 96 degrees! Weird weather...). I was poking around with Fighting steel, and old SSI surface ship wargame that has been tweaked to be more realistic by NWS.

Anyhow I was mucking about with convoy raiding by the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. I had them intercepting a convoy escorted by several DE type ships and a Battleship such as Royal Sovereign or one of the QE class.
Results...

More often than not the BB would be badly damaged by the Bismarck, while the PE took on the escorts that were laying smoke and were a risk as they could make torpedo attacks. In each case, by the time (if it came at all) that the escorts were reduced to a minimal threat, the big ships were low enough on ammo that were I Lutjens, I would probably not bother to attack the merchants - may need some ammo on the way home, ya know?
Now for sure, Fighting steel is a game and may or may not simulate reality very well. It seems to do a fair job, but the point is you never know (I've yet to ever blow up the Hood!). If it IS reasonably accurate though, the major warship as raider idea, if there is an escorting BB - just won't work! You don't have enough ammo to handle the escort and take out the convoy too. Further - in many instances Bismarck took a few hits from the escorting battleship. Bismarck can't afford to take hits - sometimes a turret got KO'd, sometimes flooding damage (maybe fuel tanks? Not covered in the damage system of the game, but in reality thats one reason Bismarck headed for home after the Hood/POW battle).
Unless the merchants stationed here and there by the Germans to replenish the raiders had fuel AND 15, 5.9, 8 and 4.1" shells the big ships will be one shot wonders. If they can find an unescorted convoy they'll sink it - but have to head home for ammo afterwords. IF it's escorted, they may sink the escort and maybe a merchant or two - but that's it - time to head home for ammo.

Kyle:

The fact that Germany and Britain had not figured out that BBs as commerce raiders was a dead end speaks volumes for their limited wisdom. Notice that the US and Japan never went down that road?

[old_pop2000]

One of prime requirements for a sea raider is stealth. I have to believe that the battleship does not qualify on that point. It tends to stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of the ocean.

I think it would have more cost effective, to remove the guns and use them in coastal fortifications, use the armor on other ships and melt the parts down for scrap. Save a lot of money.

[tony_glazebrook]

Kyle:

The fact that Germany and Britain had not figured out that BBs as commerce raiders was a dead end speaks volumes for their limited wisdom. Notice that the US and Japan never went down that road?

Ed - this question is related to this topic. I'm wondering if anyone has ever seen primary documents detailing the strategic concepts developed by the German navy during the 20s and 30s and early 40s, and in particular, what strategic logic lay behind the Z Plan?

I'm guessing that the Panzerschiffes were built at a time when commerce raiding in large areas like the south pacific by such ships acting alone supported by supply ships seemed viable and perhaps was at that time. By the mid 30s, perhaps the strategy was more the fleet in being concept of the potential threat. I'd be interested to know - not just people's opinion, but what the actual strategic concepts of the time were. Have you seen any references?

[old_pop2000]

Ed - this question is related to this topic. I'm wondering if anyone has ever seen primary documents detailing the strategic concepts developed by the German navy during the 20s and 30s and early 40s, and in particular, what strategic logic lay behind the Z Plan?

I'm guessing that the Panzerschiffes were built at a time when commerce raiding in large areas like the south pacific by such ships acting alone supported by supply ships seemed viable and perhaps was at that time. By the mid 30s, perhaps the strategy was more the fleet in being concept of the potential threat. I'd be interested to know - not just people's opinion, but what the actual strategic concepts of the time were. Have you seen any references?

I haven't seen any primary documents concerning the strategic logic. However, The Doenitz memoirs could be one possible source.

Memoirs: Ten years and 20 days by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz

In all probability, since the plan was signed into force on 27 January 1939 and scrapped at the beginning of the war. There probably isn't many primary documents. Hitler, within hours of the attack on Poland, scrapped any ideas or ships that couldn't be completed by the end of 1940. So the Z plan, as such, was still born.

Possibly if you study the history of German Naval strategy from the Tirpitz era through The Great War, you might get an idea of how it unfolded. The German geopolitical situation never changed. They were land power, not a sea power and they were boxed in by two great sea powers. The naval problems they had to solve, never varied much, just how they were going to accomplish it.

Wish I could help more.

[Warship NWS]

The concept of raiders IMHO was not a bad idea, but using BBs for such operations was a bad idea. The problem with using anything larger then a moderately fast armed merchant cruiser, which even goes for the "pocket battleships" for that matter, is that during the early 1940s they attracted far too much attention due to their own level of national "prestige". Their own prestige worked against them and so they ended up being far greater targets for the RN then they were materially worth in a naval war and in turn caused great morale dismay for the KM when lost. A raider was more then adequate with torpedoes and nothing bigger then 6" guns. If a sub could sink merchants, and they sank a lot of them, with their silly 4.1" guns.. then 6" was more then adequate and would easily outgun any merchant armed with some guns of their own. Buckets of smaller raiders could cause a serious problem for a big navy with all the cat and mouse chases especially when operating multiple raiders at the same time thus taking turns hit and running in different sections of waters at various times while the subs engaged convoys. Had the KM figured that out and not built big bomb/shell/torpedo sponges they could have caused far more dismay for the RN shipping lanes IMHO. The single greatest asset of a raider was stealth which is aided by having a design that does not attract excessive attention.. any ship with big guns was simply not going to be stealthy.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

One of prime requirements for a sea raider is stealth. I have to believe that the battleship does not qualify on that point. It tends to stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of the ocean.

I think it would have more cost effective, to remove the guns and use them in coastal fortifications, use the armor on other ships and melt the parts down for scrap. Save a lot of money.

They could have scrapped the Bismarck and Scharnhorst class completely, used the metal for building more tanks, trucks, and half tracks, vehicles the Germans never had enough of from the very start of the war, and saved lots of funds and manpower due to how much it cost them to operate, maintain, and keep repairing those big ordnance sponges.

[Warship NWS]

Kyle:

The fact that Germany and Britain had not figured out that BBs as commerce raiders was a dead end speaks volumes for their limited wisdom. Notice that the US and Japan never went down that road?

Differences in doctrines.. the US had CVs, airbases, and long range subs that were far more effective at deploying anti-merchant attacks then surface raiders and since Japan didn't really bother with protecting their sea lanes stealth was not really required. Japan for the most part blew off any concept of attacking or protecting merchants which was a massive strategic blunder on their part as it was never a part of their doctrinal operations.

[old_pop2000]

Differences in doctrines.. the US had CVs, airbases, and long range subs that were far more effective at deploying anti-merchant attacks then surface raiders and since Japan didn't really bother with protecting their sea lanes stealth was not really required. Japan for the most part blew off any concept of attacking or protecting merchants which was a massive strategic blunder on their part as it was never a part of their doctrinal operations.

I am not certain that doctrine had much to do with it. Differences in geographical position probably had more to do with it, than anything. The Germans were able to get almost all the necessary raw materials from nearby nations by rail, truck and coastal freighter. Frankly, the Allies were the merchant seamen of the world, trading with the Far East, SA, Europe etc. While the German had a merchant navy, once the war started, they were land locked. By WWII, German high pressure chemistry using the Fischer-tropisch and Haber Bosch process solved much of their oil, gas, fertilizer and nitrate needs.

[Warship NWS]

I am not certain that doctrine had much to do with it. Differences in geographical position probably had more to do with it, than anything. The Germans were able to get almost all the necessary raw materials from nearby nations by rail, truck and coastal freighter. Frankly, the Allies were the merchant seamen of the world, trading with the Far East, SA, Europe etc. While the German had a merchant navy, once the war started, they were land locked. By WWII, German high pressure chemistry using the Fischer-tropisch and Haber Bosch process solved much of their oil, gas, fertilizer and nitrate needs.

I was noting why the USN and IJN did not resort to raiders the way the Germans did. ;)

[Kyle Holgate]

For Germany the one issue to me is - as Admiral Räder you have the ships, what do you do with them?

Chris - Germany had limited oil resources, I wonder if they could have had enough for a truely mechanized army of halftracks for the infantry if they'd saved the fuel used for the battleships.

Anyone know if the re-supply ships at sea could replenish ammo? I can't imagine how you'd transfer 11" shells from ship to ship at sea, let alone 15" - except by helecopter. Even smaller stuff would be problematical unless the ships physically tied up side to side.

[old_pop2000]

Chris - Germany had limited oil resources, I wonder if they could have had enough for a truely mechanized army of halftracks for the infantry if they'd saved the fuel used for the battleships.



Let's see. One STDKFZ 251 halftrack carried 42 gallons of gasoline. 1 barrel of crude yields 20 gallons of gasoline. 1 barrel of oil is .1367 tons. The Bismarck carried 9142.57 tons of crude.

The answer is....................about 812 StdKfz 251 halftracks could be filled with gasoline from the 9142.57 UST of fuel oil carried in the Bismarck. For both ships, that's 1600 halftracks.

[Kyle Holgate]

Let's see. One STDKFZ 251 halftrack carried 42 gallons of gasoline. 1 barrel of crude yields 20 gallons of gasoline. 1 barrel of oil is .1367 tons. The Bismarck carried 9142.57 tons of crude.

The answer is....................about 812 StdKfz 251 halftracks could be filled with gasoline from the 9142.57 UST of fuel oil carried in the Bismarck. For both ships, that's 1600 halftracks.

Hmm. I bet they didn't get very good gas Kilomerage. One full tank on 812 halftracks may help them take a really little state like Rhode Island. They'd need a lot more fuel to manage to impact the French or worse yet the Barbarossa campaign.

It's hard to really compare cost effectiveness of a battleship vs halftracks.

[old_pop2000]

Hmm. I bet they didn't get very good gas Kilomerage. One full tank on 812 halftracks may help them take a really little state like Rhode Island. They'd need a lot more fuel to manage to impact the French or worse yet the Barbarossa campaign.

It's hard to really compare cost effectiveness of a battleship vs halftracks.
The question is; how many times did they refuel both ships, and how many tons did they take each time. This calculation is on the first full load, but after sea trials and workups in the Baltic, then the voyage to doom for Bismarck, then Tirpitz. The figure could have been far higher.

[john964]

Anyone know if the re-supply ships at sea could replenish ammo? I can't imagine how you'd transfer 11" shells from ship to ship at sea, let alone 15" - except by helecopter. Even smaller stuff would be problematical unless the ships physically tied up side to side.

Kyle, you can but it is a long tedious undertaking. You do it by highline transfer, depending on howmany transfer stations you have on a ship is how fast. I estimate you could transfer 1 round every 10-15 minutes per station. Most supply ships only have 2 transfer stations per side depending on the arrangment of the receving ship you maybe able to have 1 additonal transfer station if the supply ship is capable. As to smaller rounds you can transfer palet sized crates of rounds.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle, you can but it is a long tedious undertaking. You do it by highline transfer, depending on howmany transfer stations you have on a ship is how fast. I estimate you could transfer 1 round every 10-15 minutes per station. Most supply ships only have 2 transfer stations per side depending on the arrangment of the receving ship you maybe able to have 1 additonal transfer station if the supply ship is capable. As to smaller rounds you can transfer palet sized crates of rounds.

Now you can - I'm not sure the Germans had at sea replenishment down to the science that we have it today. It's not rocket science in any case, but many ideas just didn't happen as no one had thought of them yet. Reloading the Bismarck partially would be a lot of shells to haul over and somehow truck down many decks to the magazine. That brings to question - how did the replenish shells in port? Must have had some sort of elevator or something from the deck down to the magazines and shellrooms. Geez - I forgot all about powder :o, for every shell hoisted across you'd have to have the powder too. That's a long replenishment cycle if you could even cary enough on the merchant to do it!

[Kyle Holgate]

The question is; how many times did they refuel both ships, and how many tons did they take each time. This calculation is on the first full load, but after sea trials and workups in the Baltic, then the voyage to doom for Bismarck, then Tirpitz. The figure could have been far higher.

Obviously, but for simplicity I was thinking in terms of just one tank of gas. Things start to grow out of preportion quickly - and I don't like math much! ;)

[john964]

Now you can - I'm not sure the Germans had at sea replenishment down to the science that we have it today. It's not rocket science in any case, but many ideas just didn't happen as no one had thought of them yet. Reloading the Bismarck partially would be a lot of shells to haul over and somehow truck down many decks to the magazine. That brings to question - how did the replenish shells in port? Must have had some sort of elevator or something from the deck down to the magazines and shellrooms. Geez - I forgot all about powder :o, for every shell hoisted across you'd have to have the powder too. That's a long replenishment cycle if you could even cary enough on the merchant to do it!The USN and then the RN whith the USN's help got UNREP down to a science during WWII but the KM was more of a point to point supply navy. I don't know if the USN transfered BB ammo underway it would be faster to do it in port pier side or have the AE along side. All ships carried ordenace elevators to handle ammo and as for powder figure 5-600lbs per round of ammo. During WWII AE's probably carried a wide veriaty of ammo, it depended on what was needed. IMO a typical WWII AE could supply all the ammo for 2 to 3 Essex class CV's and probably all of the CVL's.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Let's see. One STDKFZ 251 halftrack carried 42 gallons of gasoline. 1 barrel of crude yields 20 gallons of gasoline. 1 barrel of oil is .1367 tons. The Bismarck carried 9142.57 tons of crude.

The answer is....................about 812 StdKfz 251 halftracks could be filled with gasoline from the 9142.57 UST of fuel oil carried in the Bismarck. For both ships, that's 1600 halftracks.

Dennis:

That's enough for 10 Panzer Grenadier divisions.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

That's enough for 10 Panzer Grenadier divisions.
Well, as per the T.O & E of a Panzergrenadier division in the Kursk operation of 1943, it would be about fourteen. Each PG in the operation had about 110 SPW 251's. German Panzer divisions only had one bn equipped with SPW's while the other two were truck borne. Standard battle tactics were for the one SPW battalion to accompany the tanks in the first wave, the other to detruck and follow on foot.

[old_pop2000]

Just some information about gasoline, crude etc. One barrel of crude oil is 42 gallons of crude. You get about 19.5 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of crude. Essentially, it takes 1.5 gallons of crude to produce a gallon of gasoline. You do get other petrololeum products after the gasoline like jet fuel, home heating oil, lubricants and diesel fuel.

Now, the question is; what kind of oil is actually used in the ships? I am no expert, but it isn't raw crude, it is processed. How much, I am not certain? I know that the bunker oil should be a low sulfur type, unlike what is produced in the Dutch East Indies. I don't know if bunker oil is the same as a cheaper grade of diesel fuel. Probably not.

The bottom line is that the fuel used to power the battleships in the German navy could have been used to provide gasoline but other petroleum products.

[john964]

Just some information about gasoline, crude etc. One barrel of crude oil is 42 gallons of crude. You get about 19.5 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of crude. Essentially, it takes 1.5 gallons of crude to produce a gallon of gasoline. You do get other petrololeum products after the gasoline like jet fuel, home heating oil, lubricants and diesel fuel.

Now, the question is; what kind of oil is actually used in the ships? I am no expert, but it isn't raw crude, it is processed. How much, I am not certain? I know that the bunker oil should be a low sulfur type, unlike what is produced in the Dutch East Indies. I don't know if bunker oil is the same as a cheaper grade of diesel fuel. Probably not.

The bottom line is that the fuel used to power the battleships in the German navy could have been used to provide gasoline but other petroleum products.I talked with a friend who works for a refinery he said that there are almost no ships today useing Bunker fuel almost all ships use diesel, and that most bunker fuel that is made today comes from reprosseced and filtered motor oil. He also said that there is 2 types of crude oil heavy and light. Light is desiered because when refined they are able to get more of the lighter distalets out with out haveing to crack the hydrocarbon chains to get the more usefull products out like diesel and gasoline. IIRC When they crack the chains the lighter fuels come out first IIRC it goes like butane kerosene diesel gasoline and so forth.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, as per the T.O & E of a Panzergrenadier division in the Kursk operation of 1943, it would be about fourteen. Each PG in the operation had about 110 SPW 251's. German Panzer divisions only had one bn equipped with SPW's while the other two were truck borne. Standard battle tactics were for the one SPW battalion to accompany the tanks in the first wave, the other to detruck and follow on foot.

Dennis:

That works out even better for Germany, but of course all German formations were smaller from 1943 onwards. Did the Wehrmacht even have PG formations at the start of the war? I was under the impression that they were created after the invasion of Russia.

[Kyle Holgate]

Just some information about gasoline, crude etc. One barrel of crude oil is 42 gallons of crude. You get about 19.5 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of crude. Essentially, it takes 1.5 gallons of crude to produce a gallon of gasoline. You do get other petroleum products after the gasoline like jet fuel, home heating oil, lubricants and diesel fuel.

Now, the question is; what kind of oil is actually used in the ships? I am no expert, but it isn't raw crude, it is processed. How much, I am not certain? I know that the bunker oil should be a low sulfur type, unlike what is produced in the Dutch East Indies. I don't know if bunker oil is the same as a cheaper grade of diesel fuel. Probably not.

The bottom line is that the fuel used to power the battleships in the German navy could have been used to provide gasoline but other petroleum products.

The Japanese ran their warships in late war on unrefined crude I believe, at least I have that impression though I don't remember the specific source. The crude from Borneo and what not was/is pretty light compared to some places. IF that is true then I assume that German ships ran on similar oil to what the Japanese used - meaning that it's fairly unrefined compared to Diesel.
Many assumptions here - but it seems to point to the fact that the Germans could have made use of the mostly unrefined ship fuel to make lots more useful products.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Japanese ran their warships in late war on unrefined crude I believe, at least I have that impression though I don't remember the specific source. The crude from Borneo and what not was/is pretty light compared to some places. IF that is true then I assume that German ships ran on similar oil to what the Japanese used - meaning that it's fairly unrefined compared to Diesel.
Many assumptions here - but it seems to point to the fact that the Germans could have made use of the mostly unrefined ship fuel to make lots more useful products.

Kyle:

Yes, and that unrefined crude was very high in sulphur and also very flammable. Many Japanese tankers were sunk by US subs who simply used their deck guns to blow the ships up.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

That works out even better for Germany, but of course all German formations were smaller from 1943 onwards. Did the Wehrmacht even have PG formations at the start of the war? I was under the impression that they were created after the invasion of Russia.
Actually, they converted many of their light divisions into Panzer divisions i.e. 5th Light into the 21st Panzer of NA. No, they were not called Panzer Grenadier divisions, at the beginning. In the beginning, they were termed Motorized divisions.

Motorized T.O & E
Strength:
Approximately 15,000 officers and enlisted men.
Organization:
Division headquarters
Armored reconnaissance battalion
Signal battalion
Panzer battalion, including 4 tank companies.
Two motorized infantry regiments.
Divisional artillery regiment
Antitank battalion
Engineer battalion
Divisional services

Panzer Grenadier Divisions

Regimental headquarters
Headquarters company
3 panzer grenadier battalions
13th company (infantry howitzer)
14th company (antitank)
Light infantry column
The panzer grenadier battalion, according to previous information, consists of:


Battalion headquarters, with communication section
3 rifle companies
1 machine gun company and the battalion trains.
The rifle company breaks down into:
Company headquarters
3 platoons
Antitank rifle section
Each platoon breaks down into:
Platoon headquarters
4 squads
1 light mortar section, each squad having:
1 light machine gun
The machine gun company breaks down into:
Headquarters
3 machine gun platoons
1 medium platoon

I suspect we should start another thread.

[old_pop2000]

I read this in Miller's new book and I thought it was interesting. One of the most important products on a battleship was silk. It was used in cartridge cloth, igniter cloth and laces for Large-caliber naval guns and coastal defense artillery. There was no substitute in WWII. It was the only type of cloth that left no smoldering residue in the gun breech.

And the leading exporter of silk was...........................Japan, yes, that's right. It was the second most important source of USD next to the sale of gold. This fact did not escape the Export Control Administration in its attempt to apply economic pressure to Japan. Japanese exports were dwindling after 1939 and the discovery of nylon for ladies stockings. During the war, Japan uprooted most of the mulberry trees that were the nesting areas for the silk worms. That ended its domination of the market and the Japanese sericulture.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Yes, and that unrefined crude was very high in sulphur and also very flammable. Many Japanese tankers were sunk by US subs who simply used their deck guns to blow the ships up.

I've been reading up on oil. The Borneo oil was light oil with lots of volitiles in it - is good for making gas out of. Other crude oil has less volitiles and hence is less flamable, or at least harder to start burning. The problem isn't the sulpher as it turns out.

I never knew there were so many kinds or grades of crude oil. I thought oil was oil. They have lots of grades. Light sweet... (I wonder who tastes it?) to basic tar which has few uses (the stuff that bubles up at Le Brea in LA).

[Ed Rotondaro]

I read this in Miller's new book and I thought it was interesting. One of the most important products on a battleship was silk. It was used in cartridge cloth, igniter cloth and laces for Large-caliber naval guns and coastal defense artillery. There was no substitute in WWII. It was the only type of cloth that left no smoldering residue in the gun breech.

And the leading exporter of silk was...........................Japan, yes, that's right. It was the second most important source of USD next to the sale of gold. This fact did not escape the Export Control Administration in its attempt to apply economic pressure to Japan. Japanese exports were dwindling after 1939 and the discovery of nylon for ladies stockings. During the war, Japan uprooted most of the mulberry trees that were the nesting areas for the silk worms. That ended its domination of the market and the Japanese sericulture.

Dennis:

I think the USN eventually switched from silk to rayon for powder bags, but that may have been postwar. How did we cope with the silk shortage in WWII? Also what exactly are laces for cannons?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I think the USN eventually switched from silk to rayon for powder bags, but that may have been postwar. How did we cope with the silk shortage in WWII? Also what exactly are laces for cannons?
The silk used was the Asian waste silk. These were the short fibers from broken cocoons or filature clippings. The US factories spun this into a low strength filling yarn. The defense silk was a very coarse silk, 425 to 620 Deniers. It was used in the production of the cartridge cloth, igniter cloth and the laces for the large caliber naval and coast defense artillery. The waste from hosiery factories could not be used due to the hard twisting of the yard. Our silk waste imports equalled 2.5 million pounds in 1940, enough for 2.8 million square yards of naval cartridge cloth and it came from China via Japanese merchants. The US had only a reserve of 6 million pounds after WW1. Apparently there was enough commercial inventory to provide the necessary product for the artillery needs.

[john964]

I've been reading up on oil. The Borneo oil was light oil with lots of volitiles in it - is good for making gas out of. Other crude oil has less volitiles and hence is less flamable, or at least harder to start burning. The problem isn't the sulpher as it turns out.

I never knew there were so many kinds or grades of crude oil. I thought oil was oil. They have lots of grades. Light sweet... (I wonder who tastes it?) to basic tar which has few uses (the stuff that bubles up at Le Brea in LA).The grades of crude oil is a indacation of the ease of cracking the hydrocarbon chains light sweet crude has a very high percentage ot the most desirable products with out much cracking like gasoline and diesel. Basicly the more cracking you have to do in the refining prossecess the more it cost to make various fuels. For example LS crude after refining might yield 60% gasoline, but heavy crude after refining might only yeld 20% gasoline.

[Kyle Holgate]

The grades of crude oil is a indacation of the ease of cracking the hydrocarbon chains light sweet crude has a very high percentage ot the most desirable products with out much cracking like gasoline and diesel. Basicly the more cracking you have to do in the refining prossecess the more it cost to make various fuels. For example LS crude after refining might yield 60% gasoline, but heavy crude after refining might only yeld 20% gasoline.

I was going to go further into it but I knew someone would come along and give a lesson on crude oil 101 - figured it would be Dennis though :p.

[old_pop2000]

I was going to go further into it but I knew someone would come along and give a lesson on crude oil 101 - figured it would be Dennis though :p.
To save time, and my fingers, here is a link to a good discussion of crude oil and refining.

http://www.setlaboratories.com/overview.htm#Basics%20of%20Crude%20Oil