# The German Synthetic Oil (WWII)-Did It Actually Harm The War Effort? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 19, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257 "2015-08-19T13:12:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/1 "2015-08-19T13:12:56Z")
I have always wondered. Germany began WWII with a very limited oil supply-apart from some small production in Hungary and Poland, Germany had only Rumania as a supplier of petroleum. Knowing this Air Marshal Goering had German industry adopt a program to make possible large scale production of synthetic gasoline. This was a well-known process (Fischer-Tropsh), which had been invented in the 1920s. the problem was: it was highly inefficient, and consumed vast quantities of coal. In addition, the process ran at very high pressure, and so the reactor vessels wore out quickly. I have also read that the fuel produced was not good in the Russian winter conditions (it would separate into two fractions in the cold). So, was the synthetic fuel worth it? It is hard to get data on it, but it seems the Germans were never able to make enough of it-maybe they should have seized the Russian oilfields as a first objective? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/2 "2015-08-19T13:22:21Z")
Seizing the Russian oilfields WAS a primary objective, so I’m not sure how that constitutes an alternative. Inefficient it might have been, but you need oil. It’s not an option. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/3 "2015-08-19T14:37:00Z")
Is that why the Germans were in North Africa? Were they looking for a steady supply of crude oil? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/4 "2015-08-19T15:13:25Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > Is that why the Germans were in North Africa? Were they looking for a steady supply of crude oil? It’s one of the great what-ifs of history. The Axis had a huge oil supply during the war and didn’t know it. The oil fields in North Africa weren’t discovered until the fifties. During the war, Iraq and Iran were the major oil producing nation in the Middle East - and the British and Soviets maintained large garrisons in these countries. Saudi Arabia produced oil but was still seen as a relatively minor source. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/5 "2015-08-20T01:16:31Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I have always wondered. Germany began WWII with a very limited oil supply-apart from some small production in Hungary and Poland, Germany had only Rumania as a supplier of petroleum. Knowing this Air Marshal Goering had German industry adopt a program to make possible large scale production of synthetic gasoline. This was a well-known process (Fischer-Tropsh), which had been invented in the 1920s. the problem was: it was highly inefficient, and consumed vast quantities of coal. In addition, the process ran at very high pressure, and so the reactor vessels wore out quickly. I have also read that the fuel produced was not good in the Russian winter conditions (it would separate into two fractions in the cold). So, was the synthetic fuel worth it? It is hard to get data on it, but it seems the Germans were never able to make enough of it-maybe they should have seized the Russian oilfields as a first objective? The Russian oilfields were beyond their supply reach, which was ~500km from the jump-off point for one year’s campaign. In any case they really needed the oil to fuel the trucks, tanks and planes so they could capture the oil … I suggest you read **Adam Tooze** ’s _The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy_, it discusses the German’s attempts to cope with shortfalls in almost every commodity they needed to wage war. > [@dolphinboy](#): > > Is that why the Germans were in North Africa? Were they looking for a steady supply of crude oil? No-one knew that Libya had vast amounts of oil at that time. The Germans were in North Africa to pull the Italian’s feet out of the fire (that they themselves lit!). The nearest known large sources of oil were Iraq and Persia. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/6 "2015-08-20T12:53:38Z")
The German economy ran on coal. Subtracting a substantial amount of coal (for synthetic fuel production) left that much less for steel production (which was needed to make tanks and guns). So it could be argued that the failure of the Army Group South (to take the Baku oilfields) was affected by the diversion. Of course, the attempt to take Moscow (Operation Typhoon) probably was also significant-Germany could not afford to have too many objectives. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/7 "2015-08-20T15:43:51Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I have always wondered. Germany began WWII with a very limited oil supply-apart from some small production in Hungary and Poland, Germany had only Rumania as a supplier of petroleum. Knowing this Air Marshal Goering had German industry adopt a program to make possible large scale production of synthetic gasoline…So, was the synthetic fuel worth it? It is hard to get data on it, but it seems the Germans were never able to make enough of it-maybe they should have seized the Russian oilfields as a first objective? Perhaps the real problem was trying to take on both the USSR and the USA at the same time, something that they clearly should have seen as a poor choice. Germany had (and has) decent manufacturing and agricultural infrastructures to support an army and a people, but those resources paled in comparison to what they went up against. It was not only the vast oil reserves of Russia, but the bountiful heartlands of Kansas and Iowa, and the protected manufacturing cities that were out of reach of bombers but were producing a hundred bombers a month. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/8 "2015-08-21T14:56:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s one of the great what-ifs of history. The Axis had a huge oil supply during the war and didn’t know it. No, I reckon it is obviously a hugely unlikely thing that even if there were rivers of Oil there in africa, they could have got it back… Shore up Africa at the cost of the war in europe ? seems that would lead to defeat rather quick… so no, no oil from Africa ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/9 "2015-08-21T15:48:24Z")
Germany was receiving massive amounts of oil from the USSR, up to the June 1941 invasion. Stalin (apparently) did not think it odd, that the Germans were stockpiling so much oil. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/10 "2015-08-21T16:39:43Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Germany was receiving massive amounts of oil from the USSR, up to the June 1941 invasion. Stalin (apparently) did not think it odd, that the Germans were stockpiling so much oil. The Germans were actively fighting the British, so nothing weird about it at all. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/11 "2015-08-21T16:56:22Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > maybe they should have seized the Russian oilfields as a first objective? Taking Russian oilfields was the main objective behind the German operations towards the Caucasus ([Case Blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue)); this was what, eventually, led to the Battle of Stalingrad. The German command considered it sufficiently important to divert priorities away from Moscow, the capture of which would have had enormous strategic value and to which they had got very, very close in 1941. So they were very much aware of their dependence on oil. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/12 "2015-08-21T16:57:39Z")
I am not an expert on German economy or war details - my reply is purely on the engineering aspects of synthetic oil. > [@ralph124c](#): > > … adopt a program to make possible large scale production of synthetic gasoline. This was a well-known process (Fischer-Tropsh), You present this as a fact - and it is not. Between 1939-1945, Germany produced 3 million metric tons of synthetic fuel by Fisher Tropsch and 18 million metric tons by coal/tar hydrogenation. Fisher Tropsch was only a smal part. [Cite : See the conclusion on page 10.](http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/AIChE%202003%20Spring%20National%20Meeting/Paper%2080a%20Stranges%20germany.pdf) > [@ralph124c](#): > > the problem was: it was highly inefficient, and consumed vast quantities of coal. Are you talking about Fisher Tropsch or Coal hydrogenation? Much of the Chinese chemical (and plastics) industry runs on coal even today and economics make sense for them when you factor in global oil price uncertainty and global strategy. > [@](#): > > The most efficient F-T plants recovered only 30 percent of the total heat energy input as primary products and another 25 percent as steam and residual gas. The net heat energy required for the production of one metric ton of primary products was equivalent to 4.5 metric tons of coal" From [Cite - Page 4](http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/AIChE%202003%20Spring%20National%20Meeting/Paper%2080a%20Stranges%20germany.pdf) > [@ralph124c](#): > > "In addition, the process ran at very high pressure, and so the reactor vessels wore out quickly. " I think you are mixing up hydrogenation (which is a high pressure process) with FT (Fisher Tropsch) which is a low to medium pressure process. The first FT reactors ran at 1 atm and the later ones ran at medium pressures (5-15atm). [Cite Page 4](http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/AIChE%202003%20Spring%20National%20Meeting/Paper%2080a%20Stranges%20germany.pdf) > [@ralph124c](#): > > I have also read that the fuel produced was not good in the Russian winter conditions (it would separate into two fractions in the cold). Cite please. This maybe true since F-T produces a lot of waxes (the waxes are themselves useful) but poor refining may produce inferior diesel. For the record - FT was primarily used for Diesel and not gasoline. > [@ralph124c](#): > > So, was the synthetic fuel worth it? It is hard to get data on it,… Why is it hard ? SASOL in South Africa produces fuel this way to this day. China has many Methanol to Gasoline Plants. Shell has a gas to liquids plant in QATAR. Here are the economics ([Cite Page 8](http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/AIChE%202003%20Spring%20National%20Meeting/Paper%2080a%20Stranges%20germany.pdf) ): > [@](#): > > The average cost of hydrogenating coal or tar was high, 19-26 pfennig per kg (RM 190-260 per metric ton) or the equivalent of 24¢ per US gallon ($10 per barrel) of gasoline. The average cost of primary products at the F-T plants was comparable 23.71-25.81 pfennig per kg (RM 240-330 per metric ton). These figures were more than double the price of imported gasoline, ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/13 "2015-08-21T17:01:47Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The German economy ran on coal. Subtracting a substantial amount of coal (for synthetic fuel production) left that much less for steel production (which was needed to make tanks and guns). Cite please! As per my work on coal for steel as well as for synthetic fuel - the grades of coal are different. Coking coal is what is used for steel production while bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite are coals used for synthetic fuel. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/14 "2015-08-21T17:17:16Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Germany was receiving massive amounts of oil from the USSR, up to the June 1941 invasion. Stalin (apparently) did not think it odd, that the Germans were stockpiling so much oil. Cite please !! Data I have seen does not jive with your post Quote from [Cite (Page 8)](http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/AIChE%202003%20Spring%20National%20Meeting/Paper%2080a%20Stranges%20germany.pdf) : > [@](#): > > Total consumption of liquid fuels (including 274,000 metric tons of lubricating oil) in 1932 was 2,755,000 metric tons, 73 percent of which (2,020,000 metric tons) Germany imported mainly **from the United States**. (Highlight mine) Also see Page 5 of the same document : > [@](#): > > Total synthetic fuel production from the seven coal hydrogenation and seven F-T plants operating in September 1939 was 1,280,00 metric tons increasing to almost 1,900,000 metric tons in May 1940. It exceeded Germany’s refining of crude oil from natural sources (1,256,000 metric tons) and imports mainly from Romania (1,085,000 metric tons) in 1939 ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/15 "2015-08-21T17:50:48Z")
1932 was quite a few years before WWII. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/16 "2015-08-21T18:20:28Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > No, I reckon it is obviously a hugely unlikely thing that even if there were rivers of Oil there in africa, they could have got it back… > Shore up Africa at the cost of the war in europe ? seems that would lead to defeat rather quick… so no, no oil from Africa I disagree. North Africa was a minor theatre in the war. Germany sent less than five percent of its troops to Africa. But this was because Germany saw no strategic reason to commit more resources to Africa. That would have changed completely if they had known there were major oil fields in Libya. The Germans knew full well they needed oil. And it would have been fairly easy to have turned the Mediterranean and North African theatres around if Germany had wanted to. Italy had been the main power in East Africa at the start of the war. Efforts had been made to pressure Franco into allowing German troops to cross through Spain. But in both cases, Germany didn’t see any major need to follow through and let things drop. Oil would have changed that. Germany could have captured Gibraltar and Aden early in the war. This would have sealed off the Mediterranean from the British Navy. Germany and Italy could have then transported troops to and transported oil from North Africa. The Germans could have sent around twenty divisions into North Africa. They still would have had the vast majority of their troops in Europe but they would have also overwhelmed any forces Britain had in North Africa. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/17 "2015-08-23T09:53:36Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Germany could have captured Gibraltar and Aden early in the war. Erm, what? _Aden_? How? From where? Why would they have even bothered to try? What other operations would they have had to have foregone to attempt such a lunge into the unknowable? They had bigger fish to fry elsewhere, and in any case they thought they had Britain beaten up until the end of 1940. Let’s not forget that Germany’s entire war aim was to defeat, occupy, depopulate and colonise the western Soviet Union. Everything else was seen as a distraction to be got out of the way ASAP. There is no plausible history in which Germany forgoes that in order to occupy various remote British colonial outposts. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/18 "2015-08-23T14:17:48Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Erm, what? _Aden_? > > How? From where? Why would they have even bothered to try? What other operations would they have had to have foregone to attempt such a lunge into the unknowable? Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland. If you look at the [map](http://english.geopolitics.ro/wp-content/uploads/Ethiopia.jpg), you can see the Axis had most this land under its control at the start of the war. As for a reason, that’s what we’re talking about. The Germans and Italians were aware they needed oil to conduct military operations against anyone. If capturing Aden had been important to securing an oil supply, then they would have wanted to capture Aden. Not instead of invading the Soviet Union but in order to invade the Soviet Union. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/19 "2015-08-23T15:00:49Z")
They could have taken Aden. \*Holding \* it would have been difficult if not impossible long term. The British could literally flood the place with troops from India, and they had excellent port facilities in Karachi, Mombasa and Columbo to support such an operation. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257/20 "2015-08-26T01:32:28Z")
Italy joined WWII in May 1940, with its attempted invasion of France. The fighting in East Africa started in June 1940 with Italy’s invasion of British Somalia. So the Germans have a window of one month to somehow get troops past the Suez canal or around the Cape, before having to get drawn into the Ethiopian campaign. While they are still in the process of conquering France. How is that going to happen, again? And what would it gain them? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-german-synthetic-oil-wwii-did-it-actually-harm-the-war-effort/728257.md?page=2)