WI: Matzen and Schoonebeek Oil Fields discovered, 1938-1940

[BlackDragon98]

The PAK38 would like a word:

A.12, Infantry Tank Mk.II, Matilda II - Tank Encyclopedia

The Matilda, nicknamed the "Queen of the Desert", became legendary because of its impressive armor, the best in western Europe in 1939.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

I don't know if you've ever taken a look at Crusader tank operational rates, but they were abysmal. So raw numbers without context shouldn't be taken at face value. Otherwise Rommel would have been destroyed in 1941 and we'd have never heard of the Desert Fox.

You're contradicting yourself.
"By mid-1942"
It's over for the Germans by then.
Beginning of the end.

By then the Germans are knee deep in Case Blue, up against KV tanks and T-34s.
Africa was a secondary front that have few reinforcements.
Why else were there so many cases of part cannibalization in the DAK?

 

[sillygoose]

You're contradicting yourself.
"By mid-1942"
It's over for the Germans by then.
Beginning of the end.

How? The PAK38 was introduced in 1941 right as the Afrika Korps was being deployed. Tactics were perfected in mid-1942 according to the article, not that the PAK38 was only just entering service.

But if you don't like that, then don't forget about the Czech 47mm AT cannon:

4,7cm KPÚV vz. 38 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And Panzerjaeger I:

Panzerjäger I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plenty of use in North Africa from the beginning of German involvement and nearly as good as the PAK38.

Anyway, my point was a nitpick not a major argument.

By then the Germans are knee deep in Case Blue, up against KV tanks and T-34s.
Africa was a secondary front that have few reinforcements.
Why else were there so many cases of part cannibalization in the DAK?

I thought we were talking about Matildas in North Africa, not KVs in the East. Nevertheless the PAK38 could kill the T-34 and was the mainstay AT gun until late 1943.

Africa got a disproportionate share of resources even if relatively small in comparison to the Eastern Front. The Italian contributions meant German commitments could be limited. And you think cannabalization was only in Africa?

Beutepanzer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or that the Germans were the only ones who did that?

SU-76i - Tank Encyclopedia

Having captured a substantial quantity of Panzer IIIs and StuG IIIs, the Soviets converted some of them into 76mm-armed SPGs, as the SU-76i.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

How the Allies Used Captured German Tanks and Vehicles

The Soviets were the most common culprits of captured German tanks used by the Allies, due to their situation on the Eastern Front.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

 

[Buba]

USSR railways were useless for the Germans because of the gauge difference and the lack of Russian gauge rolling stock.

Regauging is not a problerm - pull nails out, shift rail 9cm, hammer nails in. 30-40km regauged a day. In those days every army had railroad troops capable of such feats.
The rolling stock indeed is a problem, especially as the Germans shot themselves in the foot (i.e. one department not talking with another). See, Russian railroad operating procedures are different - among other things distances between water towers (indispensable in the age of steam locomotives) are larger, and their locos had more spacious water tanks and could go longer distances without. Whereas German locos had issues with getting from one tower to another.
In 1941 this was a universally known fact. Not to mention that in the 1920s German companies built locos for export to the USSR - manufactured to Soviet specifications ...

 

[edgeworthy]

Oil, and the need for it to run their war effort, was arguably one of the greatest if not the greatest complicating factor in the German war effort in World War II. To offset their own domestic lacking, the Germans turned to a very extensive-and expensive-program of synthetic fuel production which consumed massive resources and helped to engender the coal famine the Reich had to endure during the course of the war. Likewise, this need to find natural sources was a major motivator behind Germany strategy in both Operation Barbarossa and the Afrika Korps, with the dream of Middle Eastern as well as Caucasus oil fields being the end goal. The entire strategic framework on the Eastern Front in 1942, for example, was the need for a mad dash to the latter oil fields, to secure Grozny and Maikop; such would grant the Germans sufficient fuel production to enable the Luftwaffe to challenge the coming Anglo-American bombing offensive.

Ironically for the Germans, however, the solution to their issues was readily available to them and they barely missed finding them. To that which I refer is the Matzen oil field and Schoonebeek oil field in the Netherlands, both of which had come into German hands by the Spring of 1940 and collectively with 1940s technology readily available to the Germans could produce up to 3 Million tons on top of existing natural and synthetic production. To put this into context:



Roughly 7 barrels is equal to 1 ton of oil, so the 3 million tons produced would equate to ~20 million barrels of fuel. This, from 1941 onward, means that the monthly shortfall would be reduced from 1.9 million barrels to just around 300,000 tons. This remainder could be eliminated via the Romanians, since the Germans would have the ability to adequately supply their coal needs without the expansion of their synthetic program to the same extent:



So let's say in 1938 after the annexation of Austria, Matzen is discovered and developed while Schoonebeek falls in 1940/1941. On the industrial level this confers many benefits:

- Without the focusing of the chemical industry on fuel, greater production of synthetic rubber can be achieved and thus a major bottleneck on German truck production would be removed. Obviously a net benefit to motorization and logistics capabilities of the Germans.
- Less need for coal for synthetics means more coal for steel production, with all that means for more planes, tanks, etc.
- As a sort of addendum to the above, the construction of the plants themselves consumed massive amounts of resources, in particular steel and manpower, which here can go to other purposes.

On the military level, the effects are also obvious:

- The Luftwaffe can achieve its 1942 expansion plane for plane outputs as well as maintain their training standards, preventing the collapse in quantity and quality of the LW that occurred over the course of the war.
- Training standards for truck drivers would not be reduced either, which was a major factor in truck losses in military operations from Barbarossa on; we are talking tens of thousands of trucks being saved from accidents and the like.
- The Afrika Korps would probably take a defensive-rather than offensive-stance in North Africa which would significantly delay any Allied progress in remove the Italians from Libya.
- The Germans could help supply the Italian Navy with fuel, making it more active and effective and thus likely have an impact on the campaign for Malta in 1940-1942.
- Finally, as alluded to earlier, there would be no mad dash for Maikop and Grozny in 1942. This means the Germans keep to their phased planning for the campaign, as well as avoid the debacle of sending 4th Panzer Army to Rostov. Case Blue would thus be a success and its likely the damage done to the Soviets in it would be fatal, leading to their collapse in 1943/1944.

According to the sources provided Matzen and Schoonebeek are only capable of producing a combined total of 5.58 million barrels of crude per year. Or 465,000 barrels a month.
If the 1941 requirement is 7.25 million barrels, and historical production is 5.35 million barrels even with the additional fields the Reich is still short of 1.43 million barrels a month!?

Now this is at a steady peacetime production rate, there is no reason it cannot be scaled up, but its a big if.
For example Wytch Farm produces 410,000 barrels per month, it can however produce 3.35 million barrels per month.

If, and again its a really big if, Matzen and Schoonebeek are capable of a similar expanded production rate, then at a similar proportion they might be capable of providing an additional 3.78 million barrels of crude per month. This is extremely theoretical, we would need a really good source to provide a reasonable analysis. And outside of an alternate history a questionable position.

 

[sillygoose]

According to the sources provided Matzen and Schoonebeek are only capable of producing a combined total of 5.58 million barrels of crude per year. Or 465,000 barrels a month.
If the 1941 requirement is 7.25 million barrels, and historical production is 5.35 million barrels even with the additional fields the Reich is still short of 1.43 million barrels a month!?

Now this is at a steady peacetime production rate, there is no reason it cannot be scaled up, but its a big if.
For example Wytch Farm produces 410,000 barrels per month, it can however produce 3.35 million barrels per month.

If, and again its a really big if, Matzen and Schoonebeek are capable of a similar expanded production rate, then at a similar proportion they might be capable of providing an additional 3.78 million barrels of crude per month. This is extremely theoretical, we would need a really good source to provide a reasonable analysis. And outside of an alternate history a questionable position.

Matzen at the peak of production in the first couple of years of western exploitation (Soviet methods weren't exactly modern) it reached an output over 2 million tons per year for several years, which is over 14 million barrels. Schoonebeek at it's peak at the start of production produced over 1 million tons (or 7 million barrels) for a few years. So if the Germans hit that peak production it would, based on the TL presented on exploitation, come around 1941-42 and extend for a few years.

You have to be careful about using modern production numbers since these fields have been producing for about 70 years by 2021, so what's left is harder to extract and not the premium crude and maintaining gas pressure is harder, so they don't want to pump too fast or they won't be able to extract. So output drops off over time. That is a very different situation compared to the start of production of these fields when it is at its easier to extract and you can pump more without depressurizing the fields too much.

 

[BlackDragon98]

You have to be careful about using modern production numbers since these fields have been producing for about 70 years by 2021, so what's left is harder to extract and not the premium crude and maintaining gas pressure is harder, so they don't want to pump too fast or they won't be able to extract. So output drops off over time. That is a very different situation compared to the start of production of these fields when it is at its easier to extract and you can pump more without depressurizing the fields too much.

While I agree with this, I still believe that 1938 is too late for the Germans.
In order for Germany not to have an oil problem they need to have a bigger stockpile before the war starts, which means Austria has to join up in 1934, so Matzen can be found in 1935-36 and start production in full in around 1937-1938, giving about 2 years worth of full production (15 million barrels) to add to the pre-war stockpile.

And we haven't even talked about the transportation problem (Reichsbahn overhaul) and the truck problem (diesel engines)

 

[BlackDragon98]

I thought we were talking about Matildas in North Africa, not KVs in the East. Nevertheless the PAK38 could kill the T-34 and was the mainstay AT gun until late 1943.

Africa got a disproportionate share of resources even if relatively small in comparison to the Eastern Front.

300 tanks was the maximum the DAK could field for much of it's existence (until mid 1942)

No Malta means those 300 tanks have to go the very long way around the Cape, probably lose some of their numbers through merchant raiders or U-boats.

 

[stevep]

I think you're right. From what info I could find about the situation in 1945 it was less about the wrecked rail lines and more about the lack of rolling stock. I found one quote from a US officer about being surprised at how relatively intact the rail lines were. Though I think in the context he meant lines not the marshaling yards. In the cities/junctions they were pretty messed up though with enough labor that wasn't too much of an issue to fix. Having enough locomotives however is and by late 1944 the loss of those in retreats and especially in air attacks broke the system.

If you're really interested try to hunt down a copy of this book:


It mostly covers the rail system as that was the beating heart of the economy and its breakdown under air attack is what ultimately collapsed the economy when coal could no longer be delivered.

Sorry all I'm seeing is an Amazon icon, although I notice where I'm replying it display's a "0807858501"? Could you give me the title please?

With the libraries closed currently I'm reading some books I purchased on-line, although a lot slower than I used to as spend too much time on the computer but can add it to the list. Thanks.

 

[sillygoose]

Sorry all I'm seeing is an Amazon icon, although I notice where I'm replying it display's a "0807858501"? Could you give me the title please?

Are you on a mobile device by any chance?
The Collapse of the German War Economy, 1944-1945: Allied Air Power and the German National Railway New edition
by Alfred C. Mierzejewski
I cannot recommend the book more highly, it might be the best economic history of the war I've yet seen.

With the libraries closed currently I'm reading some books I purchased on-line, although a lot slower than I used to as spend too much time on the computer but can add it to the list. Thanks.

You're in the UK, right? Libraries are still closed there?
This is one I'd even recommend paying the price to get the paper copy.

 

[sillygoose]

While I agree with this, I still believe that 1938 is too late for the Germans.
In order for Germany not to have an oil problem they need to have a bigger stockpile before the war starts, which means Austria has to join up in 1934, so Matzen can be found in 1935-36 and start production in full in around 1937-1938, giving about 2 years worth of full production (15 million barrels) to add to the pre-war stockpile.

And we haven't even talked about the transportation problem (Reichsbahn overhaul) and the truck problem (diesel engines)

Some oil problems are inevitable, but having these sources hit peak production in 1941-42 would be exactly what they needed, not pre-war stockpiles, of which they had enough to do what they needed.

And we haven't even talked about the transportation problem (Reichsbahn overhaul) and the truck problem (diesel engines)

Not sure what needs to be said there, the RB did fine until 1945. It had troubles of course and the rail situation in Russia would have been improved had the RB officials been brought in on restructuring it, but even then they basically were able to make it work. The truck issue really wasn't one of having diesel engines though, as that industry was largely tied up with naval contracts (which BTW was consuming more money and production resources than panzers until 1944). The German economy has some limits and pre-war they were simply just set up to mostly make petrol engines, not diesel, so that was what they could make given production limitations.

300 tanks was the maximum the DAK could field for much of it's existence (until mid 1942)

No Malta means those 300 tanks have to go the very long way around the Cape, probably lose some of their numbers through merchant raiders or U-boats.

You're right. Like I said I was nitpicking the point that 88s were the only way to deal with Matildas and that all those 300 were ever going to be available at any one point. British tank designs were mechanically unreliable until 1943-44 depending on the model, but Cruiser tanks were notoriously problematic.

 

[stevep]

Assumptions are not backed up with data.
What I am presenting here is data. Pure and simple
300 Matilda and Crusader tanks and 24,000 tons of fuel is no laughing matter.
The Matilda was virtually invincible in North Africa, aside from 88mm flaks.
You grossly underestimate the impact of 300 tanks and 24,000 tons (168,000 barrels) of fuel on the Allied situation.

Just remember that there are no tanks factories in India and oil production in the MidEast is a fraction of what it is today.
Shipping around the Cape exposes ships to German merchant raiders and U-boats for prolonged periods of time.

And your point begs the question, if Malta wasn't worth it, why did the Allies have so many of their forces defending the damn place?
The genius Allies should have abandoned Malta if it wasn't worth defending, but instead they continuously shipped troops and gear there at astronomical costs.
I wonder who's smarter, Allied High Command or you?

Also . . .
"aircraft sank 1,326 ships, for a total of 1,466,208 tons."

Siege of Malta (World War II) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where are those aircraft going to based without Malta?
Because aircraft carriers aren't going to last long, as history proved with HMS Ark Royal and Eagle.


Once Malta falls there will no longer be any need to maintain as many aircraft because all those Italian aircraft used to bomb Malta are now available for use in Africa.
So what if Fliegerkorps X is transferred to Russia?
The Italian planes no longer needed at Malta can be transferred to Africa instead.

Your points are really full of nothing at all and have no logical backbone to them.

Taking points where relevant:
a) If you actually read my post you would see my objections were primarily to your tendency for personal insults. That is not only stupid in itself it undermines the validity of your arguments.

b) The lack of invincibility of the Matilda 2 has already been mentioned by sillygoose and furthermore it was slow and mechanically somewhat unreliable. Ditto as said with the Crusaders. Too many posters, like Churchill, tended to take raw numbers of delivered units and not accept the actual problems of maintaining units so those available for use were often less than he assumed.

c) Tiger and the convoy in autumn 1940 which brought a lot of the armour for Operation Crusader were the exceptions as virtually all the material for the western desert force went via the Cape. That was because while slower and requiring a lot more shipping it was a lot more reliable. Which is proved by your point about the Axis air forces in the theatre and their bases. It took considerable effort and often heavy losses to get supplies to Malta to keep it alive. Trying to run regular convoys to Egypt through the Med would have been a recipe for disaster which is why the commanders of the allied forces didn't try it. Also why Britain repeated pushed for operations such as Torch which would make such a short cut much more practical.

d) Actually, while there might have been a need for specialised fuel types - probably I would speculate high octane a/c fuel - the ME did provide the vast majority of the fuel that allied forces in the ME theatre used, which is exactly why Hitler had delusions about capturing it.

e) Actually what I have said is there is a counter argument that has been about for a long while about the importance of Malta in terms of restraining the Axis actions in Africa and that other logistical limits would have prevented them breaking into the Nile valley, let alone the rest of the ME reason. This may be wrong but at least should be considered. In terms of why Britain defended Malta there are two obvious reasons:
i) Rightly or wrongly they considered Malta vital for the role you suggest.
ii) It was British territory and hence there was a political incentive to defend it. Especially with Churchill as PM if your aware of his OOT reaction to the Italian occupation of British Somaliland earlier in the war.

f) Interesting your suggesting I think myself smarter than the allied high command - which at this stage largely meant the same WSC. Given that most of the WWII threads posted here are assuming that one or other - with a worrying obsession with the Nazis in most cases - power could have done so much better in WWII, including this same thread. I know I have information that the people at the time didn't so I would definitely have avoided a lot of 'mistakes', some of which others would debate no doubt but I also know I'm not aware of a lot people at the time were, including limitations they would have had in many cases. As such if put in charge of say Britain in 1940 I would have a lot of ideas but I'm also aware some of those may be impractical in practice.

g) As I pointed out Axis a/c of any nationality based in eastern Libya to operate against allied forces are going to make considerable demands on the forces logistics themselves. Why do you think that the Axis were generally outnumbered in the air. Britain had the advantage of a far stronger and frequently nearer logistic centre in Egypt.

 

[stevep]

Are you on a mobile device by any chance?
The Collapse of the German War Economy, 1944-1945: Allied Air Power and the German National Railway New edition
by Alfred C. Mierzejewski
I cannot recommend the book more highly, it might be the best economic history of the war I've yet seen.


You're in the UK, right? Libraries are still closed there?
This is one I'd even recommend paying the price to get the paper copy.

Many thanks. Note taken. Sorry about the slow response but the eggs boiled - the limit of my culinary expertise - so I took a break for lunch. I'm in the UK yes but somewhat of a dinosaur so managed to avoid having a mobile so far.

Steve

 

[sillygoose]

Many thanks. Note taken. Sorry about the slow response but the eggs boiled - the limit of my culinary expertise - so I took a break for lunch. I'm in the UK yes but somewhat of a dinosaur so managed to avoid having a mobile so far.

Steve

No worries. The mobile question was to figure out if that was the reason the amazon link couldn't be displayed properly, as you're not the first person to mention they couldn't see my amazon links. Did you try clicking on it? I'm curious if it redirects properly.

Given that most of the WWII threads posted here are assuming that one or other - with a worrying obsession with the Nazis in most cases - power could have done so much better in WWII, including this same thread.

If I may interject on this aside, I think the reason that happens is because with Allies do better threads usually you end up with the same result as OTL just faster. With the Nazis/Germans do better TLs you could potentially get major differences from OTL, which I think tends to be more interesting to alternate history hobbyists. So unfortunately you run into a situation where you tend to get more threads that looking worrying in the context of there being more of them, but it's coming from a place of being interested in exploring the butterflies of the result or simple wargamer mentality of seeing if you could do military operations better rather than expressing personal political opinions/fantasies.

Take my Hungary threads as an example, I was curious about the potential political results vis-a-vis the Cold War in the Balkans than in the Nazis getting to survive, since that would have interesting far reaching consequences for Europe and potentially the world in the 20th century. It's just that they only way to get there is to have the Nazis do better militarily. Plus I'm also interested in wargaming, so from that nerd perspective it is interesting if you can do better in hard mode.

 

[stevep]

No worries. The mobile question was to figure out if that was the reason the amazon link couldn't be displayed properly, as you're not the first person to mention they couldn't see my amazon links. Did you try clicking on it? I'm curious if it redirects properly.

Sorry no, no response at all. Using Win 10 on my computer and Firefox for the browser if it makes any difference. I've since that icon and got the same lack of response elsewhere.

If I may interject on this aside, I think the reason that happens is because with Allies do better threads usually you end up with the same result as OTL just faster. With the Nazis/Germans do better TLs you could potentially get major differences from OTL, which I think tends to be more interesting to alternate history hobbyists. So unfortunately you run into a situation where you tend to get more threads that looking worrying in the context of there being more of them, but it's coming from a place of being interested in exploring the butterflies of the result or simple wargamer mentality of seeing if you could do military operations better rather than expressing personal political opinions.

That's partly it I suspect although in some cases there seems to be such an hostility towards the Soviets that there's an underlying assumption that a Nazi victory would be better for the world. Which is odd. I grew up with the continued threat of a Soviet invasion of western Europe and/or a devastating nuclear exchange. Which I think is a reason why many of my early Ah WWII scenarios, as well as being wildly unrealistic, had Germany doing better against the Soviets before being defeated. I.e. there was a yearning for a weaken Soviet empire. However the latter's been dead and buried for 30 years now so it seems odd that such feeling still survives. True Putin is an obnoxious and murderous idiot but he's also pretty much removing Russia as a military threat for the foreseeable future by his incompetence and egomania.

Take my Hungary threads as an example, I was curious about the potential political results vis-a-vis the Cold War in the Balkans than in the Nazis getting to survive, since that would have interesting far reaching consequences for Europe and potentially the world in the 20th century. It's just that they only way to get there is to have the Nazis do better militarily. Plus I'm also interested in wargaming, so from that nerd perspective it is interesting if you can do better in hard mode.

I know what you mean. Back in the 80's and early 90's often used to play Avalon Hill's Advanced Third Reich and preferred playing Germany as the most challenging game.

 

[sillygoose]

Sorry no, no response at all. Using Win 10 on my computer and Firefox for the browser if it makes any difference. I've since that icon and got the same lack of response elsewhere.

Huh. I'm not a techie, so I'm stumped.

That's partly it I suspect although in some cases there seems to be such an hostility towards the Soviets that there's an underlying assumption that a Nazi victory would be better for the world. Which is odd. I grew up with the continued threat of a Soviet invasion of western Europe and/or a devastating nuclear exchange. Which I think is a reason why many of my early Ah WWII scenarios, as well as being wildly unrealistic, had Germany doing better against the Soviets before being defeated. I.e. there was a yearning for a weaken Soviet empire. However the latter's been dead and buried for 30 years now so it seems odd that such feeling still survives. True Putin is an obnoxious and murderous idiot but he's also pretty much removing Russia as a military threat for the foreseeable future by his incompetence and egomania.

First of all sorry to go on a rant about this, it seems this issue has come up quite a bit in the last few years in online alternate history forums where what you discuss is interpreted as being an expression of your politics rather than just a hobby to distract you from the real world for a bit. Some people seem to really buy into the badly misunderstood concept of the 'personal is political' and any thing you put out there is ultimately an expression of some barely hidden ideology rather than just history nerds nerding out about their hobby.

I don't think most people who explore Nazi victory scenarios are under any illusion that it would be a better world (I mean come on General Plan East and Holocaust), it's more about exploring a different world.

As to wanting a weakened USSR it isn't really a surprise given what we know about what crimes they committed from the 1940s and what the spread of communism to Asia meant:

Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• In 2017, Professor Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that communism killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering."[ah][39]

Kotkin's estimate is on the low end of scholarly sources.

Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with estimates ranging between 15 and 55 million deaths, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest in human history.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

It was entirely artificially induced by Mao's policies and that was only part of his crimes.
This also leaves out the wars from 1945 onwards as well. Understand though I'm not claiming the Nazis were less bad or anything, I reject the entire concept of atrocity olympics, just pointing out there is a reason why people interested in what ifs might be interested in scenarios that could see things like the rise of Mao or the expansion of Stalin's empire averted and Hitler also be crushed in the process. Plus IOTL Hitler was crushed and what ifs generally are about the 'road not taken'. Of course that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Since the Cold War was arguably the defining conflict of the 20th century it isn't a big surprise that alternate history enthusiasts would tend to focus on the big events that shape our world today, especially one that caused a larger body count than WW2 even if you just focus on the bodycount in Asia from the end of WW2 to the 1990s. WW2 then is the event that would shape the nature of the Cold War and could have potentially averted its worst crimes, so it would seem natural that it is the source of a bunch of what if threads. Often too a lot of posters are younger people who haven't really discussed this in depth or for a long time either; it's certainly old hat to some of us, but with the internet we have a lot of younger people coming in who are discussing this for the first time or haven't really had many discussions about it yet.

Plus since we are talking about modern history I don't see what it being over for 30 years has to do with anything when we also talk about stuff that happened 50, 100, or 1000 years ago relatively regularly in this hobby. Usually it is decades later when scholarship is really able to grapple with what happened more accurately since the emotions 'of the moment' have faded, which is when interest in the subject then tends to spike. If you look at the 1960s-70s it is rather surprising that the WW1 war guilt question was being furiously debated, but makes sense given that new archival material and many new books were coming out, like Guns of August; that was a 50 year old question by that time though.

I highly doubt interest in a different Cold War has anything remotely to do with Putin today since WW2 and Cold War what ifs have been popular for generations.

I know what you mean. Back in the 80's and early 90's often used to play Avalon Hill's Advanced Third Reich and preferred playing Germany as the most challenging game.

Ah man Avalon Hill, that takes me back.
Yeah I think for most people interested in gaming it's mostly a non-issue about the politics and morality of things (if it were why would people play with something as horrible as war?) as much as liking to grapple with defined issues and seeing how they could do within that system as a way to occupy their minds in a consequence-less way.

 

[BlackDragon98]

b) The lack of invincibility of the Matilda 2 has already been mentioned by sillygoose and furthermore it was slow and mechanically somewhat unreliable. Ditto as said with the Crusaders. Too many posters, like Churchill, tended to take raw numbers of delivered units and not accept the actual problems of maintaining units so those available for use were often less than he assumed.

DAK was a sideshow for Hitler and Rommel was forced to make use of limited numbers of Panzer IIIs and IVs, as most of the armor available were shitty Italian tanks that were even worse.
Panzer IIIs for the most part armed with the 5cm KwK 38 L/42, incapable of taking on the Matilda head on. 5cm KwK 39 only started arrive in early 1942.
Panzer IVs used the short barreled 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24, even less capable than the 5cm KwK 38 L/42. The long 75, the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/43 only appeared on the Panzer IV after April 1942.

On the other hand, the 40mm gun of the Matilda could pierce through the 3-5cm of front armor the Panzer IIIs and IVs had.
Not odds I would like to face.

c) Tiger and the convoy in autumn 1940 which brought a lot of the armour for Operation Crusader were the exceptions as virtually all the material for the western desert force went via the Cape. That was because while slower and requiring a lot more shipping it was a lot more reliable. Which is proved by your point about the Axis air forces in the theatre and their bases. It took considerable effort and often heavy losses to get supplies to Malta to keep it alive. Trying to run regular convoys to Egypt through the Med would have been a recipe for disaster which is why the commanders of the allied forces didn't try it. Also why Britain repeated pushed for operations such as Torch which would make such a short cut much more practical.

Since you mention Operation Crusader.

Operation Crusader - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Allies took heavy tank losses during the battle and almost lost the battle itself.

Allies had 738 tanks at Crusader compared to Axis just under 400 tanks.
Let's say that those 300 tanks take the long way round the Cape.
Rommel would have overrun Tobruk, leading to an earlier and possibly Axis victory at El Alamein.

d) Actually, while there might have been a need for specialised fuel types - probably I would speculate high octane a/c fuel - the ME did provide the vast majority of the fuel that allied forces in the ME theatre used, which is exactly why Hitler had delusions about capturing it.

Hitler's greatest mistake was not using Vichy France to his advantage, especially after Mers El Kabir.
Whole other topic, though there is an oil pipeline running from the iraqi fields to a syria port back then.
Axis take the Med and then march into the Mideast.

ii) It was British territory and hence there was a political incentive to defend it. Especially with Churchill as PM if your aware of his OOT reaction to the Italian occupation of British Somaliland earlier in the war.

Coming from the same guy who left Singapore, Malaya, and Hong Kong to their fate when it was clear the Japanese were going to strike.

g) As I pointed out Axis a/c of any nationality based in eastern Libya to operate against allied forces are going to make considerable demands on the forces logistics themselves. Why do you think that the Axis were generally outnumbered in the air. Britain had the advantage of a far stronger and frequently nearer logistic centre in Egypt.

Axis can counter using flak trucks.
Two flak trucks with 2cm Flakvierlings covered by big tarps in every convoy.
Instant death for any Allied plane.

Should have shipped more flak guns to the DAK, they can be used to wipe out infantry, the 2cm probably had enough AP to destroy light tanks and armored cars and defend the skies as well.
A convoy of covered Flakvierling trucks would be the ultimate trap.

 

[History Learner]

According to the sources provided Matzen and Schoonebeek are only capable of producing a combined total of 5.58 million barrels of crude per year. Or 465,000 barrels a month.
If the 1941 requirement is 7.25 million barrels, and historical production is 5.35 million barrels even with the additional fields the Reich is still short of 1.43 million barrels a month!?

Now this is at a steady peacetime production rate, there is no reason it cannot be scaled up, but its a big if.
For example Wytch Farm produces 410,000 barrels per month, it can however produce 3.35 million barrels per month.

If, and again its a really big if, Matzen and Schoonebeek are capable of a similar expanded production rate, then at a similar proportion they might be capable of providing an additional 3.78 million barrels of crude per month. This is extremely theoretical, we would need a really good source to provide a reasonable analysis. And outside of an alternate history a questionable position.

This is the modern production rate; rates back in the 1940s and 1940s were higher since 70 years of extraction had not occurred.

 

[BlackDragon98]

This is the modern production rate; rates back in the 1940s and 1940s were happy since 70 years of extraction had not occurred.

I took a closer look and it seems your arguments may have some merit to it.
Downloaded 2 PDF presentations, one by OMV, the company developing the Matzen field.
They stated that full production started in 1951, which supports my two years from development to full production point.
They also mentioned that 553 million barrels of oil have already been produced from the field, which means if the Nazis were to find the field before WW2, the production rate would be higher than the number cited in Wikipedia.

However, the other PDF presentation by NAM (a joint venture by Shell and Exxonmobil) counters your point.
The oil in Schoonebeek is heavy oil, very viscous stuff that hard to extract, which is why the field was abandoned in 1996 and only restarted production in 2014. The production rate in 2014 was 20000 barrels/day, but this is using modern tech, stuff unavailable to the Germans back in the 1930s and 40s.
However, an image did show that a part of the Schoonebeek field is actually on the German side of the border, so there's the potential for it to be found in the 1930s.

 

[Buba]

Maybe of use:

WI: The Austrian fascist regime finds the Matzen oil field around 1934?

What if the Matzen oil field, located in the outskirts of Vienna, had been discovered by Austrian prospectors when the country was under the fascist and anti-German Fatherland Front regime in the early 1930's? Would knowledge of its value and Austria's following development of it provide some...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[BlackDragon98]

All you need is one to work, though that claim is contradicted by other sources I've seen on the subject. I'd trust the German records over that of a niche Dutch historian who's sources aren't listed.

Was looking through my PDFs and I found a US military doc about the role of German Pioneres in WW2.
The Brandenburgers at the time were known as the Besonderen Verwendung 100.
"The failure of the Besonderen Verwendung to seize the Meuse River bridges became painfully clear when all three of the bridges “blew up into the air in front of advanced units of the 4th Panzer Division.”64"
Bridges across the Meuse were all successfully destroyed by the Dutch.