GTL base oil technology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Pretty good read wrt the widespread fuel supply … even a bit on the lighter side when you see the cultural differences were not the issue that gets crammed at average folks these days

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+secret...M=QBLH&sp=1


I think I have heard a little about this . Not to belittle the accomplishment , and any oil was a blessing , at that time . But compared to Texas / Oklahoma production numbers , the British production was small .

I think the Brits had sufficient domestic coal production . I wonder how it would have turned out , had they tried coal to oil production ?
 
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Pretty good read wrt the widespread fuel supply … even a bit on the lighter side when you see the cultural differences were not the issue that gets crammed at average folks these days

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+secret...M=QBLH&sp=1


I think I have heard a little about this . Not to belittle the accomplishment , and any oil was a blessing , at that time . But compared to Texas / Oklahoma production numbers , the British production was small .

I think the Brits had sufficient domestic coal production . I wonder how it would have turned out , had they tried coal to oil production ?


One of the short term issues was so many things coming from afar got sank in transit …

Long term, reckon it was a wake up call on using competive contractors vs company run (ran like government) in terms of cost and project delivery …
 
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister

I think the Tiger tanks had reliability issues . At least the early production tanks . If a tank breaks down , it becomes a pill box . And a target .
I think a related problem was the lack of an appropriate tank recovery vehicle . Other than another Tiger .

I think a big reason the later German tanks had such reliability issues was the fact that they did not keep the weights under control during development...I believe the Panther was originally supposed to be a very mobile 20-25 ton tank and ended up being 40. They used an engine that could still move that 40 tons around OK, but the transmission and suspension were not properly upgraded for the higher weight and broke down often in the field. I believe a Panther was supposed to get a transmission overhaul or a new unit for every 300 road miles!

The Germans also totally dropped the ball on tank recovery and repair, they seemed to assume that once a tank was hit it would most likely be abandoned.
The US tanks were more like cars, designed for mass production and also to be repaired. The US Army also provided equipment and manpower for recovering and repairing tanks that were not totally burned out.
That was one great distinction a book I read made, German tank production was basically similar to the way they made locomotives while US tank production was largely handled or influenced by car makers.
 
Suspect , all true .

I have also heard , while we shipped lots of Shermans to Europe , we also shipped lots of spare parts . I also heard , the Brits often required hand fitting ( did this also apply to German production ? ) . Where as American spare parts ( made largely by the auto industry ) fit , out of the box .

I have watched a video where they interviewed repair troops that refurbished burned out Shermans . Not a pleasant duty . He said they painted the whole interior white ( after cleaning ) . In order to dampen the smell . :-(

Also heard the front drive / differential of a Sherman could be changed out in a Sherman in maybe 4 hours .

In a German Panther , days !
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The Fischer-Tropsch method for Gas-to-Liquid was developed by the Germans during WWII.
... and has been described in chemistry texts nearly ever since.
 
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Suspect , all true .
I have also heard , while we shipped lots of Shermans to Europe , we also shipped lots of spare parts . I also heard , the Brits often required hand fitting ( did this also apply to German production ? ) . Where as American spare parts ( made largely by the auto industry ) fit , out of the box .
I have watched a video where they interviewed repair troops that refurbished burned out Shermans . Not a pleasant duty . He said they painted the whole interior white ( after cleaning ) . In order to dampen the smell . :-(
Also heard the front drive / differential of a Sherman could be changed out in a Sherman in maybe 4 hours .
In a German Panther , days !

My father was in a US armored division in WWII, but he rode in a halftrack instead of a tank.
He once described to me hearing men screaming as they burned in tanks...made quite an impression on me and I'm sure he never forgot that sound.
He also told me about things that were even worse, but this is probably not the place to go into such detail.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Yes, the Germans did not invent the jet engine. It was either the British or the French depending on how you look at it.


Nein. It was the Germans. Hans Von Ohain built the first successful jet engine (actually flew in the Heinkel He178 in 1939).
The English were close behind with the Whittle Welland.
France's early jet engines were copies of the Germans WW2 engines.
 
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Originally Posted By: bbhero
If I'm not mistaken the reason why they did it because of their invention of the jet engine.. Amazing what they did at that time. And candidly if they had produced many more tiger tanks the second world war would have lasted a fair amount longer. That tank was far superior to any other tank on the battlefield. The Sherman tanks were nicknamed Ronson's by the Germans. Because they literally burst into fire after being hit. But the massive number of the Sherman and Soviet tanks overwhelmed the small number of tiger tanks. The bombing of their production and manufacturing really helped a lot more than people realized.


I have watched videos about Germany's WWII oil situation . They were evidently in a severe bind for oil . That is the reason for their coal to oil production . Which was more expensive than oil from traditional sources ( had they been available ) .

I think the Tiger tanks had reliability issues . At least the early production tanks . If a tank breaks down , it becomes a pill box . And a target .

I think a related problem was the lack of an appropriate tank recovery vehicle . Other than another Tiger .

And then, the lack of fuel across the whole German Military .



Yeah, that was pretty much Hitler's whole strategy: he who controls the petroleum, controls the world. Attack in North Africa to get the Arabian oil fields. Attack in southern Europe to get the Romanian oil. Attack Russia to get the Caucasus oil. Fortunately he was thwarted in North Africa and Russia, and America's raids on the Ploesti oil fields in Romania really started their oil crisis. At the end of the war, Germany still had weapons to fight with, but no oil to move them with.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The Fischer-Tropsch method for Gas-to-Liquid was developed by the Germans during WWII.


Yes and the fluids derived from it were considered full synthetic.


and rightly so.


If Shell didn't try to circumvent laws in an attempt to get all group III legally labeled full synthetic it would be a group V but they tried to pull a fast one. Now their top tier synthetics is now labeled as second tier.

Quote:
Shell Helix Ultra 0W-40 - Motorenöl auf Basis von Synthesetechnologie


It goes on to mention Shell PurePlus Technology which is GTL.

For their premium 0w30 they just say Shell PurePlus Technology and chose not to use anything mentioning synthetic.
 
Different.

Quote:
GTL hydrocracking is different from refinery hydrocracking because sulfur- and nitrogen-containing species and (poly)aromatics are absent.
 
Fuel and lubricating oils derived from the Fischer-Tropsch method were considered full synthetic until Shell claimed it was a group III+ and also a full synthetic and wanted to put full synthetic on the label as a group III.

Getting around the law has been going on for over 3 decades, it never happened and it didn't this time either. If they would have pulled this off there would be no more SHC designation, just full synthetic like the USA.
I read this explanation about the numerous attempts to circumvent the law in a trade paper years ago. GTL is a legitimate Fischer-Tropsch full synthetic but in Germany its an SHC of their own designation, they could have legally listed it as a Group V synthetic in Germany as it always was.

Confusing eh? It is but to simplify..

Under the law, if it comes out of the ground as oil it cannot be labeled full synthetic regardless of what processes have be done to it or the outcome.

Full Synthetics are group IV reserved for PAO and group V for esters, GTL and whatever else doesn't fit in the other groups.

I read something about future group VI but don't remember much about it.
 
Strange.... Didn't see any French or Great Britain jets in late WWII. At least what I have ever heard about.

But the Germans did manage to get some up in the air and operational.

Maybe just maybe... The Germans we're actually ahead of those two other countries..

The Germans we're ahead of the US and Russia in ICBM ideas and technology as well. And we knew it has did the Russians. The goal to get there first was important to both sides.

Just thank goodness that they did not figure out the atomic bomb... That would have changed the course of history greatly.
 
Last edited:
I have zero doubt that Great Britain beat us to the jet engine....


That's because they were ahead of our nation prior to WWII starting. That pace quickened once the war began in earnest.

In all reality.... The US was woefully behind every other major nation in the world at that start of WWII in terms of technology related to aviation, weapon design and naval capability.


The Japanese Zero was far, far far superior to anything the US could put in the air at first in WWII. Tanks... We were very far behind the Germans. And though that gap closed throughout the war... We still were behind at the end of the war. Like other very smart members here have said.... No fuel... No oil... No go.
 
We , for all practical purposes , received our RADAR technology ( magnatron tube ) from GB . Which we put to much better use ( during WWII ) than we did the jet technology .

Jet engines of that era were very thirsty beasts . Considering Germany's fuel problems , the only up side of this on the jet is it burned a lower grade of fuel than the Av-Gas burned by the piston engine airplanes .
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Strange.... Didn't see any French or Great Britain jets in late WWII. At least what I have ever heard about.

But the Germans did manage to get some up in the air and operational.

Maybe just maybe... The Germans we're actually ahead of those two other countries..

The Germans we're ahead of the US and Russia in ICBM ideas and technology as well. And we knew it has did the Russians. The goal to get there first was important to both sides.

Just thank goodness that they did not figure out the atomic bomb... That would have changed the course of history greatly.


Think the Brit WWII jet airplane was the Meteor ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=british+metior&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
 
In comparison to what Germany actually did.... Which had real jets in combat..... Air to air... Advantage... Germany. Not GB.... Not US either.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
HDEO with a GTL base oil?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
kschachn
JD!
Some thoughts about non-Euro Oil in my Euro car.
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
5K
JD!
KCJeep
Quaker State Ultimate Protection is GTL Based! (or might not be; read full thread)
2 3
Replies
52
Views
17K
wpod
wwillson
  • Sticky
Pennzoil - Key Features and Benefits of ILSAC GF-7 Q&A - Answers
Replies
1
Views
4K
oilstained
W
Advice on first oil change and beyond - Mazda CX-5 2.5 N/A
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Urshurak776
Back
Top Bottom