The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

[El Pip]

Chapter CL: The Murky Depths of Black Gold.​

The issue of whether a barrel of crude oil was fungible was not the sort of question that most politicians or senior civil servants bothered themselves with, and not just because they may not have been able to understand it. For those that did the answer would undoubtedly be yes it was fungible, from the grand strategic perspective it was merely important to have a reliable supply of "oil" (whether from domestic production or secure sources of import) and no real distinction was made as to the type. However if you ran a refinery then oil was very much not fungible, a barrel of sweet and light Iraqi crude could not usefully be substituted for by any amount of Venezuelan sour and heavy oil, at least not if you wanted the refinery to run properly. So those inside the oil market made sure to be careful in their negotiations and specifications, preferring to trade directly with the oil producers to be surer of exactly what they were buying. Hence while one could find a quoted "price" for a barrel of oil it was at best an indicative reference, one calculated as the average from many wells of varying quality. The price you would actually pay could vary considerably, depending if one wanted a higher quality or could find a use for the dregs the supplier was keen to be rid off. These two worlds would happily have co-existed without ever crossing over, or even being particularly aware of each other, had a technological development not intervened and forced the strategists to engage with the practical realities. The prompt for this was the seemingly minor decision of the RAF to switch from 87 octane fuel to 100 octane, to take advantage of the greater 'anti-knock' properties of that fuel and the resulting further boost to aero-engine performance. The service had only finally completed switching from 77 to 87 octane in 1935 so there was a degree of grumbling from the Treasury at another change so soon, however as fuel was always being used up (and indeed could 'spoil' if left too long) it was expected this could be managed with minimal wastage of existing supplies and some fairly cheap alterations to existing engines. The Air Ministry obtained some samples of 100 octane fuel from Royal Dutch Shell's US subsidiary at the start of 1936 and began testing. At this point the problem emerged; none of the fuels worked as promised and in many cases performance decreased or the engine itself suffered damage. With the start of the Abyssinian War the issue dropped to a low priority and was kicked out to a research group run by the Royal Aircraft Establishment and experts from the fuel and engine industry. By the end of 1936 the Air Ministry was paying attention again and the group reported back, their first finding being that the Octane Number was a terrible way to classify fuels, a fact long suspected even by those who had invented the system. The trials demonstrated it was possible to produce completely different mixtures that had very different effects on an engine and get both of them to test as '100 Octane'. To briefly explain the octane number was a rating of the fuels ability to resist detonation, that is the fuel in the cylinder combusting at the wrong time due to ambient heat or pressure and not because of the spark from the sparkplug. If the fuel did detonate too early that caused a dramatic pressure increase in the affected cylinder that could damage the engine, it also made a very distinctive 'knocking' sound, hence why higher octane fuels were said to have 'anti-knock' properties. A fuel that was more resistant to knock meant an engine could run a higher manifold pressure, which meant more fuel and air being combusted and so more power produced, assuming of course that the rest of the engine could handle the higher pressures.

Two crude oil samples, on the left a light oil and on the right a heavy one. In oil terms light and heavy referred to the specific gravity of the oil, light crudes producing more 'lighter' (short chain) products like petrol, diesel and kerosene, whereas a heavy crude would produce more fuel oil, asphalt, bitumen and feedstock product. Not seen, as it makes no difference to the appearance, is the sweetness of the two samples. To somewhat over-simplify a sweet crude oil has a low sulphur content, whereas a sour one has a high level of sulphur that would have to be removed during refining. Finally there were the equally invisible 'aromatics' also know as the BTXs (Benzene, Toulene and Xylenes) the content of which varied considerably and had a substantial impact on what the refinery could produce. While any good refinery would have a degree of flexibility on what it could take there were limits and you could not just put any barrel of oil into any refinery and expect things to work out. The Air Ministry and the various economic departments of the government had mostly managed to survive without caring, or even knowing, about these differences but would be denied that luxury as they dealt with the High Octane Question.

The group further proved that the octane number of any individual fuel could vary with the fuel-air mix inside the cylinder, but that this change depended upon the composition of the fuel. This was a problem as British military engines had developed to take advantage of this fact, even if neither the designers or the Air Ministry had been consciously aware of it. British engines expected fuels which showed a 'rich mixture response', that is to say if you ran them at a rich mixture (more fuel than required) they would combust at a cooler temperature, which allowed you to run at a higher pressure and get more power, at the cost of increased fuel consumption. The Merlin in a Spitfire for instance could run at a rich mixture for take off and climb, then switch to a lean mixture for cruising at altitude to get the best of both. The problem was the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) had specified a maximum of 2% aromatics in their fuel, because above that content the aromatics started eating the fuel lines and damaging the engines, so the 100 Octane mixes they had developed followed that rule. In contrast the Air Ministry had a de-facto minimum aromatic content of 20% (their 77 octane fuel had in fact been called 80/20 as it was 80% aviation spirit and 20% aromatic benzol) and while this meant British aircraft needed stronger fuel lines to resist the corrosive effects this aromatic content was vital to get the 'rich mixture' response. The results was that if you tried to run USAAC 100 octane in a British engine you either had less power at take off and climb or you boosted the mixture as normal, didn't get the expected cooling effect, and so seriously damaged the engine due to excess knock. Fortunately the group's final finding was much more positive, they had developed a British blend of 100 octane, it would come to be known as BAM100 (British Air Ministry 100 octane), which had the required properties and then tested it in a Merlin. With minimal modification this allowed the supercharger boost of the engine to be increased from 6.25 psi to 12psi, if only for 5 minutes or so, but that extra boost equated to 300hp extra and was enough to give a Spitfire an additional 25mph at sea level, 35mph at 10,000ft and faster climbing at all altitudes. Rolls Royce were also confident they could strengthen the relevant parts of the Merlin and have the next models operating at 12psi boost at all times, with similar benefits expected in all future engines. This was clearly a valuable improvement and so the Air Ministry began making plans to start the changeover of existing designs and incorporate a requirement for BAM100 octane fuel into the new specifications and engine development plans. By this time news had filtered up to the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) and the Oil Board became officially aware of the plans, those bodies raised concerns about the strategic implications of this plan, focusing on the issue of where the RAF proposed to get this new 100 octane fuel from and how supplies could be secured.

A Bristol Blenheim Mk.I bomber of No.90 Squadron being inspected by it's new crew at RAF Bicester. The squadron would be selected as one of the trials units for 100 octane fuel, Strike Command were keen to see what performance gains were possible for their bombers and so 'volunteered' the newly formed squadron. In the event the trials merely proved that not all existing engines would benefit from the new fuel; the Mercury VIII engines in the Blenheim were pressure limited not knock limited, so any attempt to increase boost risked damage to the engine. Bristol would strengthen the crankshaft and bearings of the design and produce the Mercury XV which could take roughly double the boost (+5psi to +9psi) and so eke the engines take off power up to 920hp as against the 840hp of the Mercury VIII. The resulting Blenheim Mk.IV had fairly similar performance, but with the extra take-off power available could carry more fuel and gained 300miles of range or carry more bombs to the same range. These gains were more typical of what could be expected from the change of fuel, very few existing engine/aircraft combinations would see the immense improvements that the Merlin powered Spitfires did.​

The Oil Board was a sub-committee of the CID and as one would guess it was concerned with the supply and distribution of oil and all related fuels and substances. By the mid 1930s the glass, or perhaps the barrel, was either mostly full or basically empty depending upon how you looked at it. The negative case was that just over 5% of the oil imported into Britain came from the Empire, mostly the fields of Trinidad, and there was little prospect of that figure improving in the short or medium term. The positive case was that over 85% came from oilfields that were leased and operated by British companies (if one counted the Anglo-Dutch Shell concern as 'British) and from countries either within the Sterling Area or that accepted payment in sterling. The Oil Board tended towards the 'mostly full' interpretation and were of the opinion that the main limitation stopping that figure increasing was not actually supply or currency, but tanker capacity. This 'mostly full' position was not an accident, concerted efforts had been made to reduce dependence on US sources ever since the Board had been founded in the early 1920s and these had only accelerated after President Landon's policy choices during the ongoing war in Spain. The US and Britain ending up on opposite sides of that conflict, even if the US government strenuously denied that they had taken a side at all, had once again highlighted the risks of being dependent on US supplies in time of war. This background informed how they approached the question of 100 octane supply; Empire or Sterling Area production was preferred, avoid American sources if at all possible and make sure the impact on the tanker fleet was manageable. It should therefore be no surprise that Oil Board was quietly pleased that the existing US sources of high octane fuel were not suitable for RAF use and that they had got involved before a decision had been made. The board moved quickly to heavily recommended against the interim solution proposed by some of the oil companies of upgrading the US refineries used to make USAAC grade fuel to be able to produce BAM100 as well (only after long term supply contracts had been signed of course). This intervention very much cut to the heart of the matter, that while there was an official pretence that the matter was a private sector decision with the government 'just' buying the fuel, in reality there were no large customers for high octane fuel outside of military air forces, so the Air Ministry for once had a great deal of leverage. The subsequent question of where the fuel should be sourced from instead was more complex as many of the key considerations were impossible to know with any certainty. The key variables were where any future conflict would be fought and if the Mediterranean would be 'open' or 'closed' to tanker traffic. For planning purposes the answer on the former was decreed to be 'anywhere', while the most likely flashpoint was still see as a 'Far Eastern defensive operation' (code for war with Japan), the experience of the Abyssinian War had left the CID reluctant to rule anything out so options were prepared for a range of conflicts. They did however commit to the Med always being 'open', with the Italian fleet crippled and Mussolini focusing on rebuilding his land and air forces it was believed that the Med could be kept open to critical tanker convoys in any future conflict.

HMCS St Laurent, formerly the C-class destroyer HMS Cygnet she had been purchased by the Canadian government as part of their post-Abyssinian naval rearmament. In the summer of 1937 the St Laurent was serving with the Royal Navy's North America and West Indies Station, a secondment which had been seen as a low risk way for the Royal Canadian Navy to get some operational experience without the cost of going to Singapore or the political issues of the Spanish Civil War. An emergency call from the Governor of Trinidad for Admiralty assistance would shatter this belief and the St Laurent would be dragged into the Trinidad Oil Field Strike as she dashed to the islands alongside the cruiser HMS Ajax. A strike over low pay had been hijacked and turned violent, so the Royal Marine detachments of Ajax along side a 'landing party' from St Laurent would bolster the police until order was restored and the strike could play out peacefully. This was not the sort of experience Ottawa had envisaged it's sailors gaining and there was unease at being dragged into such affairs, yet there was also pride at how well the matter was handled, acknowledgment of the importance of Trinidad to the oil economy of the Empire and recognition of the fact that great engagement with affairs outside of Canada would inevitably result in more of these sort of incidents.​

The final plan therefore spread it's bets somewhat, which was inline with the Air Ministry preferred portfolio approach and a practical necessity given the projected fuel requirements far exceeded what any one site could realistically produce. In the UK a single existing refinery, the Stanlow Refinery at Ellesmere Port, was selected for upgrades on the basis it dealt with the right sort of crude already, had direct access to the Atlantic shipping routes and was considered safely out of range of bombing raids from the continent. It was complemented by a new build site at Heysham in Lancashire which had similar logistical and strategic advantages, the extra cost of building a whole new refinery being believed to be a price worth paying to avoid the more vulnerable south coast refineries and to get the extra efficiences of a fully dedicated modern facility. A The second set of sites were in the West Indies, two of the Trinidad refineries would be upgraded as would the two large refineries in Curaco and Aruba, the later two being in the Dutch Caribbean but were owned and operated by Shell. These sites were close to the vast Venezuelan crude oil deposits that were rich in the aromatics that BAM100 needed, additionally the Venezuelan fields were majority controlled by British oil firms and the oil could be paid for in Sterling, ticking all the Oil Board boxes. Strategically these refineries were considered safely out of range of any potential enemy and based on the Great War and Abyssinian War experience Shell could be relied upon to support any British war effort even if the Netherlands stayed neutral. In the Middle East the vast Abadan refinery in Iran was selected, strategically it was the 'swing' site, while not especially well positioned for either Far Eastern or UK supply it was able to supply both as well as the local demands from RAF Middle East Command and the Mediterranean squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm. Abadan's true value would come from the experimental work being done there by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, it would be the Abadan pilot plant that would first produce 100 octane fuel by Alkylation. Without going into the detailed chemistry the key ingredient of 100 octane fuel, of any type, was iso-octane, up to this point it had been produced by a complex two stage polymerisation and hydrogenation process invented by Shell in the early 1930s. The Alkylation process that had been (accidentally) discovered by Anglo-Iranian's Sunbury laboratory was a single stage process that did not require the high temperatures and pressures of the Shell method, making it far faster and cheaper. The first large scale pilot plant for this process would be built at Abadan and it was there that it was refined from a lab bench idea to an industrial manufacturing process, by the end of the decade it would be the standard method for making iso-octane. The final set of upgraded refineries were in the Far East and were a matter of some debate, broadly the choices were the East Indies or Burma. Burma, specifically the large Burmah Oil refinery at Rangoon, was naturally preferred as being on British territory and being in a more secure location strategically, however it required the most work as it had been built to refine the light sweet Assam crude which was not an ideal feedstock for making 100 octane fuel. The East Indies options were supplied with the heavier and more aromatic Borneo crudes which were very suitable for high octane fuel, but were also right in the line of any hypothetical Japanese attack. In the end the Rangoon Refinery was too small and would need too much work, so the choice was made to go with an East Indies location. The refineries of Miri and Lutong were initially favoured as being almost on British territory, the exact status of the always unusual Raj of Sarawak being a tale of itself, however they dismissed as the North Borneo coast was just too vulnerable. The choice therefore settled on the large Shell refinery at Palembang, on the basis that if Java had fallen into enemy hands then any defence of the Far East probably had bigger problems.

The Portsdown No.1 oil well, one of the first very deep level oil wells sunk in the British Isles, Portsmouth Harbour just visible in the background. The D'Arcy Exploration company (a subsidiary of Anglo-Iranian Oil) spent the mid and late 1930s carrying out a moderate investigation campaign within the UK, as part of a government supported imitative to find domestic sources of oil. While Portsdown would be a dud, by the summer of 1937 their attention have moved to Nottinghamshire were the geological team had discovered the first signs of the Eakring/Dukes Wood oilfield. While this would eventually become the UK's first commercial oil field it would never produce a significant amount of oil, joining the Scottish Shale Oil fields as such small scale producers that the Oil Board regularly forgot they even existed.​

While this agreement between the CID, Oil Board and Air Ministry was sufficient to start signing contracts and issuing the orders for construction to begin on the new refinery upgrades and expansions, there was an issue lurking in the background. Under pressure from the coal lobby in parliament, and recognising there could be great value if it worked, the government had setup the Falmouth Committee to report on the desirability of producing oil from coal. This was an important question as the UK had a fledging oil to coal industry, or more precisely it had a single facility that had miserably failed to fledge despite a great deal of patient support. A motley combination of industry and academia had been working on the process of turning coal into oil since the Great War and two decades of effort, a lot of research, and a very complex patent licensing deal with IG Farben and various British and international oil companies, had produce a process that worked. It just produced petrol that cost twice as much as any other source, so was limited to small scale pilot plants. However the Depression intervened and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) was able to cobble together an argument about import dependence, strategic flexibility and support for hard hit areas that convinced the National Government to support building a full scale plant. The support was not direct subsidy, instead it was exempting UK produced gasoline from paying fuel duty which in theory would make it competitive with conventional gasoline. Two years and six million pounds later the Billingham coal hydrogenation plant produced it's first shipment of synthetic gasoline from UK coal. While a technical triumph there was the small issue that, despite paying no fuel tax, the facility barely scrapped into the black and made nowhere near enough to even cover the cost of capital let alone show a useful profit. Despite this there were considerable calls to build additional plants, to produce it's 45 million gallons of petrol Billingham consumed 750,000tonnes of coal (which kept 2,000 miners employed) and employed another 2,000 staff in an economically depressed area. Given that was less than 2% of the UK's annual petrol consumption there was considerable scope to expand production, which would also considerably expand the effective subsidy of lost import duty which was not insignificant, Billingham alone was costing the exchequer £750,000 a year. Mere financial arguments were of precious little concern to the coal lobby, nor to the Labour Party who had naturally decided the problem was capitalism (in this case ICI) and if the facility was nationalised it would soon become profitable even after paying full duty. To these could be added the voices that argued that the technology was the problem and that Britain should abandon hydrogenation and use other methods to turn coal into oil. To investigate these concerns, or to make the matter go away for a while depending on your perspective, the Falmouth Committee had been setup and was due to report in the spring of 1938. The decisions made on 100 octane had somewhat pre-empted this, should the Committee come back and back domestic coal to oil then the matter would need to be re-considered. Despite this the Air Ministry pushed ahead, unwilling to wait another nine months for a decision that may not even be unfavourable. That this decision was recommended by the civil service, rather than having to be pushed through by an impatient minister, is testament to the changed attitude in Whitehall since the Abyssinian War. Whether this change was entirely for the positive was a different matter.

--
Notes:
Three weeks! Barely 20 days. This pace is terrifying.

This one is perhaps a bit over-detailed in places, but if nothing else I enjoyed finding out quite why 100 octane was so important, what it actually did to an engine and the many challenges behind sourcing and making the stuff. I have tried to steer clear of the worst of the chemistry though some did sneak through, there was no way to avoid it and still understand what was going on.

The RAF did find out about 100 octane that early and the boosts (or lack of them) that it gave to engines are OTL as is the whole rich mixture issue. Even well into the war this was an issue as the US just did not care about that as that didn't fit how they designed engines, as late as 1942/3 US fuel shipments had to be tested and occasionality 'doped' by the RAF (chucking in additives) so they worked as expected. Octane is a very bad way of defining fuel, the wartime bodge was defining the standard and rich response, so BAM100 became 100/130 octane (identical mix, new name) as it was 100 Octane standard and 130 octane rich. It's used out of legacy convenience, but the actual definitions of the fuel you see at the pump is a very complex series of curves and surfaces.

No.90 squadron was a guinea pig for 100 octane in 1937 and even as early as that the Air Ministry was stockpiling fuel, because production was limited. I skimmed over the production challenges, but pre-Ango-Iranian discovering Alkylation it was slow and expensive to make iso-octane and so 100 octane petrol, the fact it was discovered by accident is OTL of course. As per OTL it will take a while to get everything built and all planes flying on 100 octane, but things will be designed with it in mind from now on.

Now onto the changes, in OTL a couple of US refineries were upgraded and a US owned refinery in the East Indies also got a supply contract. Not in Butterfly because Anglo-American relations are a bit chilly, partly due to being on different sides of the Spanish Civil War and partly due to the Canton Island incident a few chapters back. Not hostile, just a greater awareness that US and British interests don't always align and plans should be made as such. So Abadan, which was OTL seen as a bit too far away from the UK, gets an upgrade instead because the Far Eastern war is seen as more likely and the Heysham refinery which was OTL started in 1939 gets pulled forward as well to make up the difference. The DEI sites are broadly unchanged, Rangoon is an important standard petrol and fuel oil site, but not really suitable for 100 octane, and Pelambang was OTL because it was just too big to ignore.

The Trinidad oil strike/riot is OTL, a complaint over stagnant wages that got out of hand very nastily and the Royal Navy was called in to reinforce the police. I have swapped the ships, a Canadian destroyer gets to come along instead of HMS Exeter and I imagine the Canadian politicians are a bit shaken up by it. The Royal Marines were just to stop the riots and didn't have to do any strike breaking, just support the out-numbered police while they restored order, the strikers even got most of their demands met in the end so it is fairly clean as these things go. A lot of Trinidad refined 100 octane will end up in Canada for the RCAF, so there is even a good strategic national interest reason for Canada to be actively supporting law and order in the Caribbean. But it is not what any of them expected and is very much a warning to Canadian politicians that having ships out on active patrol is not just friendly port visits and training exercises.

Finally the sad tale of British coal to oil efforts. It technically worked quite well, though it was limited and did require a lot of subsidy. As stated though it used a lot of coal so was really popular with the coal lobby and mining groups and of course the Labour Party who produced their own alternative Falmouth Committee Report, I believe because they didn't like what the real one said so decided to just make up their own version. We will probably end up looking at coal to oil again, because it touches so many important issues.

 

[Killerduck]

Here it is.

Did not expect this would work.

 

[yurtletheturtle]

Does this lead into the wider issues of fueling the fleet and the Empire across large distances and how to store it all? UK production is one thing, and very handy both militarily and polticially, but the British have to keep everywhere else operational as well.

I suppose this is one more tug for Canada to move away from the US and towards the Commonwealth. Their oil and their refineries are going to get investment and attention they wouldn't have OTL...

 

[nuclearslurpee]

For those that did the answer would undoubtedly be yes it was fungible, from the grand strategic perspective it was merely important to have a reliable supply of "oil" (whether from domestic production or secure sources of import) and no real distinction was made as to the type. However if you ran a refinery then oil was very much not fungible, a barrel of sweet and light Iraqi crude could not usefully be substituted for by any amount of Venezuelan sour and heavy oil, at least not if you wanted the refinery to run properly.

I cannot help but feel that there is a not so subtle dig in here at Paradox and their simplistic vision of the global 1930s economy.

Two crude oil samples, on the left a light oil and on the right a heavy one. In oil terms light and heavy

Excellent, as promised.

Fortunately the group's final finding was much more positive, they had developed a British blend of 100 octane, it would come to be known as BAM100 (British Air Ministry 100 octane),

If there is a better name for aircraft fuel I have yet to encounter it. Even better for the fact that for once Pip did not make up the acronym.

This was clearly a valuable improvement and so the Air Ministry began making plans to start the changeover of existing designs and incorporate a requirement for BAM100 octane fuel into the new specifications and engine development plans. By this time news had filtered up to the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) and the Oil Board became officially aware of the plans, those bodies raised concerns about the strategic implications of this plan, focusing on the issue of where the RAF proposed to get this new 100 octane fuel from and how supplies could be secured.

Some time ago I read a post on another site which claimed that tactics and strategy were competing opposites in military science. While I wouldn't go nearly so far, the number of commenters arguing that this was completely impossible, strategy and tactics being two sides of the same cohesive military coin, and thus that the OP was clearly dumb and ignorant, was rather depressing. Frequently as in cases like these, strategic and tactical considerations are indeed in opposition, and exercising the art of resolving these conflicts is what separates competent militaries from the Nazi Wehrmacht.

They did however commit to the Med always being 'open', with the Italian fleet crippled and Mussolini focusing on rebuilding his land and air forces it was believed that the Med could be kept open to critical tanker convoys in any future conflict.

A bold assumption, if superficially reasonable.

The East Indies options were supplied with the heavier and more aromatic Borneo crudes which were very suitable for high octane fuel, but were also right in the line of any hypothetical Japanese attack. In the end the Rangoon Refinery was too small and would need too much work, so the choice was made to go with an East Indies location.

This cannot possibly turn out poorly.

While this would eventually become the UK's first commercial oil field it would never produce a significant amount of oil, joining the Scottish Shale Oil fields as such small scale producers that the Oil Board regularly forgot they even existed.

It seems that forgetting that things exist is the standard day-to-day modus operandi for British government.

This was an important question as the UK had a fledging oil to coal industry, or more precisely it had a single facility that had miserably failed to fledge despite a great deal of patient support.

A masterful misuse of verbiage.

Mere financial arguments were of precious little concern to the coal lobby, nor to the Labour Party

My limited knowledge of British politics informs me that any commonality between the coal lobby and the Labour Party is a rare event always worthy of especial highlight.

To investigate these concerns, or to make the matter go away for a while depending on your perspective, the Falmouth Committee had been setup and was due to report in the spring of 1938.

Here Pip finally teases that we may get into 1938 sometime this decade.

This one is perhaps a bit over-detailed in places, but if nothing else I enjoyed finding out quite why 100 octane was so important, what it actually did to an engine and the many challenges behind sourcing and making the stuff. I have tried to steer clear of the worst of the chemistry though some did sneak through, there was no way to avoid it and still understand what was going on.

I for one appreciate it, my own background being close enough to chemistry to comprehend the nuances, nevertheless I understand that concessions must be made to keep this AAR, how to say, TBC-readable.

I skimmed over the production challenges,

Heresy.

 

[Killerduck]

Venezuela seems like a reasonable alternate source for oil, if it's actually better than US oil. You also need to protect it only against Atlantic raiders, even though it is a bit longer. Is that the reason they chose US OTL, less tankers required?

Or is Aruba/Curacao also OTL and only Abadan is new? Upon more careful reading it seems that way.

Interesting bit about Med being considered an "open" route. Even with Regia Marina gutted, I hope Malta will be sufficiently fortified and supplied with ample airbases, radar installations and air and naval forces. After all planes and light units don't need that much time to build , and focusing on them instead of battleships is probably more cost effective for Libya-less Italy that only needs to raid British SLOCs (instead of also needing to keeps its own open).

P.S. Is there any future in coal-to-oil conversion? I don't recall reading about it being used except as emergency in Germany.

 

[yurtletheturtle]

My limited knowledge of British politics informs me that any commonality between the coal lobby and the Labour Party is a rare event always worthy of especial highlight.

You'd think they'd try to get on, considering their mutual interest in keeping mines open. Then again, everything descending from that is up in the air. Labour's unions would prefer to be paid a great deal for as little as they can get away with, whilst coal owners don't need millions employed anymore and are going to want less and less going forward.

I for one appreciate it, my own background being close enough to chemistry to comprehend the nuances, nevertheless I understand that concessions must be made to keep this AAR, how to say, TBC-readable.

Chemical processes tend not to be all that complicated in a mathematical sense. Practically, when the samples show up and there's who knows what in them, as well as mixtures different from what you were told were coming...Well, that's the issue.

Interesting bit about Med being considered an "open" route.

From what I've read so far in the AAR, Italy is in big trouble TTL and probably will not be joining any wars against the british any time soon.

However, if the RN responded by sending everything to the far East...maybe they are foolish enough to give it another go?

 

[Cromwell]

That was very well explained, I went from knowing totaly nothing about the change from crude to useable petrol and now I feel I know slightly more, I particularly liked the picture of two crude samples. I liked Portsdown No.1 oil well too, I didn't even know something like that had existed!

 

[yurtletheturtle]

So I'm reading about the Spanish gold coming to London for weapon sales.

Exactly how much of the world's reserve is presently in the UK? They had a large silver and gold storage business anyway (it's still the 2nd largest in the world) but with the gold standard (assuming France and the US are still doing that) kicking around, gold in piles in banks is even more prevalent.

One thing to note is that OTL, the US had plans to sell large portions of their reserve at the height of the Depression...and it's worse TTL with a government looking for any way out (that doesn't involve world affairs). If that happened to any degree...the British would be in a very good place bullion wise.

 

[El Pip]

Does this lead into the wider issues of fueling the fleet and the Empire across large distances and how to store it all? UK production is one thing, and very handy both militarily and polticially, but the British have to keep everywhere else operational as well.

Join just to bump the post and now useful questions. My word this is a very strong start to your Butterfly Reading career.

As it happens the very next update shall be considered the fleet and fuel. Broadly speaking the Royal Navy's plan was to have massive amounts of storage everywhere across a huge network of bases, they then negotiated that with the Treasury to something more reasonable. In OTL in September 1939 the RN had about 6,500,000 tonnes of fuel oil in reserve, split roughly 50:50 between UK and overseas bases, and that was believed to be about 9 months intensive usage assuming zero additional supply. The Admiralty had rather arbitrarily decided it wanted 1 years use in reserve but never convinced anyone as to why it needed so much, because there wasn't really a reason it was just what they had pre-WW1 in terms of coal so they wanted the same for fuel oil.

I suppose this is one more tug for Canada to move away from the US and towards the Commonwealth. Their oil and their refineries are going to get investment and attention they wouldn't have OTL...

The Canadian oil industry has already had it's big moment, back in 1936 they found the Turner Valley oil field and that started another mini oil boom. There's a lot of exploration ongoing, but it really needs more modern tech to hit the big finds. There's always the oil sands, but they are a bit tragic at this point. One of the biggest efforts had the sad distinction of burning down twice in less than a couple of years during the war years, so again I think the tech is not quite there at this point.

But it is a reminder that the new shiny Wellington bombers that Canada is looking to build will need fuel from a Commonwealth source, likely Trinidad, or a new Canadian refinery, as just using US fuel won't work.

I cannot help but feel that there is a not so subtle dig in here at Paradox and their simplistic vision of the global 1930s economy.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Excellent, as promised.

I am a man of my word. Said words may come slowly, but they do appear as promised.

If there is a better name for aircraft fuel I have yet to encounter it. Even better for the fact that for once Pip did not make up the acronym.

It is just wonderful.

Some time ago I read a post on another site which claimed that tactics and strategy were competing opposites in military science. While I wouldn't go nearly so far, the number of commenters arguing that this was completely impossible, strategy and tactics being two sides of the same cohesive military coin, and thus that the OP was clearly dumb and ignorant, was rather depressing. Frequently as in cases like these, strategic and tactical considerations are indeed in opposition, and exercising the art of resolving these conflicts is what separates competent militaries from the Nazi Wehrmacht.

When a military does something that is tactically sub-optimal there is normally a reason beyond "they were idiots" and it is generally for strategic reasons. Admittedly sometimes it is because they were idiots or the strategic reason does not justify the choice, but as you say there is often a conflict and if you don't admit that you will never understand why certain decisions were made.

A bold assumption, if superficially reasonable.

We shall see.

This cannot possibly turn out poorly.

Indeed.

It seems that forgetting that things exist is the standard day-to-day modus operandi for British government.

Those dealing with Imperial matters at least had the excuse that there was a lot more to keep track of and none of it was particularly consistent. I'd also argue that forgetting things exist is a universal government failing not a particularly British one.

A masterful misuse of verbiage.

I do try.

My limited knowledge of British politics informs me that any commonality between the coal lobby and the Labour Party is a rare event always worthy of especial highlight.

The Labour Party do have a deep seated hatred of the coal industry, masked behind strange rituals of public obsequience.

Here Pip finally teases that we may get into 1938 sometime this decade.

Consulting my estimator it says we will hit 1/1/38 by.... 8th August 2026. Seems a bit optimistic tbh. I've just put down the notes for a second naval base update yesterday, so it will be a double header of naval-pron before we get to tanks.

I for one appreciate it, my own background being close enough to chemistry to comprehend the nuances, nevertheless I understand that concessions must be made to keep this AAR, how to say, TBC-readable.

I am please that it was appreciated. And I am glad you understand the efforts made to consider those poor unfortunates who choose their area of study poorly.

Heresy.

There must be limits. And a discussion of the challenges involved in the dimerization of isobutene, dimer separation, and hydrogenation to produce 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane seemed a bit beyond the pale.

Venezuela seems like a reasonable alternate source for oil, if it's actually better than US oil. You also need to protect it only against Atlantic raiders, even though it is a bit longer. Is that the reason they chose US OTL, less tankers required?

Or is Aruba/Curacao also OTL and only Abadan is new? Upon more careful reading it seems that way.

Venezuela was a long term British project, everyone got quite nervous towards the end of WW1 when basically the Fleet was running on US oil as Persia and other places hadn't come on stream. It was around 40% of the UK pre-war oil supply so it was the obvious choice for putting down modern refineries. So yes it was OTL, Abadan and Heysham are 'new' in the sense they have been done a few years earlier than OTL, sorry if that wasn't completely clear.

Texas to the UK is actually further than Aruba/Curacao to the UK by tanker. Most of the US refineries are on the East coast, so the refinery to UK distance is lower, but the cost is higher as you've moved it around more. Oil was so cheap in the 1930s that tanker/transport costs were a huge part of the final price.

The US got picked in OTL because, even though it had to be paid in dollars, it required less up front costs. Shell's US branch (or whoever) would pay for the refinery upgrade and make it back by charging extra for the long term supply contract, classic Treasury short term thinking. In fairness it was also felt that the US upgrade would be done faster and might be a bit cheaper overall, as construction costs on the US east coast have to be lower than in Iran.

Interesting bit about Med being considered an "open" route. Even with Regia Marina gutted, I hope Malta will be sufficiently fortified and supplied with ample airbases, radar installations and air and naval forces. After all planes and light units don't need that much time to build , and focusing on them instead of battleships is probably more cost effective for Libya-less Italy that only needs to raid British SLOCs (instead of also needing to keeps its own open).

The Med Fleet is not what it once was, but it's still got a few 'R' class battleships and some modern(ish) cruiser squadrons, enough for anything short of war with France. And even then with Dunkerque and Strasbourg in the French Atlantic Fleet I'd fancy the RN's chances against the even-older relics France has put in it's Med fleet.

Malta is getting a great many upgrades, admittedly mostly things that were ordered in haste during the Abyssinian War and are now too late to cancel. I'm not sure there will be a big permanent force based there, at least not right now when tensions are believed to be low, but there will be the capacity for a large force to be based there.

P.S. Is there any future in coal-to-oil conversion? I don't recall reading about it being used except as emergency in Germany.

Honestly not really. South Africa did massive work on it in the 70s to 90s, for much the same reason Germany did - loads of coal but no access to international oil. It's a strategic technology which pretty much always produces very expensive oil compared to just drilling for it. So China is/was playing with it and whenever the oil price spikes people look at it again, once you have the plant built and if you have cheap coal it maybe works out, but the plant is so expensive to build it never makes economic/financial sense.

You'd think they'd try to get on, considering their mutual interest in keeping mines open. Then again, everything descending from that is up in the air. Labour's unions would prefer to be paid a great deal for as little as they can get away with, whilst coal owners don't need millions employed anymore and are going to want less and less going forward.

There is a coal update in the plan for later this (game) year. Say 2024

Chemical processes tend not to be all that complicated in a mathematical sense. Practically, when the samples show up and there's who knows what in them, as well as mixtures different from what you were told were coming...Well, that's the issue.

Even when you do know what you are dealing with it is easy to say "and then heat up to 650C at 100 atmospheres pressure and combine", much harder to actually do that and even harder to make it an efficient industrial process.

From what I've read so far in the AAR, Italy is in big trouble TTL and probably will not be joining any wars against the british any time soon.

Italy is a funny one, the vast majority just saw the colonial empire as a massive resource sink (which it was) taking money away from investment in Italy proper (also true). So no-one is that sad to see it become someone elses problem. The defeat hurts as do the naval losses, but again aside from Mussolini and a few theorists most Italians didn't believe or care about controlling the Med. From a strictly economic perspective Italy is probably better off without the cost of 'empire' and with a smaller fleet to maintain. Strategically of course it has lost Italy prestige and power, while politically Mussolini is far more vulnerable than he has been for years. Interesting times ahead.

However, if the RN responded by sending everything to the far East...maybe they are foolish enough to give it another go?

Mussolini was nothing if not opportunistic, however he is far more constrained by the rest of the regime. The theoretical teeth that the Grand Council of Fascism has are now much more real, it is not out of the question they could recommend to the King that the Mussolini be replaced as Prime Minister, which was his only official office. It's nowhere near that, but the fact it is even being (quietly) theoretically discussed is significant.

That was very well explained, I went from knowing totaly nothing about the change from crude to useable petrol and now I feel I know slightly more, I particularly liked the picture of two crude samples. I liked Portsdown No.1 oil well too, I didn't even know something like that had existed!

I am pleased I managed to balance explanation with something readable. The UK onshore oil industry never produced much, but it did it at the right time. The UK onshore oil industry never produced much, but it always existed. Even today there are 'nodding donkeys' in various bits of the UK producing a fairly tiny amount of onshore oil - ~15,000 barrels a day, a whole 1.8% of UK production!

So I'm reading about the Spanish gold coming to London for weapon sales.

Exactly how much of the world's reserve is presently in the UK? They had a large silver and gold storage business anyway (it's still the 2nd largest in the world) but with the gold standard (assuming France and the US are still doing that) kicking around, gold in piles in banks is even more prevalent.

One thing to note is that OTL, the US had plans to sell large portions of their reserve at the height of the Depression...and it's worse TTL with a government looking for any way out (that doesn't involve world affairs). If that happened to any degree...the British would be in a very good place bullion wise.

There is an update planned which I don't want to ruin. But I can say that the Abyssinian War did have an effect on the OTL trends, once it became clear that France was not joining the war it became (relatively speaking) a safer bet than the UK then that 'peace premium' somewhat offset their existing issues, the lack of a popular front victory also calmed international investors but of course the fundamental problems in France remain. I've also already mentioned there is no Fort Knox as the OTL inflow of gold into the US never happened, so that's another hint as to the general direction of travel.

Overall I'd say France probably has similar reserves to OTL, maybe a shade higher, say 13,000 million swiss Francs instead of 9,000 as per OTL (the figure BIS use for their 1930s reports). US is probably a fair bit lower 25,000 million vs over 35,000 OTL. The UK is picking up a lot but far from all of that in it's exchange equalisation account. Say 12,000 million instead of 8,000 of OTL. As another hint on this, the Bank of England and Treasury don't particularly want to build up these reserves execssively, sure they are nice to have but they are aware of the risks of becoming a 'gold sink' as France was in the late 1920s and draining demand from the world, or at least the gold bloc parts of it. They do not see this as a 100% good place to be, it's better than the alternative but still needs careful managing.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

2 more after this.

Also hello.

Ah, what a name. A reminder to all of the dangers of turtle facism.

The update was good. I can't begin Tim imagine how complicated ensuring the oil of an empire was standardised, alongside dominions, allies and potential friends. Even OTL allies didn't seem to manage it? Begs the question...have they sorted it out yet, or is NATO running on several different toes of oil measures?

 

[yurtletheturtle]

Join just to bump the post and now useful questions. My word this is a very strong start to your Butterfly Reading career.

We shall see if that can be sustained over decades of updates.

Broadly speaking the Royal Navy's plan was to have massive amounts of storage everywhere across a huge network of bases, they then negotiated that with the Treasury to something more reasonable. In OTL in September 1939 the RN had about 6,500,000 tonnes of fuel oil in reserve, split roughly 50:50 between UK and overseas bases, and that was believed to be about 9 months intensive usage assuming zero additional supply. The Admiralty had rather arbitrarily decided it wanted 1 years use in reserve but never convinced anyone as to why it needed so much, because there wasn't really a reason it was just what they had pre-WW1 in terms of coal so they wanted the same for fuel oil.

How expensive was all that? I suppose land itself was fairly simply gotten (colonial empire and all that) but you can't just have huge tanks of oil and some space for ships to come in. A rather large industrial docks is required for everything, especially if the carriers (I'm getting to that chapter) are increased in size and number. Got to refuel and refit the planes too.

The Labour Party do have a deep seated hatred of the coal industry, masked behind strange rituals of public obsequience.

Why is that?

And I am glad you understand the efforts made to consider those poor unfortunates who choose their area of study poorly.

I don't know...depends on what you do with it. STEM is great and important and interesting, but unless you are working pharmaceutical, defence or a perfume lab, you're on the dole line a lot.

The idea of the aristocratic scientist seems to be coming back in a big way these days. You need that sort of private funding to get you anywhere. And I say that from atop a CERN ivory tower.

The Med Fleet is not what it once was, but it's still got a few 'R' class battleships and some modern(ish) cruiser squadrons, enough for anything short of war with France. And even then with Dunkerque and Strasbourg in the French Atlantic Fleet I'd fancy the RN's chances against the even-older relics France has put in it's Med fleet.

Funny to see a french italian war after all this effort for the former to stay out of it! I do wonder what italy plans to do next, given their wings have been clipped and their resources cut.

Even when you do know what you are dealing with it is easy to say "and then heat up to 650C at 100 atmospheres pressure and combine", much harder to actually do that and even harder to make it an efficient industrial process.

Do it once? Fair enough, easily done. Do it as a prototype for an industrial scale process? May take a few months/years and some hard work.

Make it efficent? Depending on the field, it might take anywhere from 5 years to a century.

From a strictly economic perspective Italy is probably better off without the cost of 'empire' and with a smaller fleet to maintain. Strategically of course it has lost Italy prestige and power, while politically Mussolini is far more vulnerable than he has been for years. Interesting times ahead.

I think so. They're presumably going to lose their African empire and the Mediterranean islands (bar sardinia and sicily)...so there's not many other places they can go with their army and navy being what it is. Either with Germany into France, with the aim of finally getting Nice back...or I guess try their luck in the balkans, despite seeing what that did to their arch nemesis less than 30 years ago.

 

[El Pip]

Ah, what a name. A reminder to all of the dangers of turtle facism.

A threat we must all be ever vigilant against.

The update was good. I can't begin Tim imagine how complicated ensuring the oil of an empire was standardised, alongside dominions, allies and potential friends. Even OTL allies didn't seem to manage it? Begs the question...have they sorted it out yet, or is NATO running on several different toes of oil measures?

The Empire managed to be fairly standardised because the Dominions were generally using UK kit and UK supply lines, at least initially, and that sort of stuck. It took till mid-war for the Americans to finally admit rich-mixture was a thing, so eventually there was a degree of standardisation on what fuel labels meant, but that was as good as it got. The US was really bad at standardising fuels, as late as 1944 the USN had six and at least four were nothing like the ones the USAAC was using. NATO I believe has finally sorted it out, but they only got there after the Cold War ended.

We shall see if that can be sustained over decades of updates.

It is important to pace yourself.

How expensive was all that? I suppose land itself was fairly simply gotten (colonial empire and all that) but you can't just have huge tanks of oil and some space for ships to come in. A rather large industrial docks is required for everything, especially if the carriers (I'm getting to that chapter) are increased in size and number. Got to refuel and refit the planes too.

This was proper legacy of Empire stuff, the RN's docks and storage (and workforces) were built over decades or centuries, the first non-UK Royal Dockyard opened in 1675. Rolling upgrades and the occasional modernisation (swapping coal bunkers for oil tanks for instance) kept most of them modern enough to serve as refuelling and repair stops without any huge expenditures. The big exception was Fortress Singapore, which is going to get it's own update (I find myself saying that a lot...). That said as you say the drydocks were often the limiting factor and could be the hardest part to upgrade.

Why is that?

The Labour Party vs the Coal Miners is a mostly internal scrap and all the more bitter for it. The reasons change so I'll focus on the Butterfly Era. The mining unions believed that Labour was their party, and to an extent it was as they funded more candidates than most and the true Labour heartlands were mostly mining seats (in the 1931 election when Labour won barely 50 seats, the South Wales and Yorkshire/Derbyshire coal mining seats held steady). Yet the Labour Parliamentary Party spent most of it's time trying to waterdown the unions demands, asserting that the NEC would set policy and worrying about the latest strike. They argued about nationalisation, was it worker control or was it 'all worker' control (i.e. the government)? Broadly speaking I get the impression the Labour Party really wished the miners would behave like the broader TUC did, while the miners got annoyed at Labour for not understanding why that was impossible.

I don't know...depends on what you do with it. STEM is great and important and interesting, but unless you are working pharmaceutical, defence or a perfume lab, you're on the dole line a lot.

The idea of the aristocratic scientist seems to be coming back in a big way these days. You need that sort of private funding to get you anywhere. And I say that from atop a CERN ivory tower.

Perhaps on the S side that is correct and certainly it appears true for M (lowest employment rate out of all STEM apparently). But those in T do well and certainly I've not met any who did E who are on the dole, certainly many who should be but there is such a shortage that they cling on as bosses believe a bad engineer is better than no engineer. Though STEM is undoubtedly too broad a term and covers a multitude of only tangentially related fields.

Funny to see a french italian war after all this effort for the former to stay out of it! I do wonder what italy plans to do next, given their wings have been clipped and their resources cut.

I think so. They're presumably going to lose their African empire and the Mediterranean islands (bar sardinia and sicily)...so there's not many other places they can go with their army and navy being what it is. Either with Germany into France, with the aim of finally getting Nice back...or I guess try their luck in the balkans, despite seeing what that did to their arch nemesis less than 30 years ago.

One of the many things I'd change if I did Butterfly Redux is re-writing the North African land war. The Italians losing is right, but I would like to have emphasised it was the Italian Army C team the British were facing. The 'A' team (Bersaglieri units, the Alpini, the armoured brigades and so on) was all kept on the French border, because of course France would not abandon Britain. The 'B' team was in East Africa fighting the Abyssinian War (half a dozen regular divisions, same again of Blackshirt militia, some logistics and engineering support, a lot of obsolete artillery, etc). What was left in North Africa was the dregs and due to the Royal Navy the Italians could never effectively reinforce or resupply it.

The point is the Italian Army has taken the prestige hit, but in practice it's not lost as much of value as it appears. The worst of the fascist militia influence is gone, Mussolini is having to let the Army re-organise on slightly more professional lines and there is no distraction of Spain taking away men, and far more importantly new equipment. There are still deep seated problems and Italian industry is still going to struggle with tanks, but in many ways the Italian Army is actually stronger than in OTL at this point.

 

[yurtletheturtle]

Ah, what a name. A reminder to all of the dangers of turtle facism.

A threat we must all be ever vigilant against.

I was surprised it was available, yet of course few would wish to directly reference themsevles to an insane turtle who thought that taking over large amounts of land was as simple as being able to physically see it. And, poetically, it all ends as it began, with the bottom turtle on the rock ruling over everyone like just before the story started.

There may be more cynicism in that last page than in all of 1984.

Edit: with respect to The Butterfly Composer, and Paradox, there seems to be no end to the number of evil animals in their games and AARs, on a brief flick through. I may have accidentally spared us all from the evil Emperor Yurtle. Or some such.

Perhaps on the S side that is correct and certainly it appears true for M (lowest employment rate out of all STEM apparently). But those in T do well and certainly I've not met any who did E who are on the dole, certainly many who should be but there is such a shortage that they cling on as bosses believe a bad engineer is better than no engineer. Though STEM is undoubtedly too broad a term and covers a multitude of only tangentially related fields.

I believe the issue might be being averted somewhat artificially at the moment, due to a great deal of teachers, proffesors and academics in the field retiring or coming to the end of their working lives. This however has been the case for the past ten years, so some point soon is presumably going to see all those jobs be filled again, and a brick wall rather than a maze for new comers to get through.

Technically however, I would agree the Engineers in general (although even there, I would have to say it depends) have it alright. S and M (yes, yes) are in a spot of bother as ever.

As for the Empire, it seems they have removed a problem for them and added one on to continental europe in regards to Italy...so that's probably a good thing. One can only hope that with France having to presumably beg for help from the little Entente, that there is no Munich agreement, and instead a Munich Crisis that will lead to another Franco-German war...

Edit: I have also seen some more chapters. Mostly tanks and ships, and how no one is quite sure what form or how many there should be...but also that they need some, and any mistake is going to be hideously expensive and possibly doom their budget (and to a lesser extent, England). The pressure on the war hawks, especially when they did get into office, must have been intense.

 

[Wraith11B]

Speaking of "in depth", isn't it about time for you to be writing another update about how the amazing invincible Axis sunk yet another Allied navy? Chop chop now.

I imagine the next slice of Axis praising magnificence from Wraith will emerge before the world ever finds out how the Duranium Legion's naval conference ends, if indeed it ever does, unless there is a sudden out break of chopping at your end as well.

I should hope so, but in case Wraith is derelict in his duties I am (very slowly) piecing together the next update. It does exist, there are multiple pages written and significant notes involved.

Yeah, yeah, back to the grindstone. I hear you. I am desperately trying to cobble together the Charax update. It's up to several pages, even!

It is also not very kind to the Italians. Take that as thou wilt.

So real men build tanks, get to the channel and then sink. I fear your value of real men may need calibration.

So, wait, as I recall, the Americans and Brits had their tanks sink in the Channel? The Germans didn't, as I recall...

I must admit I briefly skimmed the rules and the changes appeared mostly concerned with not telling Paradox about all the problems in their games in a rude manner or threatening to boycott them over their horrific staffing problems. I didn't see anything quoting but then I am not a man of the law so perhaps I missed something?

Stand by one...

Inappropriate behaviours

• Spamming
• Bumping
• Off-Topic Posting
• Pyramid Quoting

I'm certain we are all guilty of one or more of these for this thread and others... I myself have notionally violated the spirit if not the letter in this post. Cyka blyat, or whatever.

That said, great update. I bow to your ever-relevant ways of how you make dense topics comprehensible, but also the details that make the Butterfly TTL world seem real! A master class, one that I hope to hold at least one candle to in my future endeavors.

 

[nuclearslurpee]

I'm certain we are all guilty of one or more of these for this thread and others... I myself have notionally violated the spirit if not the letter in this post. Cyka blyat, or whatever.

I do think as in most areas of life the rules are there less to be strictly followed and more to grant the mods et al the latitude to discipline or ban actual troublemakers. Except for Nazi regalia which is jumped on pretty quickly.

 

[RobbieAB]

I'm certain we are all guilty of one or more of these for this thread and others... I myself have notionally violated the spirit if not the letter in this post. Cyka blyat, or whatever.

I am not...

Spam is unsolicited, our great authaar has solicited our comments.

Bumping is posting to a thread to raise it up the active threads in a section. Do we ever even drop below the top 3 spaces now? We certainly don't post just for that anyway.

Off-topic? With enough butterflys everything is on topic! Given what the story has covered, I am struggling to think of anything wildly off-topic for this thread.

Pyramid quoting? I guess that limits the authaars scope for an interesting post on the influence of pyramidology on British funerary rites...

 

[El Pip]

As for the Empire, it seems they have removed a problem for them and added one on to continental europe in regards to Italy...so that's probably a good thing. One can only hope that with France having to presumably beg for help from the little Entente, that there is no Munich agreement, and instead a Munich Crisis that will lead to another Franco-German war...

My official position was that there is a future conflict I am building towards, but I refuse to be drawn beyond that to keep the suspense and surprise.

Edit: I have also seen some more chapters. Mostly tanks and ships, and how no one is quite sure what form or how many there should be...but also that they need some, and any mistake is going to be hideously expensive and possibly doom their budget (and to a lesser extent, England). The pressure on the war hawks, especially when they did get into office, must have been intense.

You have noted the grand theme of uncertainty about quite how to re-arm Britain but a deep keenness to do so somehow, I am pleased this has come across.

Yeah, yeah, back to the grindstone. I hear you. I am desperately trying to cobble together the Charax update. It's up to several pages, even!

It is also not very kind to the Italians. Take that as thou wilt.

I mean they are already being forced to use German kit, how much crueller can you be to them? However excellent news that you are persisting with your endeavours.

I'm certain we are all guilty of one or more of these for this thread and others... I myself have notionally violated the spirit if not the letter in this post. Cyka blyat, or whatever.

I do think as in most areas of life the rules are there less to be strictly followed and more to grant the mods et al the latitude to discipline or ban actual troublemakers. Except for Nazi regalia which is jumped on pretty quickly.

I believe nuclearslurpee is correct on this one, not least because if those rules were followed everyone would be banned in an week.

That said, great update. I bow to your ever-relevant ways of how you make dense topics comprehensible, but also the details that make the Butterfly TTL world seem real! A master class, one that I hope to hold at least one candle to in my future endeavours.

Too kind sir. Thank you for the generous comments because they are, as always, deeply appreciated.

I am not...

Spam is unsolicited, our great authaar has solicited our comments.

This is true. I am not above soliciting comments in the same way the sea is not above the clouds.

Bumping is posting to a thread to raise it up the active threads in a section. Do we ever even drop below the top 3 spaces now? We certainly don't post just for that anyway.

It is just @Nathan Madien and me plugging away in the HOI2 mines so we swap the top two every so often. Third spot is another El Pip AAR as it happens.

Off-topic? With enough butterflys everything is on topic! Given what the story has covered, I am struggling to think of anything wildly off-topic for this thread.

This is indeed correct, derailment away from the main plot is one of the four main pillars of Butterfly. And as everything is fundamentally interconnected with everything else, nothing can truly be off-topic.

Pyramid quoting? I guess that limits the authaars scope for an interesting post on the influence of pyramidology on British funerary rites...

That would be more a Victoria II AAR subject;

Thomas Willson’s Pyramid Mortuary of 1829, courtesy of Historic-UK

That said I do have hope that I will find some way to include this picture in a future update;

The Graf Zeppeling flying over the Pyramid of Giza. There are some other shots of it flying past the Sphinx but they look a bit fake, this one I quite like for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.

 

[J66185]

Wild shot into the darkness, but is it derived from something pointing at the sun or a touch of the divine that compels you?

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Ten days away from Paradox and I find an outstanding update by the mighty El Pip in my return. Not bad.

 

[Killerduck]

The Graf Zeppeling flying over the Pyramid of Giza. There are some other shots of it flying past the Sphinx but they look a bit fake, this one I quite like for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.

Truly marvelous picture. You can imagine Indiana Jones hanging on some railing up there.

BTW, since Allan Camerons "John Valentine Carden lives" timeline has finally made me memorize alphabet soup that are early war British tanks, I should really go check tank updates in Butterfly Effect. Butterflies are much more fun when you know the difference from OTL.