0

A recent video on the YouTube Lindybeige channel relates the story of Operation Creek in WWII in which irregular British forces invaded a German ship off Goa (now in India), March 1943. He cites James Leasor's book Boarding Party (full version of the book on archive.org) as his primary source for the whole story. (At least once or twice he suggests that the book is highly dramatized.)

Part of the story is that the German sailors prepared for an attack by procuring and spraying kerosene all over the deck of the ship, and then lighting it on fire. This comes up at several points in the video:

However, my prior understanding is that kerosene has a flashpoint high enough that a pool of it can't just generally ignite by applying flame. The Wikipedia article says the flashpoint is 100-150° F (37-65° C). Goa weather in March averages 82° F, with an expected high of 91° F per this site. So I don't see how a deck covered in kerosene could erupt in flame like that.

At a tiny scale, I've previously tested trying to get a small pool of kerosene to ignite with a match, and as expected per that flashpoint data, it utterly failed (link).

So I'm left trying to resolve the story of Germans spraying kerosene around and igniting it as a weapon, versus the data and tests that seem to say this isn't possible. Did the targets in Operation Creek really do that? Would there be some additive involved (like petrol) that one would use to weaponize kerosene, unstated in the story? Or is there some other element that I'm overlooking?

LangLаngС
  • 44,005
  • 14
  • 173
  • 172
  • 6
    Flash point and flammability are not as closely related as you think. Flash point is the temperature where the *vapour* can be ignited not where the liquid can be combusted. Clearly kerosene can burn in the right circumstances at lower temperatures as kerosene lamps would not work a room temperature otherwise. – matt_black Sep 25 '20 at 11:18
  • 2
    Aside: igniting a pool of petrol (gasoline) by dropping a lit cigarette can only happen in a movie. – Weather Vane Sep 25 '20 at 11:51
  • @matt_black That would make an answer. – DJClayworth Sep 25 '20 at 12:48
  • @matt_black I disagree. A wick in a lamp burning while drawing kerosene up into it for fuel it is not the same as the pool of kerosene entirely igniting all together. Kerosene lamps would not be useful if all of the kerosene erupted at once. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 25 '20 at 13:19
  • Dust can be "weaponised". And what's in a thermobaric bomb? Please make the title a better match to what the body presents. – LangLаngС Sep 25 '20 at 13:41
  • The hosepipe claim is going to be tough - a solid jet of kerosene acts very differently to a fine spray. How are we going to find details of the nozzle? – Oddthinking Sep 25 '20 at 14:16
  • 1
    Try tossing a flare or a small amount of gasoline into the kerosene. The heat from the 'initiator' will vaporize the kerosene and ignite it. The burning kerosene will not explode into flames like gasoline but the flames will spread... – BobT Sep 25 '20 at 15:52
  • @DanielR.Collins the situation of kerosene spread out in a thin layer is not that different from a lamp. All the kerosene won't light at once, but, if enough does, the kerosene close by will be ignited just as in a lamp. It isn't about lighting it "all at once". A small source of ignition might not do this, but a sustained hot flare might. – matt_black Sep 25 '20 at 16:25
  • 1
    @Oddthinking The recent title edit is tricky. Do we want to ascertain 'what did really happen' (historical) or 'is that a realistic plot' (fiction/theory, basic science plus: aparently OP's real interest]). Or is this 'how accurate is that book/movie and finally YT-video made from all of that?' (All three questions answered in one post will tire readers with length?) – LangLаngС Sep 25 '20 at 19:13
  • @LangLangC: The claim is that it historically happened. Evidence that it could not possible have happened would address that, but that is going to be a very difficult - everyone is talking about "pools of kerosene", but who knows what sort of material that could act as wicking was on the deck of a ship during a battle? If I was wearing kerosene-soaked clothes while people fired flares into the area, I would be more concerned than if I was swimming in a tank of kerosene. – Oddthinking Sep 26 '20 at 02:09
  • @matt_black: Well... suffice to say, I'm skeptical, and would need some solid evidence that's feasible. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 26 '20 at 02:10
  • 1
    @BobT: Citation needed. I don't recommend it, but I have put out flaming torches by dipping them in cups of kerosene. – Oddthinking Sep 26 '20 at 02:11
  • @Oddthinking: You didn't happen to catch that on video, did you? – Daniel R. Collins Sep 26 '20 at 02:19
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins: No, but [someone else did](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsVBvCTwKMs). – Oddthinking Sep 26 '20 at 02:24
  • @Oddthinking: You have no idea how hard I've been searching for something like that. Thanks! – Daniel R. Collins Sep 26 '20 at 06:21
  • They may of course have used something more potent than your ordinary matches to ignite it. Ships are likely to have access to that sort of thing. Welding torches, for instance. – Nate Eldredge Sep 26 '20 at 16:50
  • @DanielR.Collins Evidence you can check that ignition of substance of high flash point is feasible: fire lighters (usually made of solid naphtha which is a good deal less volatile than kerosene but *clearly* ignitable or they would not be much use for lighting fires). – matt_black Sep 28 '20 at 15:12
  • @matt_black: My understanding is that modern lighters don't use naptha, they use butane. And it's stored under pressure, so that when the pressure is released, it's immediately vaporized and suitable for ignition in gaseous form. Kerosene, unpressurized, in an open pool, wouldn't have that quality. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 28 '20 at 15:19
  • @DanielR.Collins That's cigarette lighters. I was talking about the little cubes of solid material you use to light coal fires. – matt_black Sep 28 '20 at 15:21
  • 1
    It seems important to get an *actual quote* and determine where that really comes from. Hint: English kerosene & German *Kerosin* are false friends. When talking about flammable or combustable hydrocarbons, any numbers on 'flashpoints' etc will likely be trampling on a garden path of definitions or artistic license combined with technical inaccuraicies. For the historical angle, which shall not be neglected here: why should such a ship have that 'stuff' on board? Lamps, motors, engines, diesels? "Collecting kerosene on shore" is too imprecise. What's the origin of that word in this 'story'? – LangLаngС Sep 28 '20 at 18:25
  • 2
    All the physics aside, have you ever served on a ship? Fire is the *enemy*. Nothing gets drilled as vigorously as firefigthing, because a fire on a ship can get out of control very quickly, and you end up with a complete loss of the ship. The very last thing you want as a sailor is lighting your own ship on fire... – DevSolar Sep 29 '20 at 11:50
  • For anecdote value, in 1987 the German destroyer [Mölders (D 186)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_destroyer_M%C3%B6lders) was disabled by what started as a burning deep frier in the galley. By the time the fire was eventually put out, it had spread (by means of ventilation and cable shafts) over several rooms, effectively disabling the ship and doing 86 million D-Mark in damage. More recently, the [USS Bonhomme Richard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6)) also showcased how desastrous shipside fire can be. – DevSolar Sep 29 '20 at 13:03
  • @DevSolar: I don't think you have to have served on a ship to get a sense that this would be extremely dangerous. But that isn't proof of whether or not it happened. People do extremely dangerous things all the time, from stupidity or desperation or whatever other cause. For a spy vessel, as this ship allegedly was, complete loss of the ship might actually be preferable to capture, and setting the ship on fire could conceivably be a risk worth taking. – Nate Eldredge Oct 01 '20 at 03:06

2 Answers2

4

Pools of kerosene burn in a self-sustaining manner as reported in Combustion Properties of Large Liquid Pool Fires Fire Technology volume 25, pages 241–255(August 1989).

This reference compiles kerosene pool fire data from 6 sources and spans the size range of 0.25 to 50 meter diameter pools. Quantitative data for burn rate in millimeters of depth per minute, radiation output in kilowatts per square meter, flame temperature and flame height are provided.

One counter example is provided by the reference:

It is believed the largest tests were conducted during the kerosene pool fire discussed in Reference 7. In this series of tests, an 80 m diameter pool fire test was also conducted, but due to strong winds, the fuel did not spread over the entire pool surface, so the test was not a success.

So overall, unless there is strong wind, pools of kerosene will burn.

According to Oil Pool Fire Experiment. Fire Safety Science 1: 911-918 (1986):

Ignition

Due to the reasons that kerosene with a higher ignition point was used as fuel and it was necessary to cause the ignited fire to grow into a complete conflagration within as short a time as possible, small amounts of naphtha were made to flow out of several points on the oil surface and ignited electrically using ignition balls.

  1. Ignition position
    Since the thickness of kerosene was 20 mm and thin, it was necessary to wholly burn kerosene for a short time after ignition so that the whole burning time would be made long.
    After pre-test results, it was found that liquid surface falling speed was about 2.1 mm/min and fire propagation speed was 3 to 4 m/min.
    The fire became a conflagration in 3 minutes after ignition.
    Kerosene consumption until then was thought to be about 2 mm on the average for all tanks. Kerosene of 18 mm or above was consumed when a conflagration occurs.
    Since fire propagation speed was 3 to 4 m/m, it was assumed that fire would expand to 9 to 12 m in 3 minutes.
    The position and number of ignition points were determined, so that any parts of the tank can be within about 10 m from the ignition position. As a result, it was determined that 50 m tank should ignite at 4 points and 80 m tank would ignite at 11 points. It was determined that the 30 m tank should ignite at central 1 point in order to measure the fire propagation speed.
  1. Ignition facilities
    Since it was difficult to ignite directly to kerosene, it was determined that ignition should be made by a small quantity of naphtha and ignition balls to the extent of which influence would not given to the burning properties of kerosene. The head tank of ignition naphtha was installed at the place 5 to 10 m away from the edge of each tank. The pre-test was made so that the naphtha quantity, which flowed out of respective outlets, would be about 500 ml/min. The height of the head tank was set so that its bottom would be 1 m higher from the outlet. Outlets, to which naphtha would flow from the head tank, were installed to the ignition equipment. They were connected with the PVC tube. Outlets were set facing upward direction at about 5 cm above the liquid.
    The circumference of outlets was covered with cotton cloth hung from above. When the stop valve opened, which had been installed to the head tank containing naphtha, naphtha flowed out of outlets. Part of naphtha was impregnated into cotton cloth and remaining naphtha was mixed with kerosene in the tank. Ignition balls were set into cotton cloth so that naphtha would not be directly placed. The switch of ignition balls was installed at D/4 outside the tank and ignition balls of respective tanks were designed to be operated by setting one switch. Naphtha of 2500 ml per outlet was placed into the head tank so that naphtha of 500 ml for each minute per outlet would flow for 5 minutes.
    The number of head tanks was 30. One head tank each was installed for 50 m tank and 2 head tanks were installed for 80 m tank.
  1. Ignition procedures
    PVC tubes were made full of naphtha beforehand so that naphtha would flow out from outlets at the same time when the valve was opened. The valve of the head tank was opened 1 minute before ignition. One minute after naphtha was discharged, the switch of ignition balls was turned ON and ignition balls were caused to generate.
    According to this operation, ignition balls would be ignited, naphtha, which was impregnated into cotton cloth, would burn, kerosene mixed with naphtha would be lit and, further, fire would propagate to kerosene of the whole tank.
DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • For those looking at the paper, the data mentioned are in the middle graph of Figure 2, page 245. – Nate Eldredge Sep 26 '20 at 17:04
  • Very interesting. I wish that paper had information on how the substances were ignited in the experiment, which I'm not seeing in that paper. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 27 '20 at 04:08
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins I accessed full text, but it’s drawing mostly from other references, doesn’t have ingnition method. I looked at other references, one said “handheld igniter”, one “electronic igniter”. One other had a detailed description. I’ll try to find again and add more by tomorrow. At son’s baseball game now. – DavePhD Sep 27 '20 at 13:49
  • It would be neat to see the detailed lighter description. Thanks for looking for that. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 27 '20 at 15:41
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins this is the one that says "handheld igniter": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236119322069 ; this says "electronic igniter": https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11630-020-1335-x ; and this http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/1/911/view/fss_1-911.pdf has a very elaborate method of ignition because "kerosene with a higher ignition point was used". – DavePhD Sep 27 '20 at 18:31
  • No kidding: "Since it was difficult to ignite directly to kerosene..." they had multiple pipes pouring in naptha for several minutes and electrically-triggered ignition balls wrapped in cotton in the pool. Thanks immensely for tracking that down! Maybe the answer could be improved by including some of those specifics on the difficulty of igniting kerosene? – Daniel R. Collins Sep 27 '20 at 19:40
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins ok, I added the whole ignition section of IAFSS reference. – DavePhD Sep 28 '20 at 13:11
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins This reference https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-010-3014-x says that a small amount of heptane was used to ignite kerosene, and that kerosene having a flashpoint of 66 degrees C was used. – DavePhD Sep 28 '20 at 20:00
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins The book you cite in the question https://archive.org/details/boardingparty00leas has details about how the kerosene was intended to be lit. Page 70 "signalling pistol"; Page 144 "burning torches"; Page 181 "rolled-up newspapers". – DavePhD Sep 29 '20 at 13:04
  • 1
    Fascinating, it seems like in all of those passages it's a hypothetical-only. p. 144: "The Germans might also have buckets of kerosene which they could throw down with burning torches and set them alight" (from perspective of British plan). p 181: "they waited bravely with boxes of matches and rolled-up newspapers, ready to light them and throw them on the kerosene if the fuses failed". The p. 70 section claims detailed dialogue between the German captain & crew on their preparations, which is incredibly hard to believe is accurately obtained. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 29 '20 at 16:09
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins the rolled-up newspaper technique sounds specific enough to test experimentally. – DavePhD Sep 29 '20 at 19:37
  • 1
    I'm not sure if we have a definitive answer, but this incredibly useful, so have a bounty. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 30 '20 at 02:17
  • If you look at p70, the preceeding para gives an indication of the general level of reliability to expect from this *novel.* "Nods" & other intimate details surely weren't recorded anywhere for such dialogue? Please upgrade this A with the hist angle, starting points for refs in a comment below the other A. Plus DevSolar's comment below Q: as a line of defence (instead of Ragnarök) it doesn't start to make *any* sense. – LangLаngС Sep 30 '20 at 11:27
  • @LangLаngС the question and the source of the question already say that " the book is highly dramatized". Much older than the book is this Times of India source https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Times_of_India_Directory_and_Year_Bo/C6gSAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=on+march+9+,+1943+,+the+german+crew&dq=on+march+9+,+1943+,+the+german+crew&printsec=frontcover that just says that Germans set fire to the ships. I don't have access to the Boarding Party book anymore, I must have looked at too much. – DavePhD Sep 30 '20 at 11:47
  • Well, I still have it. If you want me to put in some lengthy quote you'd like to shorten yourself, I could edit that in? (Suggest: p70 and/or the other paras – 10 total – with "kerosene", as you hinted at as well; though 2 paras from p70 is really all that's needed?) – LangLаngС Sep 30 '20 at 11:55
  • @LangLаngС no, better if you add your own answer from that point of view, and let mine be purely about chemistry, which is my field. – DavePhD Sep 30 '20 at 12:12
  • @LangLаngС I'm curious what the "From the writer to the reader" section on page xv says. – DavePhD Sep 30 '20 at 13:29
  • 1
    Well, to protext the innocent: "This is a true story. At the request of several people - British, German and Indian - involved in the events described in this book, I have changed or omitted some names ***and altered certain physical characteristics.*** Also, at their request, a few incidents have been paraphrased." (whether that's just physiognomy or… ;) – LangLаngС Sep 30 '20 at 15:00
1

If you're looking for a historical answer, I don't have that, but if you're asking about the scientific side of it, the temperature of the weather is irrelevant to whether a fire could be sustained; the fire will produce heat that will raise the temperature above the flashpoint. The flashpoint of wood is 300 degrees Celsius, and clearly it can burn when the weather is a significantly colder temperature. Kerosene has a latent heat of vaporization of 251 J/g and a specific energy of 46.2 kJ/g. That means that burning kerosene releases enough energy to vaporize 184 times as much kerosene. Looking at the heat capacity (2.01 J/(gK)), burning kerosene gives enough energy to vaporize an equal amount of kerosene, and raise its temperature 22 thousand degrees Celsius. Once a kerosene fire gets going, it provides plenty of energy to be self-sustaining.

Schmuddi
  • 9,539
  • 5
  • 44
  • 46
Acccumulation
  • 2,873
  • 1
  • 14
  • 19
  • Try the hist-angle as well, starting not on WP but here: https://www.heraldgoa.in/m/details.php?n_id=128016 https://maddy06.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-story-of-ehrenfels-at-goa.html – LangLаngС Sep 26 '20 at 08:59
  • See the comments above about quenching a flame with kerosene; there must be something else required (Wicking?) – Oddthinking Sep 26 '20 at 13:15
  • Consider the following page: ["Wood does not really burn"](http://datagenetics.com/blog/november32019/index.html). In brief, the heterogeneous nature of wood has some parts wicking, and other parts releasing gases that vaporize and burn (pyrolysis). Wood doesn't ignite altogether in a flash; and kerosene lacks that heterogeneous quality. The rest of the answer here is conditional on the assumption that "burning kerosene" is a thing at low environmental temperature, which is precisely what needs proving. So: This answer probably won't be selected in its current state. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 26 '20 at 13:58
  • @Oddthinking Fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat. Fire can be doused by giving it too much fuel, leaving no oxygen. Also, if the additional fuel has enough thermal mass, it can absorb enough heat to make combustion impossible. – Acccumulation Sep 26 '20 at 19:30
  • 1
    So, we are agreed there are many factors. Now which category does a ship's deck wet with fuel fall into? – Oddthinking Sep 27 '20 at 00:57