T-34 Diesel Engines VS Panthers Gasoline Engine?

[Ome_Joop]

I always here that one of the T-34's credit was it's Diesel engine.
Now i know that todays diesel engine is pretty good, got some good power and Torq but i also know that compared to gasoline engines(wich did not evolve that much) the Diesel engine has made a real revolution/evolution the last decade (thanks to the intecooler, pump-injections and commonrail).

Nowadays Diesel engines can run pretty smooth altough not that quite as gasoline engines and i can imagine that 60 years ago the shaking and noise produced by a slow running 34liter diesle engine would be quite a bit (even compared to gasoline engines those days!)
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank1.html

The T-34 Diesel engine was quite big V-2-34 (34 liters) V-12 diesel developed 500hp compared to the German Maybach HL230P30 V-12 gasoline fueled liquid-cooled 23 liters developing 700hp!!

Diesel engines have to be very sturdy and built very strong because of the forces inside the engine compared to gasoline engines (wich can be built pretty light weight!).

So i wonder why was the T-34's diesel that good?
It should be a big heavy noise making and shaking machine wich would not run smooth?!

I also wonder why the germans didn't use a tuned down aircraft engine?
Why didn't they put a JuMo 211 into a Panther or Tiger?

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Gasoline is easier to ignite, so it'll be more prone to fires, but if there is a fire, it's also easier to put out compared to diesel.

Christian

[WotS]

It is not so easy.

It is a fact that diesel engine takes less fuel than gasoline.In that time almost 1/3 less!Because the disesel was direct injected!So u need to all this fuel with u and cover with armor and that weight a lot more than diesel engien wieghts more than gasoline! The second thing is that the diesel is not so explosive i mean that it will not go on fire so easly like gasoline.

The tank needs more torque than hp!So diesel is better too in this point of view. And the engine weight is very litte compared to tank own weight and what if the diesel weights more.

Diesel is harder to start in cold!The diesel have no igniton system-so less parts.

They both have dis. and adv. but for tank the diesel is better!

[Javichu]

I have read , correct me if I´m wrong, that one of T34´s advantages was its Alluminium Alloy Diesel Engine...So possibly the weight was not the worst problem?

[Lkefct]

Germny would have to use a diesel engine that contained less aluminum, since they have a yaortage of lighter metals.

I think maybe the real issue is not the diesel vs petrol, but rather why for Tigers, Panthers and Tigers 2, why a more powerful engine was not designed. Panther mobility is probably OK, but certainly, a more powerful engine would make sense in the other big cats. HP to weight is primary indication of battlefield mobility, and both Tigers are lacking in that area. Why didn't they modify the existing line of DB engines to either:
a) use petrol in a sfc based engine or
b). create a diesel version of the same engine

I am not sure why they wouldn't or coulen't do that. Given the extra mobility that it would have given the most powerful tanks of their day, it would have gone a long way in terms of the tactical sistuations, as well as make it easier to receover damaged heavier tanks, futher supplimenting their low numbers.

[WotS]

The engine weight is nothing for tank!More important is lower fuel consumption and torque!When i mean torque i dont mean HP!The Panther engine have more hp but T-34 engine have a lot more torque!

[Lkefct]

You can't just compare torque either. LArger vehicles are going to repsond more slowly to a given force then a smaller one. T-34 are in the 28 -30 ton range, the Panthers are in the 42 ton range. Does anyone have the technical specs on the Russian engine?

[Huck]

The engine weight is nothing for tank!

Right, but the engine volume matters a lot. Engine compartment took half of the T-34 internal volume.

Also larger engines need more armor around them, which brings significant weight increase.

T-34-85 vs Panther Ausf.A

[Gearhead1432]

Well, I can see how the diesel could be better, but the major drawback is the diesel fuel oil it self. In cold weather it turns to almost a solid. Diesels also have very poor acceleration properties... but of course I don't think any tank at that time had good acceleration anyway.

The fuel economy issue is good for maybe extending the range of the tank but you need to remember that you get more gasoline out of crude than fuel oil!

I also dought that the t34 engine was very durable or longe lifed due to the aloy block.

With the Maybachs in the larger panzers.. I think they put out about 700 horse power, which in a 40 ton tank is good, but the larger tigers need almost twice that. I don't see why the German engineers didn't upgrade the engine because if the engine makes an exccess of power for the weight of the tank it would then put much less strain on the engine and could extend the life of the powerplant.

Any tank in the 60ton range needs about 1000hp.. if not more

From 100 gallons of crude oil you get
44 gal. gasoline
36 - fuel oils
8 - miscellaneous
6 - kerosene
3 - lubricants
3 - *loss

Rob

[Tomcat]

There are several things which were not mentioned here, and some are wrong/misinterpreted.

First: The advantage of the Diesel as the less inflammable didn't occur to the russians directly, the decided to put the tanks on the outside to stop the whole tank burning - it was a bit later that they realised it had other advantages, too.

Second: The germans - Daimler - tried to invent diesel engines. They developed one for the PzIV, but it was turned down from the military, mainly because the other guys were better in politics. (Refer to Spielberger on this one, he has some interesting documents on this in the PzKpfWgIV-Book)

Third: The Russian engines were - err - Russian. This means they were in a way "primitive" compared to the fancy design the German engineers brought up. But they were very reliable, a thing which couldn't be said of German designs. Take a look of the first use of the "Ferdinands" - on the first day all of them failed to reach the frontline...... Even today most Russian trucks offer the option to light a fire under the engine to heat it up in winter - just imagine you would do that to any "modern" western truck, no matter who built it....

We can go into more detail if you like, but then I'll have to bring some more references in as it doesn't make sense to just list stuff here.

Hope it helps a bit

Tomcat

Edit: Just as an aside - in the early days the average survival of a T34 was 7 days - I think most engines worked that long :roll:

[Lkefct]

That is certainly a disadvantage of the diesel. You would have to switch teh fuel production to accomidate a different mix of petrol vs diesel. ther eis also tha fact that the Navy has huge consumption (but als stocks of diesel fuel). The one saving grace is that the synthetic fuel producded in germnay can be rapidly changed to produce different proportions of fuels. So, the transition period where it would take time to get the fuel from ROmonai and Autrian production adjust to a new porportion of diesel could be made up from stock used by the Navy (presumably this is happening in 1942-44 time frame, when the navy is not very effective anyway) and the synthetic production.

AS far as the characteristics of the maybach, I found this some time ago on the web. It gives it source, but it is second hand, so buyers beware.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message? ... 1013471122

My understanding of the MB 507 is that it was a diesel version of the DB 600 series engine used on the bf109 among others. Superficially, it would seem, this seems like the type of engine that might have added enough power and torque to the Tigers and Panthers to overcome some of their reliablity issues.


The flip side to that is building a lighter series of tanks to accomidate the avaiblible power plants.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... /tech.html

I don't know the reason for not using it, but the line was used to power fast attack boats, so it went at least as far as extensive # of prototypes as well as was used to power the Karlgerat 040 & 041. Not sure why it was not used in tanks besides the prototype stage (although early work on the Maus plaaned to use it). Later a petrol version MB 509 and turbo diesel MB 517 where used on the actual Maus, so presumably they are an extension of the same line. Given the limited amount of facilities avaible, I find it hard to imagine that the MB 503 (early version), 507, 509 or 517 are anything but a series of derivatives of the famous DB 600/601/603/605 engines used on aircraft. But why where they not used on tanks, unless there was some serious disadvantage?

[Gearhead1432]

Third: The Russian engines were - err - Russian. This means they were in a way "primitive" compared to the fancy design the German engineers brought up. But they were very reliable, a thing which couldn't be said of German designs. Take a look of the first use of the "Ferdinands" - on the first day all of them failed to reach the frontline......

I don't think that the russian eqiptment is known for it's qality but more for it's quantity in simplicity... why do you think russian tv sets are "known" for sponaniously exploding, and a monkey being able to fieldstrip an ak47.

"Ferdinands" were petrol electric drive.. and were rejected as a tank probably because it was unreliable and used large electric drive motors. All of the hulls bult were converted to stop gap heavy SPG/ tank destroyers.

The Maybach engines used in German tanks were very good engines, however they were usualy put in a tank that was too heavy for the output. Too much load on an engine will shorten it's life considerably.

A 70 ton tank should have 1400hp, not 700hp like the TigerII
700-800hp should be enough for the Panther

Diesel engines weren't the best powerplant for tanks until they were turbocharged... like in nearly all modern tanks.

Rob

[WotS]

Russian trucks offer the option to light a fire under the engine to heat it up in winter - just imagine you would do that to any "modern" western truck, no matter who built it....

Yeah!You have very good point.Like in BTRs(russian armored personal carriers) are certain place where u can stick blowtorch in.In that way u can heat the oil in sump with open fire!.I think this offer u can use even a modern russian machines.[/quote]

[Tomcat]

I don't think that the russian eqiptment is known for it's qality but more for it's quantity in simplicity... why do you think russian tv sets are "known" for sponaniously exploding, and a monkey being able to fieldstrip an ak47.

I think reliable wasn't the right word - I'm not a native english speaking person, it's sometimes hard to find the right word to express the thing you want to state. Let's put it that way - most things in the military world work best if they are simple. And the Russians really had a talent for this - the AK47 can be used in the worst conditions, you can be pretty sure it will work. The MG42 is another example for a simple and not overdesigned weapon - take the early designs of the "SAW" to see a bad design(NO, I don't want to discuss this...).
What I want to say here is that the Russians made it simple (maybe dirty) but it worked. The Germans had (and still have) a tendency to overdesign things which led to serious prolems. Take the PzIII suspension as an example, the Ausf B beats every design idea in it's unnecesary complexity. I think that's why the engine is referred to as a good engine - it's simple, it works in nearly every weather and that's almost everything you wanted to get back then.

The Maybach engines used in German tanks were very good engines, however they were usualy put in a tank that was too heavy for the output. Too much load on an engine will shorten it's life considerably.
A 70 ton tank should have 1400hp, not 700hp like the TigerII
700-800hp should be enough for the Panther

I can only agree with you on this point. But I think one of the problems was politics. The influence Maybach had at the WaPrüfAmt was such that nearly all Diesel engines introduced by Daimler were turned down - I guess that's why they bought the companies name later They tried to adopt engines, they invented new systems of cooling and more to make it fit, but it wasn't accepted - I think we don't need to talk about whether the decisions made in the German High Command did make any sense..... But it leaves us with the problem that you can't really tell whether a Diesel would have been better - inobody really tried to compare it in the same tank under the same conditions - and that's not just the proving ground but the real day-to-day use.
greets
Tomcat

[Ome_Joop]

I just found out that the VK.3002 (DB) had a Daimler-Benz MB507 (i don't understand tough coz the MB prefix stands for Maybach.....maybe by that time Maybach was a part of Daimler-Benz already....!?)!

http://www.worldwar.nl/vehicles/tanks/introduction.htm
http://pub28.ezboard.com/fbuildersparad ... =596.topic

SO what are the specs of that engine?
Something here tell me that the MB507 produced 900Hp!!!:
http://www.geocities.com/madsin72/emausber.html
That would be enough for a Panther!