MB is short for Mercedes Benz, the prefix was used for the engines develped by Daimler-Benz. Maibach used HL to name their engines.
greets
Tomcat
T-34 Diesel Engines VS Panthers Gasoline Engine?
Folks, the Russian V-2 diesel was very advanced in design. For example, it was a 4-valve DOHC design. As far as I know, large truck engines still tend to have only 2-valve OHV valve gear. Even in passenger cars DOHC diesels are not too common. Second, its SFC was LOWER than that of most farm tractors from the 1980s despite the latter enjoying the advantage (often) of turbocharging.
And if you carefully check out the data charts in Walter Spielberger´s Panther book, you will find that the power/weight of the V-2 is lower than that of the Maybach designs. And you have to add that while the V-2 has an SFC of about 165 grams/hp/h, the Maybach design guzzles some 250 grams/hp/hr as the latter is tuned to operate on low octane fuel (70 octane).
Maybach designs had also very poor torque rise characteristics, requiring very complex 7-8 speed gearboxes whereas V-2 had same driveability with 5-speed gearbox. This chart is also in WS`s book. Tom Jentz wrote some utter crap on this in his Panzertruppen vol. 1, but whom do you believe: Tom Jentz, or a German Doctor of engineering presenting his findings to Waffenamt tank experts? For the latter kinda guy wrote the report in WS´s book. Jentz is otherwise a great author but sometimes his tech analysis is weird at the least.
Uncle Joe
And if you carefully check out the data charts in Walter Spielberger´s Panther book, you will find that the power/weight of the V-2 is lower than that of the Maybach designs. And you have to add that while the V-2 has an SFC of about 165 grams/hp/h, the Maybach design guzzles some 250 grams/hp/hr as the latter is tuned to operate on low octane fuel (70 octane).
Maybach designs had also very poor torque rise characteristics, requiring very complex 7-8 speed gearboxes whereas V-2 had same driveability with 5-speed gearbox. This chart is also in WS`s book. Tom Jentz wrote some utter crap on this in his Panzertruppen vol. 1, but whom do you believe: Tom Jentz, or a German Doctor of engineering presenting his findings to Waffenamt tank experts? For the latter kinda guy wrote the report in WS´s book. Jentz is otherwise a great author but sometimes his tech analysis is weird at the least.
Uncle Joe
Very nice points Joe.This engine is have been the power plant for T-54/55,T-62,T-72 and if i remember correctly even on early T-90.
It got turbo since it was installed on T-72 so almost 30 years later!
Like the T-34 itself the engine also was ahead time.The main words were:
High pressure direct injection,Dual Dohc, forged duraluminium pistons,aluminium alloy crankcase,Four valves per cylinder,five piston rings,compressed air starting system and no piece of electronics!This engine will work after atomic bomb too.
What have panther engine against it?
It got turbo since it was installed on T-72 so almost 30 years later!
Like the T-34 itself the engine also was ahead time.The main words were:
High pressure direct injection,Dual Dohc, forged duraluminium pistons,aluminium alloy crankcase,Four valves per cylinder,five piston rings,compressed air starting system and no piece of electronics!This engine will work after atomic bomb too.
What have panther engine against it?
-
Gearhead1432
- Member
- Posts: 210
- Joined: 20 Nov 2004, 12:18
- Location: USA
The Panther or Tiger would still be badly underpowered by the t-34 engine, no matter how advanced it was. 500 Hp for a 40 + ton tank vs 700 Hp. Just copying the engine was never an issue, and even the russians had trouble initally upgrading the engine past 500 Hp (for the KV and JS series tanks). For lack of a compariable engine, would Germany hav been better off trying to restrict the weight (and hence armor and firepower) of her tanks to allow for battlefield mobility?
It is also fairly evident that Germany just did not have Russia's experience with the diesels in size that tanks used. Obviously Uboats used diesels, and some trains, but Russia hada lot of experience with tractors, an Germnay could just not compete with that.
It is also fairly evident that Germany just did not have Russia's experience with the diesels in size that tanks used. Obviously Uboats used diesels, and some trains, but Russia hada lot of experience with tractors, an Germnay could just not compete with that.
Just to say it again. The Germans had a full line of Diesel engines and they would have been able to power every tank they developed - MB changed and updated their proposal for nearly every model. But Maybach was the one company who had the ear of the WaPrüf and managed to turn down every attempt of Merc to get a new engine into the tanks. The main argument in the end was that they very used to their fuel and would mix things up....
I state from Spielbergers book on the PzIV, he has some transcripts in the appendix of original documents from WaPrüf. This one is about the requirements for companies producing tanks or parts for tanks:
'The production process is split into:
a) Hull....
b)Tracks...
c) Engines, only Maybach-Engines, as they are very reliable due to their expirience in building large engines.
d)Gearbox.....'
I think this shows the backup Maybach had from the OKW/WaPrüf. There was simply no chance to get a Diesel into those tanks. They had a rare talent of being logical about things beack then :roll:
And to the expierience and quality of German Diesels: I know some german tractors, built in the early 1930s, that are still runing fine and smooth after being used nearly all day till the late 70s - don't tell me the Germans couldn't do it......
greets
Tomcat
I state from Spielbergers book on the PzIV, he has some transcripts in the appendix of original documents from WaPrüf. This one is about the requirements for companies producing tanks or parts for tanks:
'The production process is split into:
a) Hull....
b)Tracks...
c) Engines, only Maybach-Engines, as they are very reliable due to their expirience in building large engines.
d)Gearbox.....'
I think this shows the backup Maybach had from the OKW/WaPrüf. There was simply no chance to get a Diesel into those tanks. They had a rare talent of being logical about things beack then :roll:
And to the expierience and quality of German Diesels: I know some german tractors, built in the early 1930s, that are still runing fine and smooth after being used nearly all day till the late 70s - don't tell me the Germans couldn't do it......
greets
Tomcat
Few more things what came in my mind now.
Ok,i know now there are two types of diesel.The one is for summer and the second is for winter.The winter diesel improve cold day starting.Was this available in that time too?
I wonder were pre heating plugs(only for diesel engines) available too?
And if we talk about the gasoline and diesel i know that u get more diesel than gasoline from same amount of naphta.
One more thing the diesel RPM are lower than gasoline engines.This means that the transmission can be smaller.
Man there is no way the gasoline engine is better for tank!!
Ok,i know now there are two types of diesel.The one is for summer and the second is for winter.The winter diesel improve cold day starting.Was this available in that time too?
I wonder were pre heating plugs(only for diesel engines) available too?
And if we talk about the gasoline and diesel i know that u get more diesel than gasoline from same amount of naphta.
One more thing the diesel RPM are lower than gasoline engines.This means that the transmission can be smaller.
Man there is no way the gasoline engine is better for tank!!
-
Gearhead1432
- Member
- Posts: 210
- Joined: 20 Nov 2004, 12:18
- Location: USA
in the 1930s and '40s, crude was refeined by distillation...... from 100gallons of crude you get 44gal gasoline and 36 gal of fuel oil plus other products and some waste.
In the 30s and the 40s, the Gasoline engine was better than the deisel.. and gasoline was more readily available.
if someone can point out that the T34 engine had things such as glowplugs and the SU had winterized fuel oil...then maybe there will be a good case against a gasoline engine in the 30's and 40's.
the Maybach HL 230 is the better powerplant...
Rob
In the 30s and the 40s, the Gasoline engine was better than the deisel.. and gasoline was more readily available.
if someone can point out that the T34 engine had things such as glowplugs and the SU had winterized fuel oil...then maybe there will be a good case against a gasoline engine in the 30's and 40's.
the Maybach HL 230 is the better powerplant...
Rob
A couple of points. First off, you can get more diesel out of crude bepending on exactly how you distill it. Generally speaking, you get more diesel out then gasoline. If that was what the Germans wanted to make the switch of AFV's over to Diesel, they could have so long as they adjusted the procution to account for that. THe Uboats would take a bit from their reserves in the short term, as well as adjusting the syntetic fuel production, but it is not an impossible switch.
The t-34 does not use glow plugs. They use compressed air. The whole idea for a diesel engin is to get the compression up to the point where you do not need to provide any spark. So glow plugs cause the air in the cylinder to expand, and increase the pressure, to the popint when it compresses the fuel air mix, it ignites. Compressed air can be used to raise the compression too, and given the temps in russia, it is probably much more efficient then using a glow plug.
Germnay's lack of experience with diesels may have been a big part of the problem. There cretainly would have been a learning curve. But the fact is no matter how you rate the Maybach, while it may have been a superior engine to the t-34 (despite the body of evidence that is to teh contrary), the fact remains, particuarly for the Tiger I and II, they are underpowered, and the Pantehr would not have been hurt by a more powerful engine. Is the maybach engine powerful enough is the real question? I think muhc of the evidence suggests NO.
Is the MB 507 or the T-34 engines the answer? The t-34 engine is less powerful then the Maybach, and requires light alloys not avalible to german wartime industry, so in it's orginal form, definitely not an option. MB 507 might be, as it was used in a number of cases, but not for heavy armor, and it was never put into production. A better solutio might have been to use one or more of the DB aircraft engines, if the ground version could produce sufficnent power. The last question was why Maybach did not porduce a bigger version that produced more power?
The t-34 does not use glow plugs. They use compressed air. The whole idea for a diesel engin is to get the compression up to the point where you do not need to provide any spark. So glow plugs cause the air in the cylinder to expand, and increase the pressure, to the popint when it compresses the fuel air mix, it ignites. Compressed air can be used to raise the compression too, and given the temps in russia, it is probably much more efficient then using a glow plug.
Germnay's lack of experience with diesels may have been a big part of the problem. There cretainly would have been a learning curve. But the fact is no matter how you rate the Maybach, while it may have been a superior engine to the t-34 (despite the body of evidence that is to teh contrary), the fact remains, particuarly for the Tiger I and II, they are underpowered, and the Pantehr would not have been hurt by a more powerful engine. Is the maybach engine powerful enough is the real question? I think muhc of the evidence suggests NO.
Is the MB 507 or the T-34 engines the answer? The t-34 engine is less powerful then the Maybach, and requires light alloys not avalible to german wartime industry, so in it's orginal form, definitely not an option. MB 507 might be, as it was used in a number of cases, but not for heavy armor, and it was never put into production. A better solutio might have been to use one or more of the DB aircraft engines, if the ground version could produce sufficnent power. The last question was why Maybach did not porduce a bigger version that produced more power?
Interesting thread.May I ask...What about TATRA Diesel Engines?They worked fine in 234 series vehicles(TATRA 103) ,their low consumption allowed an incredible range of 1000Km (Road)
Although they developed only 225Hp and they were useless for heavier tanks a Diesel powered Luchs was planned and a prototype was built.
Although they developed only 225Hp and they were useless for heavier tanks a Diesel powered Luchs was planned and a prototype was built.
Did Germany lack experience with Diesel Engines?
What about all those Diesel-Electric subs they had in service?
BTW don't forget that Rudolf Diesel was a German (altough born in Paris his parents were German)!
What about this fact:
MAN was the first, and in 1924, a MAN truck became the first vehicle to use a direct-injection diesel engine. At the same time Benz & Cie in Germany also presented a diesel truck, but Benz used the mixing chamber that Daimler-Benz kept into the 1990s. The first diesel Mercedes-Benz hit the road in 1936.
From:
http://www.autonews.com/files/euroauto/ ... diesel.htm
What about all those Diesel-Electric subs they had in service?
BTW don't forget that Rudolf Diesel was a German (altough born in Paris his parents were German)!
What about this fact:
MAN was the first, and in 1924, a MAN truck became the first vehicle to use a direct-injection diesel engine. At the same time Benz & Cie in Germany also presented a diesel truck, but Benz used the mixing chamber that Daimler-Benz kept into the 1990s. The first diesel Mercedes-Benz hit the road in 1936.
From:
http://www.autonews.com/files/euroauto/ ... diesel.htm
GERMAN DIESELS
GERMANY HAD A BLOHM & VOSS HA-139 4 ENGINE BOMBER POWERED BY JUNKERS BUILT JUMO-205 DIESEL ENGINES RATED AT 592 HP EACH.
ADIOS
CHUCK
ADIOS
CHUCK
-
Gearhead1432
- Member
- Posts: 210
- Joined: 20 Nov 2004, 12:18
- Location: USA
Okay.... to say that Germany "lacked expeience" with diesel is foolish.
also, if you do a little reseach, you'll find out that you get MORE gasoline than diesel when you average the diferent crudes (heavy and light)... and you come up with figures like 45% gasloline and 30% Fuel oil. My 1938 sources and 2002 sources give about the same figures.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... s/avgyield
Rob
also, if you do a little reseach, you'll find out that you get MORE gasoline than diesel when you average the diferent crudes (heavy and light)... and you come up with figures like 45% gasloline and 30% Fuel oil. My 1938 sources and 2002 sources give about the same figures.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... s/avgyield
Rob
-
Y Ddraig Goch
- Member
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 12:07
- Location: Cymru
-
Gearhead1432
- Member
- Posts: 210
- Joined: 20 Nov 2004, 12:18
- Location: USA