T-34 Diesel Engines VS Panthers Gasoline Engine?

[dragos]

BTW, what is the source of this info?

T-34-85 technical manual for Romanian Army - 1974.

[Lkefct]

Of course, this discussion would probably never take place if the panther remained in the 35 ton class, and tiger's in the 45-50 ton class. 700 hp would be adequate for medium tank of that size, and prevent the hevies from being so grossly underpowered.

[Huck]

Of course, this discussion would probably never take place if the panther remained in the 35 ton class, and tiger's in the 45-50 ton class. 700 hp would be adequate for medium tank of that size, and prevent the hevies from being so grossly underpowered.

V-2 was a poor match for the tanks it powered also. It was way too big for T-34, resulting in a miserable crew compartment, and way too weak for IS-2. IS-2 was underpowered as King Tiger was and IS-2 crew comparment wasn't much better than of T-34.

The good thing about HL 230 was that it gave excellent power to weight ratio for Panther in a perfect form factor. Indeed HL 230 was not sufficient for making the King Tiger a heavy universal tank, but it wasn't anyway. Its purpose was to be break through infantry lines, not to race on the streets with T-34.

Indeed there were better options to power the heavy German tanks. In gasoline engine category, excess stock of DB601s (or even DB605), could have been used to power the Tigers, for diesels the best choice was the opposed piston from Jumo205 series and descendants. Russian used those engines to power tanks, even today they offer as an upgrade for the aging T-72 engines, a direct copy of Jumo205.

Russian 6TD-1 & 2 are 2 stroke turbo diesels, 16 litres, 6 cylinders 12 opposed pistons, with the same power rating and SFC as Jumo205 (more exactly with Jumo207, the 1000HP turbosupercharged version of Jumo205 that saw service mounted on high altitude recce versions of Ju-86). Fortunatelly Russians do not see any ideological problems in copying excellent 70 year old German engine designs.

The reason why the 2 above mentioned engines were not adopted for the German heavies was because Heer tried to make its own chain of suppliers, independent of other armed services. I see nothing bad in this, as long as it did not affect (to an observable degree) its effectiveness.

[cbo]

V-2 was a poor match for the tanks it powered also. It was way too big for T-34, resulting in a miserable crew compartment, and way too weak for IS-2. IS-2 was underpowered as King Tiger was and IS-2 crew comparment wasn't much better than of T-34.

Actually, the V-2 was perfect for the T-34. The lower hull was quite narrow due to the christie suspension so a small (it was only 1.3 m3 compared with the HL230s 1.5 m3), but "long" (about 25cm more than the HL230) engine was perfect.
The only thing that makes the crew compartment in the T-34 miserable is the low height of the hull, which makes the driver and hull gunner positions rather miserable, but that has little to do with the engine.

The argument put forward earlier about the Panther vs T34: "..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" overlooks the fact that the T-34 engine was the smaller one, that the T-34 was the smaller vehicle and that the engine compartment contained the transmission as well as the engine.

Claus B

[Ome_Joop]

Actually, the V-2 was perfect for the T-34. The lower hull was quite narrow due to the christie suspension so a small (it was only 1.3 m3 compared with the HL230s 1.5 m3), but "long" (about 25cm more than the HL230) engine was perfect.

Claus B

I still can't understand how a almost 1.5 times bigger engine can be smaller?
How is this possible?
Are there somwhere any dimmensions?

[cbo]

I still can't understand how a almost 1.5 times bigger engine can be smaller?
How is this possible?

Superior Soviet design, of course

Are there somwhere any dimmensions?

I'm using the data in Spielbergs book which are from two reports made by German engineers in 1944 and 1945. The exterior volume of the two engines are stated directly, but the dimensions for the T-34 has to be taken from a rather small drawing, which will of course make it somewhat imprecise. On the other hand, the drawings clearly show the difference between the two engines. My (now more carefull!) measurements are:

Width: ~80cm
Height: ~104cm
Length: ~149cm


The Panther engines dimensions can be taken from the specifications in the book and are:

Width: 100cm
Height: 119cm
Length: 131cm

Looking at the two engines, you get the impression, that the T-34 engine "packet" is little more than head, cylinders and crankcase, with fuelsystem, electric parts etc. tightly packed around it. Looking at the Panther engine, the basic engine is surrounded by oilcooler, oiltank, fuelsystem, exhaust etc. all extending from the engine itself, taking up space. So judging from the appearance of the engine, it is not the basic parts like cylinder, head and crankcase that adds to the HL230s size, it is the other parts.

Some T-34 engine pics here: http://tanxheaven.com/ludob/t34engine/t34enginelb.htm
HL230 pics: http://tiger1.info.byrden.com/saumur/mayb/hl230gb.html

Of course, the size differences between the two engines are minor and each fit their vehicle quite well - my point is not that the V-2 was "better" than the HL230. My point, and hence my response to the original question is, that the T-34 engine was a good engine design with good performance for a 1940ies tank engine, certainly as good as any other comparable engine.

Claus B

[Huck]

V-2 was a poor match for the tanks it powered also. It was way too big for T-34, resulting in a miserable crew compartment, and way too weak for IS-2. IS-2 was underpowered as King Tiger was and IS-2 crew comparment wasn't much better than of T-34.

Actually, the V-2 was perfect for the T-34. The lower hull was quite narrow due to the christie suspension so a small (it was only 1.3 m3 compared with the HL230s 1.5 m3), but "long" (about 25cm more than the HL230) engine was perfect.
The only thing that makes the crew compartment in the T-34 miserable is the low height of the hull, which makes the driver and hull gunner positions rather miserable, but that has little to do with the engine.

V-2 (plus ancillary systems) was too big for the hull lenght available in T-34. It is not the hull height responsible for the little space in the crew compartment. Later the height decreased even more with T-44/54/55/62 series, that should have made it completely unhabitable.

The argument put forward earlier about the Panther vs T34: "..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" overlooks the fact that the T-34 engine was the smaller one, that the T-34 was the smaller vehicle and that the engine compartment contained the transmission as well as the engine.

HL 230 was equaly unsuitable for T-34, both engines were too big. It doesn't matter that HL 230 total volume was slightly bigger, especially when V-2 was slightly longer, and length is critical for a longitudinally mounted engine. Of course, in postwar Russian tanks they mounted the engine transversely, but it took some time to make it run reliably.

The fact remains, HL 230 was perfectly suited for Panther, whereas V-2 was not for T-34. A smaller, equally powerful, gasoline engine would have done the job for T-34 too, but the Russians did not have good quality gasoline, to use in high compression, good HP/l, gasoline engines. They did not have good quality gasoline even for their planes, all their Land Lease Western made plane engines ran derated.

[Uncle Joe]

Huck, would you please check your sources re HL 230 octane requirement before loafing out those silly theories of yours? The answer can be found e.g. in Spielberger´s Panther book. The true fact is that the HL 230 was very poor tank engine due to high specific fuel consumption and low torque rise characterictics (the importance of high torque rise is spelled out in the same Spielberger book). If the Hl 230 was such a super engine, why did Hitler order the development of air cooled diesel for tanks (Porsche design)? Why was Klöckner-Humboldt-Deutz developing a diesel for tanks? Why was Simmering-Pauke developing a tank diesel? Why was DB designing a diesel for tanks? Why the only promoters of Maybach designs were Maybach employees themselves? WHY?