What kind of diesel engines where used???

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 06 Jul 2003 02:31

Scott Smith wrote:Chuck you are just being an idiot. I posted sources and numbers.
You have been shown to claim, like other deniers, that the T-34 tank was only a diesel powered tank.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
They didn't all have standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplants, did they Smith? What are we to make of your inability to admit to what you could at least claim was merely a mistake?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 06 Jul 2003 02:36

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Chuck you are just being an idiot. I posted sources and numbers.
You have been shown to claim, like other deniers, that the T-34 tank was only a diesel powered tank.
For all intents and purposes this is true. There are rare exceptions.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
They didn't all have standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplants, did they Smith? What are we to make of your inability to admit to what you could at least claim was merely a mistake?
Chuck, you are showing your idiocy. The W-2 (or V-2 if you prefer) was the standard Soviet tank engine from 1941 on. Long ago I said that older models had gasoline engines and that Lend-Lease vehicles had gasoline engines (like M-4 Shermans, P-39 Airacobra aircraft and various trucks). Roberto tried to dispute that because the Holo-orthodoxy was still trying to defend diesel-murder.

Now take a pill.
:wink:

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 06 Jul 2003 02:52

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Chuck you are just being an idiot. I posted sources and numbers.
You have been shown to claim, like other deniers, that the T-34 tank was only a diesel powered tank.
For all intents and purposes this is true. There are rare exceptions.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
They didn't all have standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplants, did they Smith? What are we to make of your inability to admit to what you could at least claim was merely a mistake?
Chuck, you are showing your idiocy. The W-2 (or V-2 if you prefer) was the standard Soviet tank engine from 1941 on. Long ago I said that older models had gasoline engines and that Lend-Lease vehicles had gasoline engines (like M-4 Shermans, P-39 Airacobra aircraft and various trucks). Roberto tried to dispute that because the Holo-orthodoxy was still trying to defend diesel-murder.

Now take a pill.
Smith continues to run from his statement.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
That statement, made by you, is incorrect, isn't that so Smith?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Jul 2003 03:01

Scott -- Please avoid insulting personal remarks like those contained in your last post.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 06 Jul 2003 03:30

Chuckoo wrote:Smith continues to run from his statement.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
That statement, made by you, is incorrect, isn't that so Smith?
No, it is essentially correct. The exceptions, and there are few, have been clarified.

Furthermore, I never claimed that all captured Soviet tanks were T-34s. I said they could be anything. And I wondered why the Germans then went out of their way to get a diesel. It was absurd for murder.

Roberto tried to defend the Holo-orthodoxy by arguing that it was easier to get diesels.

Sorry, Chuck, you are just digging yourself in deeper but you are too stupid to realize it.
:roll:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 06 Jul 2003 03:31

David Thompson wrote:Scott -- Please avoid insulting personal remarks like those contained in your last post.
Sorry, but Roberto accuses me of dishonesty, which gets no rebuke from the moderator, so I have to be honest and say that Chuck is both stupid and an idiot, which is no mean accomplishment in his case.
:)

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 06 Jul 2003 04:00

Scott Smith wrote:
Chuckoo wrote:Smith continues to run from his statement.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
That statement, made by you, is incorrect, isn't that so Smith?
No, it is essentially correct. The exceptions, and there are few, have been clarified.
Hehe!

In other words, the statement which says "all" T-34 tanks had W-2 diesels was incorrect.

It must gall you that you are reduced to describing an obviously false statement as "essentially correct" with some exceptions, when those exceptions constituted a significant percentage of the units produced in 1941.

But I'm sure we'll not see you making such a categorical statement about the T-34 tank again soon.

By the way, the US assessment of the T-34 had some interesting things to say about the diesel model.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archi ... stat7.html

Engine

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the Navy and, therefore, the Army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a sabateur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil -bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

*the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;

*its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot -welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil, etc. (that claim was accepted, and later T-34 variants received the new, better, "Cyclon" filter - Valera). On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity or normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.

-------------

Hmmm.

An air filter so poor it won't permit sufficient air, even at idle!

We'll have to keep that in mind when we discuss fuel/air ratios as a contributing factor to the lethality of diesel engines, now won't we.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 06 Jul 2003 04:05

Scott Smith wrote:
Chuckoo wrote:Smith continues to run from his statement.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
That statement, made by you, is incorrect, isn't that so Smith?
No, it is essentially correct. The exceptions, and there are few, have been clarified.

Furthermore, I never claimed that all captured Soviet tanks were T-34s.
What you in fact claimed was that all T-34 tanks were diesel. Here it is again.
The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
So why don't you explain to us how your categorical statement about "all" T-34's would not be true of all captured T-34's?

Just who is digging themselves in deeper and deeper, Smith?

Time for some honesty.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Jul 2003 04:22

Scott -- As you should be aware, I try to enforce the civility rule with an even hand. And you may recall in the last of these exchanges, it was Mr. Bunch who got the warnings. Try as I might, it's hard to catch every one of the offensive remarks made in this section of the forum, especially if they appear in lengthy posts or take place in the middle of the night. Please PM me if you are put off by any remarks I miss. In this case, your own remarks appear unprovoked.

Do not post insulting statements here.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 06 Jul 2003 08:55

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Chuckoo wrote:Smith continues to run from his statement.
Scott wrote:The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
That statement, made by you, is incorrect, isn't that so Smith?
No, it is essentially correct. The exceptions, and there are few, have been clarified.
Hehe!

In other words, the statement which says "all" T-34 tanks had W-2 diesels was incorrect.
I didn't say that "all T-34s had W-2 diesels." What I said was:
Scott wrote:The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
Chuckoo wrote:It must gall you that you are reduced to describing an obviously false statement as "essentially correct" with some exceptions, when those exceptions constituted a significant percentage of the units produced in 1941.
Not quite. I posted figures. Furthermore, I argued previously that diesels were NOT the majority of prewar tanks. And I never said the engine had to have come from a T-34.

You are just trying to create a strawman to knock down.
But I'm sure we'll not see you making such a categorical statement about the T-34 tank again soon.
You don't know what you are talking about.
An air filter so poor it won't permit sufficient air, even at idle!
Yes, I've read that report and more. The Navy building diesels was not why the Army chose not to use diesels in tanks, although production priorities is always a factor.
We'll have to keep that in mind when we discuss fuel/air ratios as a contributing factor to the lethality of diesel engines, now won't we.
No, it doesn't work that way. If the air is restricted the engine begins to miss because it cannot get enough air to compress to detonate the fuel and it therefore blows unburned fuel out the exhaust. It doesn't miss because it is out of oxygen but because it cannot compress enough air to generate heat for ignition. This limits the amount of carbon monoxide that can be produced by choking because the engine will quit. When Pattle and Stretch tried this in the 1957 test on live animals they were able to only slightly raise the CO despite choking it as much as possible. All animals were still alive after an hour and a half! Humans would have done even better.

Sorry, Chuck. No banana.
Last edited by Scott Smith on 07 Jul 2003 03:38, edited 1 time in total.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 06 Jul 2003 20:20

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Chuckoo wrote:Smith continues to run from his statement.
Scott wrote:The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
That statement, made by you, is incorrect, isn't that so Smith?
No, it is essentially correct. The exceptions, and there are few, have been clarified.
Hehe!

In other words, the statement which says "all" T-34 tanks had W-2 diesels was incorrect.
I didn't say that "all T-34s had W-2 diesels." What I said was: The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant
Which is incorrect, since not all T-34's had diesel powerplants. In other words, what you said is exactly what I pointed out.
Chuckoo wrote:It must gall you that you are reduced to describing an obviously false statement as "essentially correct" with some exceptions, when those exceptions constituted a significant percentage of the units produced in 1941.
Not quite. I posted figures. Furthermore, I argued previously that diesels were NOT the majority of prewar tanks. And I never said the engine had to have come from a T-34.


Not in that post you didn't. In that post you claimed all T-34's were diesels. What you posted elsewhere is irrelevant to the false claim you made in that post. I suspect you have made it elsewhere as well. Where the engine came from is also irrelevant to our discussion, as is what you said about other tanks.
You are just trying to create a strawman to knock down.
Your false statement is not a strawman. Your refusal to admit it is false tells us lots about you.
But I'm sure we'll not see you making such a categorical statement about the T-34 tank again soon.
You don't know what you are talking about.
It would seem the person who claimed all T-34's had a diesel powerplant has little claim to expertise.
An air filter so poor it won't permit sufficient air, even at idle!
Yes, I've read that report and more.



You mean this report?

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archi ... stat7.html

Engine

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the Navy and, therefore, the Army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a sabateur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil -bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

*the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;

*its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot -welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil, etc. (that claim was accepted, and later T-34 variants received the new, better, "Cyclon" filter - Valera). On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity or normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.

===========

So you've read it before. Have you ever brought it up in your discussions with Roberto and others?
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:We'll have to keep that in mind when we discuss fuel/air ratios as a contributing factor to the lethality of diesel engines, now won't we.
No, it doesn't work that way. If the air is restricted the engine begins to miss because it cannot get enough air to compress to detonate the fuel and it therefore blows unburned fuel out the exhaust. It doesn't miss because it is out of oxygen but because it cannot compress enough air to generate heat for ignition. This limits the amount of carbon monoxide that can be produced by choking because the engine will quit. When Pattle and Stretch tried this in the 1957 test on live they were able to only slightly raise the CO despite choking it as much as possible. All animals were still alive after an hour and a half. Humans would have done better.

Sorry, Chuck. No banana.
Sorry Smith, but there was no report of the T-34 tanks quitting because of this. And you, and Berg, and his other parrots, are always forced to resort to this unsupported claim.

Less oxygen to the engine means less complete combustion means higher levels of CO.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 06 Jul 2003 21:08

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty
Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty."
Now isn't it funny to see Smith lose his temper and throw insults around in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he was lying rather lamely when, after reading my conclusions derived from Miller’s thesis more than once, he tried to make believe that I considered 2.7 % CO2 to be lethal?

Anyone who read my exposition should have understood that I consider a CO2 level above 7 % to be lethal and that, according to my calculations, that level would be reached in the situation under discussion after 30 minutes when the CO2 coming in with the exhaust added to the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. In my post of Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:13 pm on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=30

I even showed my calculations, as follows:

CO2 ambient air; Minute; CO2 exhaust; CO2 ambient air + exhaust

3,06%; 21; 2,74%; 5,80%
3,21%; 22; 2,74%; 5,95%
3,35%; 23; 2,74%; 6,09%
3,50%; 24; 2,74%; 6,24%
3,65%; 25; 2,74%; 6,39%
3,79%; 26; 2,74%; 6,53%
3,94%; 27; 2,74%; 6,68%
4,08%; 28; 2,74%; 6,82%
4,23%; 29; 2,74%; 6,97%
4,38%; 30; 2,74%; 7,12%
4,52%; 31; 2,74%; 7,26%
4,67%; 32; 2,74%; 7,41%
4,81%; 33; 2,74%; 7,55%
4,96%; 34; 2,74%; 7,70%
5,10%; 35; 2,74%; 7,84%
5,25%; 36; 2,74%; 7,99%
5,40%; 37; 2,74%; 8,14%
5,54%; 38; 2,74%; 8,28%
5,69%; 39; 2,74%; 8,43%
5,83%; 40; 2,74%; 8,57%
5,98%; 41; 2,74%; 8,72%
6,13%; 42; 2,74%; 8,87%
6,27%; 43; 2,74%; 9,01%
6,42%; 44; 2,74%; 9,16%
6,56%; 45; 2,74%; 9,30%
6,71%; 46; 2,74%; 9,45%
6,85%; 47; 2,74%; 9,59%
7,00%; 48; 2,74%; 9,74%


This is a theory, of course, and as such it may be right or wrong. But calling it "stupid" is nothing other than the arrogance "Revisionists" throw at their opponents whenever they feel cornered, a feature that has not exactly helped increase my sympathy for these people in general and Smith in particular.
Scott Smith wrote: If the exhaust composition is 2.7% that is where it will remain once the air has been exchanged a few times by the engine respiration.
Smith is trying to tell us that the ambient air would be wholly displaced out of the chamber by the incoming exhaust and that the people in there would end up breathing pure diesel exhaust with 2.7 % carbon dioxide. This is what he would like to believe, and as so many of his other contentions it stands a good chance of being absolute nonsense, as already explained in the previous discussion mentioned above. What is more likely to have happened is that the heavier components of the incoming exhaust, like carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, displaced the lighter components of the ambient air, like oxygen, out of the chamber or out of the victims’ reach while the heavier components remained behind and combined with those of the incoming exhaust into an atmosphere loaded with CO2, the scenario contemplated in the above table. Of course this has been previously discussed as well, Smith having failed to demonstrate that there was something wrong with my assumptions and calculations. But that doesn’t keep him from dishing up his lame objections again and arrogantly calling my considerations "stupid", on grounds of little other than their inconvenience to his articles of faith. That’s "Revisionism" at its best, folks.
Scott Smith wrote: This will actually put more oxygen into the chamber than would be the case with the engine swtiched OFF because O2 levels cannot become depleted and CO2 levels from human respiration rise.
Last but not least, Smith tries to create some confusion by changing the subject. His considerations regarding oxygen are probably just as fallacious as the ones regarding CO2, but I see no need to address them now because what we’re talking about is the effects of too high concentrations of CO2, independently of the oxygen levels.
Scott Smith wrote: Now, I am tired of your "dishonesty" bullshit.
It’s not bullshit (bullshit is what Smith produces regarding certain topic whenever he hits the keyboard), but I’m glad to know Smith is tired of my pointing out his dishonesty. Fond as I am of the fellow, I will from now on push this button more often.
Scott Smith wrote: You know what you have to do to rectify that.
The only one in need of rectifying something here is Smith, as I see it. Quite a lot, as a matter of fact.

As we’re at it, I just did a quick Google search and found out that "CO2 narcosis" is one of the hazards facing scuba divers and a common method used to quickly and painlessly kill ("euthanize") animals. Here are some of the sites I found, for the delectation of and analysis by our "skeptic":

http://www.aidabrasil.com.br/artigo012.htm

http://knockout.cwru.edu/docs/co2euthanasia.html

http://www.research.psu.edu/arp/euthanasia.shtml

http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html

I haven’t checked them in detail, so I don’t know if they support my theory or Smith’s objections or are inconclusive in respect of either. I’ll leave it to Smith to work that out.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Jul 2003 21:20

Roberto -- You said: "It’s not bullshit (bullshit is what Smith produces regarding certain topic whenever he hits the keyboard), but I’m glad to know Smith is tired of my pointing out his dishonesty. Fond as I am of the fellow, I will from now on push this button more often."

As informative as your posts are, this approach is not acceptable here. Do not mix offensive personal comments into your argument.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 06 Jul 2003 22:16

David Thompson wrote:Roberto -- You said: "It’s not bullshit (bullshit is what Smith produces regarding certain topic whenever he hits the keyboard), but I’m glad to know Smith is tired of my pointing out his dishonesty. Fond as I am of the fellow, I will from now on push this button more often."

As informative as your posts are, this approach is not acceptable here. Do not mix offensive personal comments into your argument.
Why don't you tell that to the other fellow, first of all?

Pointing out the nonsense of an opponent's contentions or that opponent's dishonesty, where appropriate, is not a personal offense, as I see it. But calling an opponent stupid is.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Jul 2003 23:28

Roberto -- You said: "Why don't you tell that to the other fellow, first of all?"

If you read the messages above, you'll see that I have.

You also said: "Pointing out the nonsense of an opponent's contentions or that opponent's dishonesty, where appropriate, is not a personal offense, as I see it. But calling an opponent stupid is."

Questioning a poster's honesty or claiming congenital defective intelligence is offensive. Terming his argument nonsense or grossly inconsistent with his previous statements is not.

I invite you or any other poster who genuinely feels that he has been personally insulted by another, and that I have somehow missed or overlooked the offensive remark, to notify me by PM and draw my attention to the problem.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”