Tankograd of the XXI century: in search of a new diesel V-2

B-92S2. Source: vladimirkrym.livejournal.com

The occasion for pride

Chelyabinsk will be associated with tanks Victory. The city received the name "Tankograd" during the Great Patriotic War after the evacuation of industry from the western regions of the country. And the first violin here was undoubtedly played by the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (ChTZ), which, among other things, received the capacities and specialists of the Kharkov Motor Plant No. 75. In total, more than 48,5 thousand famous diesel engines of the B-2 series were produced at ChTZ during the war years ... In 2021, the tank engine turned 82 years old since it was put into service. Despite all the victorious reports, the development of the diesel engine as a reliable and durable unit was long. Only from April 1943, the service life of V-2 diesels for medium-sized T-34s began to approach the adequate 150 hours. In the "heavy" forced version of the V-2K (for KV and IS tanks), the resource barely exceeded 100 hours. By January of the victorious 1945, the service life of the V-2-34 was raised to 250 hours, and the 600-horsepower diesel engine for heavy tanks - up to 200 hours. However, tank engines often demonstrated amazing survivability. Suffice it to cite examples of the 5th Panzer Corps' marches into the Prokhorovka area in 1943, the 1st Panzer Army offensive in 1944 and the Far Eastern campaign in 1945. Therefore, talking about the low service life of the serial B-2, especially by the end of the war, is not entirely fair. We can agree with the critics on one thing, of course - the quality of the manufacture of tank engines seriously varied both from plant to plant, and within the framework of one enterprise.

In the post-war years, the B-2 concept continued to be developed for very many reasons. First, the design of the diesel engine, which derives its ancestry from aircraft engines, was too progressive for Soviet Russia in the 30s and 40s. Only one cylinder block made of aluminum alloy was worth something. Therefore, the design had to be finalized after the Great Patriotic War. Secondly, the engineers laid a great modernization potential in the B-2. By the way, during the war, spin up the engine to 600 hp. With. (option for heavy tanks) succeeded without turbocharging. When engineers more carefully approached the selection of structural materials and optimization of attachments, it turned out that for a diesel engine and 700-800 hp. With. far from the limit. The importance of the V-2 for the national economy is also important - in the dilapidated country there was an acute shortage of powerful motors for ships, generators, tractors, tractors and other equipment. The tank engine proved to be a fine fellow here - in most cases it was only necessary to de-force the B-2 in order to achieve the resource and reliability required by the civilian market. Several factories were involved in the production of the motor, and the restructuring of production for new models would have been too expensive. At the same time, it cannot be said that Soviet engineers did not develop alternative options. In 1945, specialists from the Kharkov Transport Engineering Plant (department 1600), who returned home from evacuation, developed a two-stroke diesel engine DD-1 with a capacity of 1000 hp. With. The design did not appear from scratch - two American ship diesel engines GMC models 184A and 268A became prototypes. The Kharkov diesel was equipped with two volumetric "Route" superchargers with crankshaft drives. In terms of power and mass-dimensional characteristics, the DD-1 (and its variant DD-2) were suitable only for heavy tanks. However, the Soviet leadership abandoned the very concept of dividing tanks into heavy and medium by the mid-50s. So the two-stroke DD turned out to be out of work - the prototype is gathering dust in the storerooms of the museum in Kubinka. And this is far from the only example when the leadership tried to create an alternative to B-2. At the same time, if we consider a diesel engine in comparison with foreign counterparts, then the domestic development conceptually outstripped NATO tank engines by 10-15 years.

Chelyabinsk evolution B-2

While the military leadership was choosing the most optimal version of a tank engine - a classic V-shaped one with counter-moving pistons or a gas turbine in general, the V-2 was slowly being brought to mind in Chelyabinsk. History does not know the subjunctive mood, but if the Kharkov 5TDF showed satisfactory reliability, then the Ural B-2 would have been abandoned back in the early 70s. The controversial Ukrainian engine, which became even more revolutionary for the country than the B-2 at one time, forced the Ministry of Defense to keep the T-72 tank. It was for this car that the first serious modification of the famous diesel engine appeared - the V-84M with a capacity of 840-880 liters. With. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, this power was quite enough, although it somewhat limited the modernization of the T-72 in terms of increasing mass. In 1992, the T-90 was adopted with a new modification of the B-92 with a capacity of 1000 liters. With. Actually, this option was supposed to be the last in the family of tank engines - ChTZ laid the foundation for a new engine with the dimension D / S = 15/16 (D is the cylinder diameter, S is the piston stroke). It was supposed to be a modular motor, which, without compromising the manufacturability of production, lost a pair of cylinders (or more) and moved to another league. Chelyabinsk designers provided for wide unification with civilian products - like the predecessor V-2, the new diesel engine was to be used in the national economy. Provided for a whole line of motors from four-cylinder to sixteen-cylinder execution. In the latter case, the motor developed more than 2000 hp. With. They planned to install diesel engines, in addition to tanks, on tractors, trucks, cranes, buses, tractors, diesel locomotives, combines and fishing seiners. However, the chronic lack of money put an end to such developments - it was necessary to refine the B-2 once again. Now the top of the evolution of the series is the V-92S2F with a capacity of 1130 liters. pp., in which they were able to realize a high return due to the use of new materials. According to the developers themselves, the motor appeared

"Ceramic thermal barrier coating of elements of the combustion chamber and engine exhaust route, multilayer plain bearings, hardened aluminum alloys and high-alloy steels."

Diesel V-92S2F is equipped with modifications of the honored "Ural" T-72B3 and T-72B3M, as well as the widely advertised T-90M "Breakthrough". They would have used the descendants of the B-2 for the promising Armata platform, but the mass of the new tank does not allow such a thing at all. It requires power under 1500 liters. with., which even for a well-deserved motor is beyond affordable. With such a degree of forcing, the resource falls catastrophically.

As a result, in Chelyabinsk, with great difficulty, they developed a new engine - a 12-cylinder turbo-piston 2V-12-3A, made in an X-shaped scheme. This arrangement makes it possible to achieve high power with relatively compact dimensions. Although, of course, the potential parameters of the liter capacity of Kharkiv 5TDF and 6TD are far from here. Unfortunately, Kharkiv is now in a hostile state, and the Ukrainians themselves have frankly abandoned the improvement of a promising, in general, motor. The new Chelyabinsk diesel engine, after testing, was approved for serial production in August last year. So far, even if the Armata platform is supplied to the troops, it is in trace quantities, so it is too early to talk about the perfection of its power plant.

Despite the 80th anniversary of Tankograd's diesel production, the future does not inspire optimism at all. The B-2 base is no longer suitable for the latest technology, and the new engine, at least, has not been tested in the troops. And the 2B-12-3A has absolutely no civilian prospects - largely due to the exotic and difficult to maintain layout. Yes, for a tank engine with its requirements for high boost and small dimensions, the X-shaped version is quite suitable. A failed tank diesel engine will be replaced in the field as a whole, in a Western manner. But the ancestor of the family of civil motors 2V-12-3A, unlike the V-2, will never become. Taking into account the potentially small series of release of the Armata platform, this still will not allow to fully bring it to mind. Only when several thousand motors are simultaneously working "in the field", it is possible to take into account all the design flaws that cannot be tracked on a motor stand. Small run is a small sample for statistics.

Once again, we have to assert that, unfortunately, Russia is rapidly losing technical competence. First of all, in the motor industry. Of the truly new domestic engines in recent years, only a small-scale gasoline for a limousine "Aurus" (developed with the help of the Germans) and a 2V-12-3A tank diesel engine (we hope, created by our own forces) have appeared. Neither one nor the other is able to compete with foreign technology in the mass sector. The Soviet technical legacy is gradually fading away - the technological darkness of modern Russia is coming.

Comments

[srelock]

Once again, we have to assert that, unfortunately, Russia is rapidly losing technical competence.

It is better to put such Wishlist in the title of the article, so that readers do not waste time

[Alekseev]

"... so that readers don't waste time."
That's right!
The author is far from "engines and their systems" and is unable to explain why diesel engines of the B-2 type and their direct descendants have been living for about 80 years, why two-stroke engines have a higher liter power than four-stroke engines, but mainly four-stroke engines are used. when was the X-shaped diesel engine used for the Armata developed and why is it supposedly not good?
Everything in general is retold from the same sources.

[Sharky]

The author is far from "engines and their systems" and is unable to explain why diesel engine type B-2

It is enough to read your comment to understand how far you are from the topic and do not know the simplest technical terminology. Plural diesels are not "diesel" in any way. I would not be surprised that your "valves" and "bearings" are the standard spelling.
And the two-stroke engine did not go, most likely due to the magnitude of the piston stroke. To organize the purging of the cylinders and fill them with fresh air, a longer piston stroke is required, it is desirable to have a low engine speed, so that there is enough time to remove exhaust gases from the cylinder and fill it with fresh air. Therefore, here the boxer engine is the limit so as not to lift up the engine compartment and the tower could normally rotate 180 degrees.
The boxer engine definitely loses out to the X-shaped in this case in terms of the number of cylinders.

[4thParasinok]

Quote: Sharky

And the two-stroke engine did not go, most likely due to the magnitude of the piston stroke. To organize the purging of the cylinders and fill them with fresh air, a longer piston stroke is required, it is desirable to have a low engine speed, so that there is enough time to remove exhaust gases from the cylinder and fill it with fresh air. Therefore, here the boxer engine is the limit so as not to lift up the engine compartment and the tower could normally rotate 180 degrees.

nonsense of an amateur. My motorcycle has a two-stroke with 12 rpm, my friend has 000, and V-16 has only 2. 2500 times less than a two-stroke, and yes, we have water-cooled engines. The two-stroke configuration can be not only X-shaped, but also star-shaped.
Especially for couch experts - a two-stroke engine eats more fuel and oil, part of the fuel does not burn and is emitted into the atmosphere. Worse thermal conditions of the engine and a more powerful cooling system is needed

[Sharky]

It is very good that you have a motorcycle, and you think that you are well versed in internal combustion engines.

The two-stroke configuration can be not only X-shaped, but also star-shaped.

Everyone knows that, you have not discovered America. A conversation about how you were going to install a star in a tank corps without increasing the height of the engine compartment.

Especially for couch experts - a two-stroke engine eats more fuel and oil, part of the fuel does not burn and is emitted into the atmosphere. Worse thermal conditions of the engine and a more powerful cooling system is needed

Well, even though you know how to use Google, it is encouraging. Only not all questions are answered on the Internet. It is often necessary to read complex and voluminous books on diesel engineering, and not advertising brochures.
Of course, I am not an expert on low-power internal combustion engines like you, after all, the power of the engines with which I work is calculated in thousands of kW.
Citing as an example low-power two-stroke engines from motorcycles and motor boats, which do not fit in any way with medium-sized tank ICEs (600-1500 hp), you did not even think why the number of revolutions of tank engines does not reach such values ​​as 12000 - 16000 rpm.
In this aspect, it is the ship's internal combustion engine that is much closer to the tank one. And the use of a tank internal combustion engine as a ship engine took place. So why, respected undivided expert, with an increase in the power of two-stroke internal combustion engines, their revolutions decrease, and their dimensions greatly increase?
And why is a crosshead mechanism introduced for high-power 2-stroke diesels? Why are powerful 2-stroke internal combustion engines usually only MOD and rarely SOD, and 4-stroke - SOD and rarely WOD? Easy questions that you have bypassed should not confuse you.
In the meantime, I will leave you with this information for your reference:

[4thParasinok]

to the attention of sofa experts, 20 years ago we had to deal with marine diesel engines, including those with a cylinder diameter of more than one and a half meters. He worked at ship repair, fortunately not as an engine operator, but he helped and read literature ... But my father-in-law and friend are just engine specialists.
I repeat once again that with the same engine volume, the stroke rate has nothing to do with the rpm, there are completely different criteria and there are many of them.

[Sharky]

20 years ago we had to deal with marine diesel engines, including those with a cylinder diameter of more than one and a half meters.

In addition to your incompetence in matters of internal combustion engines, you are also lying, since the cylinder diameter of the largest internal combustion engine does not exceed 1000mm.
Leave stories about your adventures from the past and the repetition of some mantras that are not related to the issue with you. You have already shown which of us is a real sofa expert.

[4thParasinok]

Laughed. Do you know the difference between "largest engine cylinder" and "largest cylinder bore"? apparently not. That engine was an 8 cylinder...
So there is nothing to talk about with you.

[Sharky]

Already on "you"? The level of cultural development you have just rolls over. You also tear out what I wrote incompletely from the content, trying to somehow justify it. Do not get out like in a frying pan. You only dig yourself deeper, showing ignorance of the subject.

[Yarhann]

that yes, these sad ones .. they have been walking on the net for a long time. and the sighing about the two-stroke shit of Kharkov production is once again touched)))

[kytx]

The unification of engines for military equipment with civilian sounds kind of tempting.
Well, do you need it?
I doubt it.

[andrewkor]

As partly involved in the production of V-2 in its civil form in the form of D-12 and D-6 at the Barnaultransmash plant, I want to clarify by their nomenclature: more than 70 variants of both types - automobile, ship, diesel, drilling, diesel generator sets, low-magnetic .In the process of conversion of production after the Victory!

[kytx]

What I mean is that now the requirements for a civilian and a tank engine are very different.
It was easier then. B2 in general aviation nee.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: andrewkor

As partly involved in the production of V-2 in its civil form in the form of D-12 and D-6 at the Barnaultransmash plant, I want to clarify by their nomenclature: more than 70 variants of both types - automobile, ship, diesel, drilling, diesel generator sets, low-magnetic .In the process of conversion of production after the Victory!

A question to the involved, without irony, what is known about the Barnaul disils? At the turn of the 90s, Siberians successfully competed with the southern Urals. They offered at least 1000 for the T-90.

[eburg1234]

KD-34 1000 hp and could not bring to mind. At first, it was supposed to be installed on Indian T-90s, but during the tests they refused in favor of the B-92S2.
If I am not mistaken, the civilian component of Barnaul is not great, mainly the state order for FTD. Something fundamentally new is not heard at all. Only the turbine was supplied to UTD (UTD-32T), but there is no information about the series. Everything looks sad ...

[andrewkor]

Final assembly and testing workshop N190, export site, fitter - assembler. One 3D12 or two D12- 375 per shift.
And how do you like UDT20 and its derivatives for BMP, BMP?

[eburg1234]

I am far from this topic, I have no personal opinion. I read about the epic of creating an engine for the BMP-3. Even then, the military was not satisfied with the UTD resource (and maintainability in case of overheating, for example), they wanted to switch to the 2B line, but for Kurgan, UTD-29 came up better because of the layout of the machine, and Barnaul was already ready to produce it in series. At ChTZ, they were not ready at all for the release of a large series of 2B, they actually needed a new production. Only for BMD-3/4 was produced, and the engines were very expensive. Then the BMD-4M was switched to UTD.
There is some skepticism about the turbocharged UTD-32T. I would be glad to be wrong ...

[4thParasinok]

Quote: eburg1234

wanted to switch to the 2B line, but for Kurgan UTD-29 came up better due to the layout of the machine, and Barnaul was already ready to produce it in series. At ChTZ, they were not ready at all for the release of a large series of 2B, they actually needed a new production.

another lie from Barnaul.
1V-2 is more compact than UD-6 + smaller volume of the engine itself, has a better altitude of operation without loss of power, a more reliable design and a better cylinder cooling system, as a result, it works normally when the Barnaul resident dies from overheating. So the 29V-2 can be easily installed in the MTO BMP-6. at the same time, during the development of the machine, it was the MAIN engine.
2. ChTZ built a new workshop to assemble the engine and launched it a month later than Barnaul. But at the same time, 2B-2 began to be produced on time set by the military. But Barnaul, in order to justify the misappropriation of money for a new assembly line (and not a workshop), shipped the BMP just that very month ahead of schedule. This just led to the fact that ChTZ was forced to stop mass production a few days after the start. Yes, small batches for BMD-4 and Sprut-SD were produced, but the masts are completely different.

[eburg1234]

I don't mind 2B-06. I think that the UTD-29 on the BMP-3 was a mistake in the long run. But objectively, ChTZ was not ready for a large series, the new assembly shop is not equal to the new machines necessary for production, and the cost of 2B was high (as far as I understood, universal, not specialized machines were used). From the data known to me (approximately 2008-2010) 2V-06 cost 4 million rubles, V-92C2 (twice as powerful) - 2.35 million! UTD is even cheaper (I don’t remember the exact figure).

[4thParasinok]

eburg1234:
1. Objectively - the plant was ready for a large batch of engines, and on time. I will not comment on the lies from Barnaul for the second time, read the text above.
the whole set of machines was in stock.
2. The engine production of ChTZ at times in the 80s was more than that of Barnoul, and it was ChTZ that BUILT a new workshop for assembling 2V-06, and Barnaul simply redid the assembly line on which the UTD-20 was made, without purchasing any new machines. And especially for those who are not in the know, UTD-29 differs from UTD-20 only in the camber angle and additional 4 cylinders, 10 instead of 6.
And yet - the mass production of engines needed another half a year later than the first batch of several dozen infantry fighting vehicles,
3. What does the price have to do with 2010, when it comes to the late 80s? At that time, their cost was about the same. And in 2010, everything depends on monthly volumes - the larger the batch, the lower the price. Well, if you compare the cost of producing 2 and 50 engines, there’s even nothing to compare

[eburg1234]

A large series of 2V-6 was not planned at all at ChTZ, it turns out that there is only small-scale production.

A brief analysis of the problem of the production of both engines was carried out by R.I. Davtyan. The following options were considered:

a) in terms of production:

– by 1990 – 4000–5000 units per year (N1);

– after 1990 – in full (N2);

b) on the location of production:

– 2V-06 in volume N1 at VgTZ; it will be necessary to discontinue the production of D6 engines and carry out technical re-equipment;

- UTD-29 in volume N1 at BZTM; Little construction and technical re-equipment will be required. The production of D6 engines at VgTZ is maintained.

- 2V-06 at VgTZ and UTD-29 at BZTM in the amount of N2 - an investment of 130–150 million rubles will be required. The production of UTD-29 in the amount of N2 at BZTM will be mastered faster than 2V-06 at VgTZ.

c) if possible, provide engines for prototypes of NLPT and NBMP:

- due to the preference of the tractor theme at VgTZ and ChTZ, it is more difficult to provide experimental work on light tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with 2V-06 engines than with UTD-29 engines manufactured by BZTM.

[eburg1234]

If I'm not mistaken, then the height of the UTD-29 is still less (due to the smaller angle V), for the Kurgan and its layout of the BMP-3, this was decisive.

[4thParasinok]

made me laugh ... here are the dimensions (LxWxH) for you for comparison, if you are not able to find it yourself:
UTD-29: 1040 x 1320 x 600 mm
2В-06-2: 795х1380х570 мм
2В-08-2: 925х1380х570 мм

[eburg1234]

MTO with 2V-06 was higher:

These statements caused categorical objections from A.A. Blagonravova. According to him, even with the transverse position of the 2V-06 engine, the length of the MTO is 29 mm longer than with the UTD-125 engine, the height is 210 mm, and the opening is reduced by 225 mm. In addition, Yu.B. Guerr's statement about a single transmission for both engines is erroneous. The 2V-06 engine requires a completely different transmission, which does not yet exist, and it will take 3,5 years to create it. There is no possibility of obtaining it in the dimensions of the MTO "object 688". MTO with the 2V-06 engine cannot be the same as with the UTD-29. The conclusion of A.A. Blagonravov was unambiguous: from the point of view of the layout characteristics, the advantages of the UTD-29 engine are undeniable.

[4thParasinok]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

A question to the involved, without irony, what is known about the Barnaul disils? At the turn of the 90s, Siberians successfully competed with the southern Urals.

They competed only in those cases when they themselves decided what to bet. An excellent example is the UD-29, which lost to the 2V-6 at the design stage of the BMP-3 in ALL positions. Contrary to the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, they put it on an experimental batch of cars, and there the USSR collapsed ...

[Zaurbek]

Of course it is necessary ... ..the price, blocks can be cast on a large scale, any equipment can be purchased. The resource is good. There used to be a strong gap between civilian diesels and the military. And now civilian diesels are catching up with the military. Licensed diesel KAMAZ, for example, at 13 liters gives 450-750 hp and has a resource of 1 million km. And why put B2 on a conventional mzkt now? Or on a tractor.

[nerovnayadoroga]

Not a single KAMAZ engine runs even 200000 without an average, overhaul, you can raise the power by flashing a bk, usually with an e4, which generally turns off the engine, therefore, everyone is silent about this, how can a 360 hp engine work without a soot filter and urea, Merci with Volvo, manami cannot, but Kamaz can, in front of the whole planet, only under its exhaust e4 eyes in five seconds like a Chinese and a gas mask does not help ... everything is written with a pitchfork on the water ...

[Zaurbek]

On licensed Liebherr 1-1,5 million km are sounded ...

[Yarhann]

oh, for the experts, the KAMAZ did not go 200 tyk))) tell the gray-haired schoolchildren this. poor kindergarten

[Yarhann]

now civilian diesels give out about 500-550 hp at 12-13 liters per 6 pots, while they give out 2500+ traction gnomes. for example, the engine of the most modern western tank Leclerc produces 1500 hp and about 5000 gnomes from 16 liters, MTU makes similar engines. B92 produces 38 hp from 1000 liters and about 4000 gnomes - these are the characteristics of the Kamaz-Master racing engine, but there are 13 liters, ring engines in this volume give out 1200 + hp and 4500+ torque - that is, even more forced. The same old TMZ on which the Kamaz-Master drove with a volume of 18 liters produced 950 hp and 3600 gnomes - add 500 rpm to it and we get 1100 + hp and 4000+ gnomes.
Here it is rather a question of the MO requirements for the engine - because in Leclerc there is essentially a racing engine, in the T90 there is a reliable tractor engine with a large volume and a low degree of boost.
It goes without saying that it is better for a tank to have a larger engine with a minimum degree of boost - in order to get the right moment from xx. But on the other hand, a large engine means a larger volume of MTO. In short, I xs how right here it is necessary for specialists from the Ministry of Defense to ask them better what they need.

[Zaurbek]

I mean that earlier these descendants of B2 were installed both on tractors and on tractors ... and now civilian in-line 6c diesel engines have appeared

[Yarhann]

it's not about diesels, but about the fuel system, a faster and more accurate injection system - the one that is controlled by an ECU. this made it possible to meter the supply and the time of fuel injection much more accurately. This made it possible to increase the operating speed of diesel engines, increase efficiency, increase the boost pressure - as a result, they began to receive more torque and more power from smaller volumes, and cleaner exhaust, especially in transient modes. The disadvantage of such diesel engines is high requirements for the quality of fuel and service. That is why in the USSR, for a very long time, rather dense diesel engines were used - where they worked, the fuel was not the best, and the maintenance of the fuel system left much to be desired.

[seacap]

Quite right, there are fundamentally different requirements for such products and completely different operating conditions.

[Sharky]

The unification of engines for military equipment with civilian sounds kind of tempting.
Well, do you need it?
I doubt it.

When I was on repair practice, we were sorting out the main house from a small fishing trawler. Then the diesel engineers told me (the cadet) that it was a tank engine. It turns out that the small fishing fleet ran on tank diesel engines.

[Zaurbek]

And MZKT and tractors …….

[bistrov.]

Stop talking about the "extinction" of Russia, everything is being built and improved .., so the West, indeed, has reached a dead end ...

[Reklastik]

Yes ... Rotting, west, bastard. Doesn't want to start stinking in any way. But yes, it rots more and more.

[bistrov.]

Quote: Reklastik

Rots, west, bastard

How many combat-ready divisions are in the West now? We are interested in the military aspect, right? Or you will complain that we have "small salaries" ...

[bk0010]

Quote: bistrov.

How many combat-ready divisions are there in the West now?

I don’t know in divisions, but at times 6: 1 is not in our favor in the western direction.

[sevryuk]

and how many times were the troops of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Karl 12th, Frederick II, etc. yielded to the armies they defeated?

[bk0010]

Quote: sevryuk

and how many times were the troops of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Karl 12th, Frederick II, etc. yielded to the armies they defeated?

The armies of Genghis Khan and Napoleon usually outnumbered their opponents (Napoleon was defeated, by the way). The armies of Karl and Friedrich were also defeated. As for the Macedonian, I will not say: the data of the sources do not inspire confidence.

[English tarantas]

According to the office, there are under 800k military personnel in Russia, and half, or even more of them, are conscripts. Judging by the demobels and their stories, I think that conscript divisions cannot be considered combat-ready, for the most part for sure. Well, roughly speaking, 500k more or less ready military personnel. Actually, half a million is the number of troops in South Korea, and that equipment only has contract soldiers, from the age of 21, the motivation is more than illusory, the technical equipment is one of the best in the world. I think the level of South Korea is cool ... for a country half the middle peninsula ...

[Kosh]

In South Korea, the rank and file of the army is somehow staffed mainly by conscripts. There compulsory military service for men who have reached 18 years of age lasting from 18 to 21 months, depending on the type of troops and out of the total number of the South Korean armed forces of 522 thousand people, there are 274 thousand conscripts.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/29/south-korea-s-military-needs-bold-reforms-to-overcome-shrinking-population-pub-84822

[English tarantas]

Even so. I always thought that they had a contract for older guys. Nevertheless, if from 18 months, and taking into account the fact that they risk continuing the war every day, which, by the way, never ended, something tells me that their service is better organized and the conscripts themselves are more motivated ... Ours really have trouble, how many guys do not return, everyone says that trips to the training grounds are not very frequent, the soldiers are trained to fight at zero, well, like they gave the military manual to read, but there is no control over the fact that the soldiers really teach him, most of the time it is economic affairs in the part: cleaning, repairing, unloading, the part itself is a market, the officers are only interested in that no problems emerge, in receiving salaries and in creating the appearance of combat training. My friend personally returned a year ago, the sergeant, was in a unit like normal, they drove them only around the house, in a year from ak he shot a couple of hundred cartridges, God forbid, as an exercise, trips to nature, where they ordered to set up tents, dig a toilet , and then they were allowed to shoot with all kinds of weapons, one thing pleases, he went to Syria, but they recruited there only voluntarily and there he was engaged in riding an armored troop-carrier on patrols, in some places and resting at the base. In general, a soldier is a handyman, an officer is a professional caretaker.

[Konnick]

In general, a soldier is a handyman, an officer is a professional caretaker

According to the behests of Marshal Blucher, who organized agricultural enterprises from the Far Eastern Army.

[restless]

Dembel is inevitable, like the collapse of capitalism, so they said in the border troops under the USSR, but the opposite happened ...

[Alexfly]

Tovarisch Bystrov, you are absolutely right about the West, St. +++ chi are rotting, but they are very quietly decomposing ... Standing in a dead end of interethnic and interreligious disagreements, a few more generations and there will be no West, let's bear with it ... you have lives, tovarisch Bystrov, share it with the public, do not screw up!

[andrewkor]

Congratulations to Chelyabinsk citizens on their anniversary! Until the end of my life, I will be proud that I began my career in 1971 at the ChTZ backup for V-2 at the Transmash plant in Barnaul. During the Second World War, the plant N-77, created on the basis of the evacuated factories of Kharkov, Stalingrad, Leningrad. The first motor was commissioned in November 1942. In total, over 10 thousand motors were produced during the war.

[Silver bullet]

You have a very worthy biography, and for all those who created and made steel hearts for armor in factories, I take off my hats. Sincerely.

[Slon1978]

I simply disagree with the author categorically - with none of the theses.

At the expense of the loss of technical competence of ChTZ. I am not an expert in engine development, but I think that designing a V-16 based on the V-92S2F by adding two cylinders to each block is still an easier task than designing an X-16 (2B-12-3A) from scratch. I am sure that this is the most obvious way to increase the power to 1500 hp. first of all, they thought about ChTZ, but, nevertheless, they made the X-16 - a more complex version and it was a conscious choice. Therefore, there is no loss of competence.

At the expense of the narrow specialization of 2B-12-3A and its unsuitability for the national economy. Here - either checkers, or go. A compact and powerful tank engine was needed, the V-16 would not be included in the required size, would it really be better to make a “universal” and suitable for commercial use V-16, and then add another roller to the T-14 Armata? Engines based on V-2 became "national economic" for one simple reason, and the author himself wrote about this - after the war, there were a lot of engines everywhere, but there was only V-2.

At the expense of a small series and a small statistical sample - this is generally a pearl ... The author would probably prefer that first they build a thousand T-14 with only 2B-12-3A that passed only bench tests, and then a couple of years later the next “fighters against corruption” with they would write with ecstasy that “the engines are failing en masse”, “they installed an unfinished engine”, “cut the budget”, “undermining the country's defenses”, “made tanks for the parade”, “Russia was left without tanks”. Would the author want this? At work, I deal with the purchase and operation of foreign heavy engineering products, and so - foreign engine manufacturers install new models, after passing bench tests, not in thousands (as the author would like), not even in hundreds, but in PIECES. They put them on the first samples of, say, ships, with a large price discount in comparison with competitors, they accompany the client for years, make service, collect statistics. Otherwise, no one in their right mind (except for the author, obviously) will make mobile test laboratories out of their clients to collect statistics on breakdowns of their novelty for their (clients') money. This is not a war now - there is no need to put a crude engine on hundreds of tanks and "improve" it in the process. ChTZ has something to do, in addition to 2V-12-3A, they can quite afford several years of observation of the operation of 2V-12-3A on small-scale T-14. Moreover, the approach of the Ministry of Defense in terms of small-scale (for now) purchases of the T-14 is the only correct one, since in addition to the engine, the T-14 has a ton of other new systems.

[Ros 56]

The best comment of all. I respect you.

[Aleks tv]

... Moreover, the approach of the Ministry of Defense in terms of small-scale (for now) purchases of the T-14 is the only correct one, since in addition to the engine, the T-14 has a ton of other new systems.

Hello.

Let me agree with you categorically.
Already tired of repeating:
The Armata platform is an experienced one.
T-14 is a CONCEPT.
The carriage of questions on it has been resolved, the carriages are in the process of being resolved.
In addition to the tank itself, there are also questions about production.
Armata is a more revolutionary project than even the T-64.

And yes - you have a good comment.))
Good luck, ChTZ !!!

Alex.

[Orkraider]

Thanks for the unbiased comment. Nice to read. Old school )))

[Zaurbek]

Engines based on V-2 became "national economic" for one simple reason, and the author himself wrote about this - after the war, there were a lot of engines everywhere, but there was only V-2.

There were simply no other diesels with similar parameters .... the nearest ones began to appear relatively recently licensed Renault 420ls ... they put on the Urals and the new Kamazovsky 450-750 hp 13l .... and are considering an increase in the working volume and Euro 0 for military purposes.

[nerovnayadoroga]

I didn’t even read a lot of beeches ... and you didn’t try to remove the torque from these sections by one crankshaft, you calculated how many Nm it would be for these KV necks, think about this at your leisure, modular design .. kx, and .. .kh .. remove the moment and there can be no questions, kh ... it is necessary to convey the moment to the consumer without breakdowns and losses, kh ... And the resource to provide forcing, this is a war blah, not a training ground, kh ...

[Yarhann]

Well, you found someone to argue with about the design of engines)) honestly it's funny. On this site, all world-class experts and on any issues, and those who sculpt posts, and even more so - you will justify anything. if they said that there are no competencies, then it means there are no competencies - it's written)))

[DesToeR]

Only from April 1943, the service life of V-2 diesels for medium-sized T-34s began to approach the adequate 150 hours.

Gentlemen, writers, when you insert words like "adequate", "full-fledged", "normal", could you give at least some numbers? Even 50 hours of service life for a WWII tank was in the overwhelming majority of cases "for the eyes", tk. the tank no longer lived on the battlefields. This "reserve" of hours was enough until the end of the operation.

[Mikhail3]

Young man, you probably think you said something reasonable? Lord ... Anatoly, tank carriers were practically not used in those days. There were simply no significant numbers of them. And, you can only imagine, the tanks had to move ON THEIR MOVE! Hundreds of kilometers! At a speed of 20-30 km / h.
School is the place where you need to study, well, at least arithmetic, or something) Because tanks do not grow at the site of tank operations) Given the size of our small country, 500 km for a tank unit in one single maneuver, this is just commonplace. And this is at least 30 hours of motor life, taking into account engine starts, operation at maximum speed, etc. The motor resource is then considered by average revolutions) And then the battle. For which there are already 20 hours left.
True, these 20 hours will most likely not be enough for an hour of combat. Because the fight consists of afterburner, interrupted by idle, and again afterburner. The resource is so in the exhaust and flies. And after the fight? Change a hundred or two tank engines for new ones? All at once? Where to get them, when the maintenance service did not even have enough tractors? I'm not talking about mobile workshops ...
So most of the tanks in '41 were lost without a fight. Because of people like you "mathematicians". Learn, young man, improve.

[mz]

Quote: Mikhail3

The motor resource is then considered by average revolutions)

No. Moto-hour is a quantitative characteristic, not a temporary one. A moto-hour is calculated by the engine speed at which it develops its rated power. So two hours at medium speed is (roughly) one motorcycle hour.

[Motorist]

Quote: mz

two hours of work at medium speed is (approximately) one motorcycle hour

Since you have dug so deeply, it is more logical to multiply the revolutions by the average indicator pressure to calculate the wear. And here the dependence is no longer proportional.

[mz]

Quote: Motorist

Since you have dug so deeply, it is more logical to multiply the revolutions by the average indicator pressure to calculate the wear. And here the dependence is no longer proportional.

The multiplication of the rotational speed by the average indicator pressure has nothing to do with the wear rate at all!
And a motor-hour is just a conventional unit of measurement that allows, with some degree of approximation, to estimate how much the engine resource, the resource of working fluids, etc. has decreased. Introduced simply for the purpose of having at least some kind of "reference point" for evaluating the "mileage" of the engine. As well as the mileage of the car in km.

[Motorist]

Quote: mz

The multiplication of the rotational speed by the average indicator pressure has nothing to do with the wear rate at all!

Well, no, then! This is power. Wear is a "product" of the frictional force, which is the product of the coefficient of friction by the normal reaction. This normal reaction in the CPG and bearings is determined by Pi. Now TA: at higher power, the injection pressure (wear of the injectors) and cut-off pressure (cavitation erosion of the plungers) are higher.

Take for example a diesel generator - it constantly operates at nominal CV, but will there be a difference in wear when the generator is running at 85% power and 50%? Of course it will be.

[mz]

.

Quote: Motorist

Wear is a "product" of the frictional force, which is the product of the coefficient of friction by the normal reaction.

I agree, but I will repeat my previous statement:
The multiplication of the rotational speed by the average indicator pressure has nothing to do with the wear rate at all!

For example, in the mode of operation of the internal combustion engine with a low speed of rotation at a high load, the power is low, and the rate of wear will be high. In this case, the motorcycle clock will be considered slower than in the nominal power mode.
And special cases of operating modes, both cited by you and cited by me, are in no way connected with such a unit of resource accounting as a motor-hour.

[Motorist]

Quote: mz

For example, in the mode of operation of the internal combustion engine with a low speed of rotation at a high load, the power is low, and the rate of wear will be high.

This is nothing more than overload (this particular case is torque overload), i.e., an abnormal operating mode. To prevent operation in this zone, there are limiting characteristics - the CV regulator "compares" the speed and the fuel rail, and simply does not let it (rail) go where it is not necessary.

[mz]

Quote: Motorist

This is nothing more than overload (this particular case is torque overload), i.e., an abnormal operating mode.

Yes, this mode is abnormal, but it is possible. And if the ICE has not stopped, but is capable of operating in this mode for a long time, then it cannot be considered an overload.

[Motorist]

Quote: mz

Yes, this mode is abnormal, but it is possible.

You are right: I am talking about my diesels, working on a propeller or generator. Perhaps there are no restrictions in tank engines.

[Bad_gr]

They also forgot about starting the engine, which in terms of wear is equivalent to several hours. Until the oil warms up to normal temperature, again, there is increased wear.

[Motorist]

Quote: Bad_gr

They also forgot about starting the engine, which in terms of wear is equivalent to several hours.

I didn’t forget it, but I just didn’t even think about it - the conversation was about wear and tear during work. I start a cold (at real ambient temperature) engine only in my personal car. Who interferes with warming up oil and coolant on a 1000 hp engine ?! I consider a cold start a crime against machinery.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Motorist

Who interferes with heating the oil and coolant

In addition to the oil temperature, during engine start-up, oil is not where it is needed, and there is increased friction at the time of start. On tank engines with a dry sump, before starting the engine, the oil pump turns on and the oil pressure rises (for the T-62, at least 4 atmospheres) and only after that air is supplied to the system (the main type of start) or an electric starter (or both at the same time ). As it happened, the tank was launched by air, which at that moment did not have batteries at all, it was not correct, of course, but then there were no other options.

[Motorist]

Quote: Bad_gr

In addition to the oil temperature, during engine start-up, oil is not where it is needed, and there is increased friction at the time of start.

Oil pumping is a necessary thing, but even here the main thing is not to overdo it. On some marine engines, oil circulation is limited to 10-15 minutes, otherwise, without boost pressure, you can pour oil in the wrong direction through the labyrinths of the turbocharger shaft ...

[nerovnayadoroga]

Give me this characteristic and the Gost for it for calculation, it will be very pleasant for me to see how a cable-driven hour meter understands medium and high revolutions, what to count, what not to count, I will be grateful to you ...! Join the technical documentation of the factories of manufacturers of these products ...

[DesToeR]

Quote: Mikhail3

Young man, you probably think you said something reasonable?

Thanks for the young man! And yes, I think I said something smart.

Quote: Mikhail3

Lord ... Anatoly, tank carriers were practically not used in those days.

Of course not, because they (tank carriers) are practically not used today. Tanks now, as well as a hundred years ago, are mainly transported by railway trains.

Quote: Mikhail3

And, you can only imagine, the tanks had to move ON THEIR MOVE! Hundreds of kilometers! At a speed of 20-30 km / h.

That's right - hundreds of kilometers. It was for these hundreds of kilometers that 50 hours of motor life was enough. And then, in an overwhelming number of cases, the tank was waiting for an open-hearth furnace, at best a military rembase.

Quote: Mikhail3

The motor resource is then considered by average revolutions) And then the battle. For which there are already 20 hours left.

Dear old man, you write everything correctly. But there is a nuance. For Realization of the terrible reality, you lack statistics in your head. Statistics of losses in tank forces for the time of the operation. So this very statistics suggests that after a few days of active hostilities in the tank brigade, no more than 30% of the equipment was left "on its feet." And yes, 20 hours for a battle is a lot, especially if you understand that a Soviet tank went into battle before its death, on average, three times.

Quote: Mikhail3

Change a hundred or two tank engines for new ones? All at once? Where to get them, when the maintenance service did not even have enough tractors? I'm not talking about mobile workshops ...

Again to the point. You all know ... Just answer to yourself a simple question: why did the Soviet destroyed tank beyond the Dnieper or the Bug go to the open-hearth, and not to the repair shops. Again, in most cases.

Quote: Mikhail3

So most of the tanks in '41 were lost without a fight.

If in 1941 the Red Army had been armed with a "late" half-four, the result would have been the same. When your body passes 900 kilometers through the Belarusian forests and swamps, Armata will give oak there.

Quote: Mikhail3

Because of people like you "mathematicians". Learn, young man, improve.

Dear, before you give advice, you will figure out what residual motor resource of their panzers the Germans "made" the encirclement of 600 thousand of the Kiev group of the Red Army. Maybe then you will stop laughing at 50 hours. And yes, it would be nice to tighten up statistics, not mathematics.

[Mikhail3]

Well, now, young man, you have very well illustrated the way of thinking of people whom Stalin should have shot after having tried them thoroughly. This, of course, would not have brought back to life hundreds of thousands of tankers who died, and perished IN THE WAY, without causing any damage. But it would at least slightly balance the scales of justice.
Unfortunately, Stalin had no others. I pay tribute to his superhuman patience - every day to see these "specialists", continue to work with them, say hello ... A man lived in hell.
It's ridiculous to take it all apart point by point. Just imagine the best die in the thousands. The best. People with great reflexes, super-developed three-dimensional vision, smart, brave, skillful ... real tankers. Winning in battle, and then dying because the engine failed, and they were suddenly left as a helpless target on the battlefield.
Little did Stalin shoot. Hopelessly few ...

[DesToeR]

Quote: Mikhail3

It's ridiculous to take it all apart point by point.

You can't. You simply do not have knowledge on this topic. Some cliches of the era of the "saints of the nineties." The numbers are not familiar to you - only emotions.

Quote: Mikhail3

This, of course, would not have brought back to life hundreds of thousands of tankers who died, and perished IN THE WAY, without causing any damage.

Your skill level is evident. Unlike you, I UNDERSTAND that thousands of tankers in 1941 did not die in vain. They fulfilled the main task of any military man - they saved their country and people at the cost of their own lives. They, dying, thwarted the plans of the blitzkrieg, forcing the Nazis to turn from marching to battle formations, thereby winning by the minute the main resource in the war of engines - time. And for people like you with knowledge at the level of OBS - yes, they died in vain.

[bk0010]

Quote: DesToeR

This "reserve" of hours was enough until the end of the operation.

Not enough. Categorically. At the beginning of the war, tens of thousands of Soviet tanks were not knocked out, but remained standing along the roads before reaching the battlefield. And a blitzkrieg with a resource of 50 hours is also not enough.

[DesToeR]

Quote: bk0010

At the beginning of the war, tens of thousands of Soviet tanks were not knocked out, but remained standing along the roads before reaching the battlefield.

Do you know the main factors by which these same tanks remained standing along the roads? Do you really think that the main cause was engine breakdown? You know how many tanks were abandoned for reasons such as:
- lack of fuel and lubricants;
- breakdown of the checkpoint;
- wear of caterpillar belts;
- engine breakdown;
- combat damage.
Hint - for the first of the named reasons, more than half of the tanks were abandoned.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: DesToeR

You know how many tanks were abandoned for reasons such as:
- lack of fuel and lubricants;
- breakdown of the checkpoint;
- wear of caterpillar belts;
- engine breakdown;
- combat damage.

Forgot about the main problem of the T-34 of the first year of production - the main clutch.

The sharp difference in pure and technical speeds is the result of frequent breakdowns of the main clutch and track (kinks of tracks, exit of fingers, etc.).
(...)
The magnitude of the daily transition is limited by failures in the work of the materiel, g. tracks and main clutch.
(...)
The operation of the main clutch and fan assembly is generally unsatisfactory.
(...)
c) The tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and chassis.

© "Report on the test of three T-34 tanks with a long run". October-November 1940

And in December 1940 it was discovered that the problems with the main clutch were constructive.

When receiving the first T-34 machines at STZ, a defect was discovered: the main clutch disks were not switched off and burned.
The check established that the clutch parts were manufactured and installed on the machine in accordance with the drawings and specifications of the plant No. 183.
When analyzing the causes of the defect, I found that they are purely constructive in nature and consist in a small size of the diametrical gap between the gearbox [gear change], the off ring and the ball ...
When choosing the specified gap, slipping and burning of the main clutch discs occurs.
The clearance that occurs in the assembled machine on the conveyor belt decreases the first time the clutch is turned on under load, with the engine running, and after several starts it completely disappears ...
Disks of the main friction clutch wear out especially quickly when the machine is operating in difficult road conditions, when starting off, when shifting gears ...
I made a decision (and I recommend that you demand from the factory): open the machines that have passed the acceptance tests and set a gap of 1 mm ..., so that the vehicles delivered to the unit could cover at least 200–250 km...

© Senior Military Representative of the GABTU KA military engineer 2nd rank Levin

Not bad, but - the "frictional range" of the early T-34 was less than 200 km.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Alexey RA

Forgot about the main problem of the T-34 of the first year of production - the main clutch.

I forgot.

Quote: Alexey RA

Not bad, but - the "frictional range" of the early T-34 was less than 200 km.

So we spoke for the "inadequate" service life of the B-2. There, along the KV-1 (2), you can still throw a bunch of small-small ones. For new tanks, the engine was not a priority among the problems.

[Alexey RA]

However, the checkpoint did not lag behind either. There were problems with her both in the pre-war tests and during the war.

The combat operation of the T-34 tanks once again confirms the low quality of the gearboxes. The service life of the boxes is very short. Of the tanks that failed due to the fault of the boxes, not a single one passed 1000 km.
According to the act-reclamation 102 td. Dated August 2 s / year No. 036 for ten days of hostilities, out of 15 tanks, 7 tanks were out of order due to breakdowns of gearboxes.
Such a low quality of gearboxes does not provide for the fighting of T-34 tanks. In addition, there are a large number of cases of failure in the operation of the main clutch (due to warpage, breakage of discs and excessive - premature wear of the switching mechanism), destruction of the final drive bearing, bent sloth cranks.

ICH, in addition to the gearbox, the main clutch again appears as a source of malfunctions.

[Mikhail3]

A real patriot of Germany named Nikuradze took care of the German engines. He was a cool engineer, and his superiors were smart.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: DesToeR

Even 50 hours of service life for a WWII tank was in the overwhelming majority of cases "for the eyes", tk. the tank no longer lived on the battlefields. This "reserve" of hours was enough until the end of the operation.

We take the redeployment of the 5th Guards. TA near Kursk. The duration of the march is 2-3 days. Range - 350 km. Will 50 hours of motor life be enough?

Motor resource is not for combat. This is for marches to the battlefield and the same marches behind enemy lines (where with timely maintenance and repairs, everything is generally sad).

[DesToeR]

Quote: Alexey RA

We take the redeployment of the 5th Guards. TA near Kursk.

Well, yes! Great! In the middle of 1943, the T-34 already has a massive 5-speed gearbox, and among the KV series tanks we have a two-ton KV-1S ... instead of a 52t KV-2 or KV-1 tank with 30mm screens. But most importantly, there is no global problem in the strategy as in 1941. Will we compare warm with soft?

Quote: Alexey RA

The duration of the march is 2-3 days. Range - 350 km. Will 50 hours of motor life be enough?

We take the coefficient of maneuvering 1,3 (although there are no battles on the road), we take the average speed as in a car convoy, i.e. 20 km / h. And we divide 350 * 1,3 / 20 = 23 hours for the whole journey. Enough! There will also be 25 iron hours left for the battle.

Quote: Alexey RA

Motor resource is not for combat. This is for marches to the battlefield and the same marches behind enemy lines (where with timely maintenance and repairs, everything is generally sad).

But this is how lucky. You look and there will be no one from your brigade in the rear to develop success after a couple of battles. We will have to introduce a fresh crew with a residual motor resource at the level of 25 ... 50 hours into the breakthrough, and this is another 350 km, as we have already calculated.
There are no questions that 150 hours is better than 50, but I asked the author to give the numbers for the word "adequate". Adequate in comparison with what?

[75 Sergey]

A two-stroke engine performed by SO is a dead end, mixture formation at any gate, timing curve, gas turbine is better ... Everything that comes from aviation is more interesting, because it is at the top of development, now only the space industry is cooler.

[Romeo]

The author went too far with the "technological darkness" at the end

[Sancho_SP]

5TD is a Soviet motor. And then he writes "Ukrainian", hmm ...

[sevryuk]

He thinks that Kharkov is Ukraine. And Chechnya is Russia ...

[Basarev]

In fact, everything is even more complicated - the era of internal combustion engines is coming to an end, the era of the electric motor is coming. And the question here is completely different, in ensuring the range. It is reliably known that batteries do not cope with the task, they must be discarded. Fuel cells remain - and they should be taken seriously. Well, the safe storage of hydrogen, for example, in hydrides, new methods of its production, for example, biological production ... Electromotion is a vast thing, it is not limited only to batteries dying out in the cold. But many even here will rebel against my words and will declare that B2 is still good and the T-72 will serve for more than one century.

[Mikhail3]

It requires power under 1500 liters. with., which even for a well-deserved motor is beyond affordable. With such a degree of forcing, the resource falls catastrophically.

Reading all these "technical" articles is boring, tedious and disgusting. The problem is this. An efficient, powerful, flexible engine can be created. And you can not do this, and get a mountain of money! How are the two approaches different? That's how.
The principle of operation of diesel engines (in general, this is a purely propaganda term, until the thirties of the last century they spoke of a Russian engine or a Russian type, since Rudolf Diesel has no practical relation to the development of this engine) engines have been known for a long time. Have there been any changes during this century? Maybe you discovered something fundamentally new? No. Nothing like that happened. Conclusion?
The development of something fundamentally new in this area is currently impossible. There is simply nothing to develop. What to do? Improve what we have. There is no revolution, but it is quite possible to recalculate the fluid dynamics (and the kinematics) of the engine using modern means of computing (in which the revolution has just taken place). Also, new materials have appeared. In general, some strange talk about the afterburner, it's just nonsense. Forcing is just not necessary) What is the problem?
The problem, as usual, is in the people. The owners of production facilities are now, all as one, and from the state as well, thieves, swindlers, swindlers and bandits. There is simply no one else there. This class, species, variety of people has an unremovable barrier to communication with engineers and scientists. It's just that thieves hate creators fiercely, and are just as fiercely afraid of them. Yes, a bandit (with the crusts of the Federation Council), who can wipe a person to dust with one wink, is desperately afraid of a crumbled engineer. Because this "respected" member of the Council can be replaced by anyone of the same kind from millions, and in an hour no one will be able to tell the difference. And the damned engineer has a unique qualification ...
So it is impossible to follow the path of cultivation. There is no one. It's not for you to kill people and squeeze property. And what? Here's what. It is necessary to "shoot the initiative." Commercials in the Soviet way. Announce the creation of a new, revolutionary, completely cool engine. Breakthrough in diesel engineering. Using connections with others like you, open a state program with huge funding.
It will not be difficult already because in the highest circles of the state no one understands any engineering or scientific issues and problems. Any nonsense will do, if only there were more words like "enthalpy" in the presentation. And then comes the most delicious thing - several years of the program derban. After that, you can safely move to London, master the billions brought there. And the program will be closed quietly. After all, those who contributed are still in their places ...
An essential part of shooting an initiative is the release of such articles. We need a "revolution in engine building". Give us money! Let's buy a "revolutionary engine" in Ukraine for a hundred billion, and let's get busy !! Ugh...

[hagen]

Quote: Mikhail3

The owners of production facilities are now, all as one, and from the state as well, thieves, swindlers, swindlers and bandits. There is simply no one else there.

I will not go into details, I will only note that if it were as you say, then over the past 20-30 years nothing would have been built that could fly, swim, ride. And therefore, there is not much faith in all your theoretical endeavors. Ie, very little. In this way, you strive to convince everyone who has read you that you are the only bearer of truth and the most honest of those living today. I have no doubt that you are deeply mistaken.

[nerovnayadoroga]

They never built it ... For example, there is no new Buran and cannot be, the gut is thin, very ...

[hagen]

Quote: nerovnayadoroga

For example Buran is not new and cannot be, the gut is thin, very ...

Or maybe not much needed? It was not used for its intended purpose under the Union either. The program was stopped due to the high cost. But the agricultural sector reached a level higher than the allied one, the hypersound flew. And what is "gut", take a look at the neighbors. And this despite the fact that the entire West is trying to oppose us ... Of course, I would like great success, but what they are capable of ...

[Yarhann]

oh yes, you are not only a specialist in the Kama internal combustion engine, but also in reusable shuttles - develop this topic, your opinion is very important why we need Buran in modern Russia.
PS. Buran is an orbital ship-rocket plane of a reusable transport space system - just so that you don't confuse it with a snowmobile.

[Passing]

Quote: Mikhail3

Have there been any changes during this century? Maybe you discovered something fundamentally new? No. Nothing like that happened.

Be less bored on "technical" articles, and the secret will be revealed! So, at a glance from a fundamentally new since the days of Diesel - a gas turbine engine, a rotary piston Wankel (under the Soviet Union, it was produced in small batches at VAZ). There are still several conceptual options, such as Vigryanov's rotary petal, and I don’t remember another rotary one, also of domestic spill.
Why is the dominance of a stranger all around, why not his own? Precisely not because everyone around is stealing and sawing. And because this is the automatic price for Russia for the transition to market rails and entry into the "world community." There is such a thing - globalization, which in translation means systemic (civilizational, cultural, scientific, technological) monopoly of certain planetary structures. Any attempt to create something fundamentally of its own, small-town, even if it is potentially better, is doomed to failure. In the sense that you can somehow create something, but it will never be the best. Not because cutting, conspiracy and intrigues, but for purely systemic reasons - it is almost impossible for a local one to equal the global one. The available resources (economic, intellectual, scientific, technological) are not comparable.

[Yarhann]

well done about globalization I completely agree) but in our village you can spit for such a truth because everything should be, albeit bad, but your own, and when we create our own and worse than theirs, they will say that they stole everything))) in short, a vicious circle - I always yelling at this point. hamsters do not understand how the world cooperation works

[km-21]

Once again, we have to state that Russian technologies are developing most dynamically only in those times when a strict totalitarian regime of government operates in the country. This was the case under Ivan the Terrible, under Peter I, under Catherine II, under Stalin ... And vice versa, during periods of liberalization, Russian technologies degrade, and after them the whole country slips into the abyss. It's time to admit that a liberal economy is not suitable for Russia, at least until it has a half-world zone of influence, until the Russian ruble becomes the main world currency, and Russian aircraft carriers bring Russian values ​​to the farthest corners of the planet. ...

[Knell wardenheart]

There are hopes that under the Armata UBP there will still be a wide-scale adequate engine, and since the platform itself has sufficient capacity for modernization, it is likely that there will be modernization requirements for the engine. Maybe it's not so bad for the future.

[vick vickers]

and a 2V-12-3A tank diesel engine (hopefully, built on its own).

You vainly hope that ChTZ presented as its own development - nothing more than the Balandin engine, developed for helicopters in the pre-turbine era. characteristics:
1. Application instead of KShM "Exact spinning wheel", which in turn caused the collapse of the cylinders not multiple of 90 degrees.
2. The engines were X-shaped and V-shaped, single and double acting, they were also sectional from the beginning (now they would say "modular"), i.e. put as many sections as necessary (in the case of an X-shaped motor, a multiple of 4 or 8 in a double-acting motor).
3. The engine was developed and tested in both petrol and diesel versions.
But by the end of the development, the turboshaft engines and the Balandin engine were ripe - under the neck and on the far rack; the first open publications on it appeared only in the late 70s.
Something like this...

[Slon1978]

Such posts amaze me. That is, ChTZ took that very sample of Balandin from the far rack, shook off the dust and put it in the T-14? And then they also stupidly copied a couple of dozen of this sample, or even from the backlog of blanks in a distant warehouse they found, assembled and put them in other cars to roll out to the parade. I'm wondering - what do you mean by the word "development" in engine building? Following your logic, if I caught it correctly, then since the invention of the internal combustion engine on diesel and gasoline fuel, no manufacturer has invented anything new, but only copied mediocrely and made only small upgrades. People like you, as a rule, are far from practice, from any creative work. Since a person who creates something new himself and creates it at a good level understands how important little things and nuances are, that sometimes a simple task in practice turns out to be not at all simple, you first have to go through all possible mistakes before eliminating them. you have to go through a long process. And there are people for whom everything is simple.

[vick vickers]

Dear Sergey, I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth and I agree with you that ChTZ engineers put a lot of work into bringing the original version of the engine to modern standards, after all, 60 years have passed, there is nothing without it; honor and praise to them, but it's one thing to make a fundamentally new thing from scratch and quite another to finish someone else's condition to condition and present it as your own, you must admit it is somewhat unethical. Moreover, this engine is so distinctive that it cannot be confused with any other. The question here is not to the engineers who worked and adjusted the engine, but to the "captains" who presented it as "their own" without even mentioning the "father" of this motor. After all, one could honestly say that "they took it as a basis, modified, improved", in the end, so many patents and copyright certificates were received for the revision of the same B-2 that now it is a completely different engine, but for some reason it is still all referred to as B-2
PS Google "Balandin's engine" and you will understand that you cannot accidentally repeat this. Sincerely

[eburg1234]

You are talking nonsense. Balandin promoted engines without connecting rods. He did not invent X and V figurativeness.
There was no neck, they even tried to introduce them on ZIL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcXxCIoln2I

[vick vickers]

"1. The use of the "Exact straight line" instead of the KShM, which in turn caused the collapse of the cylinders not a multiple of 90 degrees."
please read carefully what you comment

[vick vickers]

Quote: Basarev

In fact, everything is even more complicated - the era of internal combustion engines is coming to an end, the era of the electric motor is coming. And the question here is completely different, in ensuring the range. It is reliably known that batteries do not cope with the task, they must be discarded. Fuel cells remain - and they should be taken seriously. Well, the safe storage of hydrogen, for example, in hydrides, new methods of its production, for example, biological production ... Electromotion is a vast thing, it is not limited only to batteries dying out in the cold. But many even here will rebel against my words and will declare that B2 is still good and the T-72 will serve for more than one century.

I cannot completely agree with you, each engine has its own place, in my opinion. let's consider a hypothetical situation with you:
Lightning strikes two moving vehicles
1st vehicle - an electric vehicle with all its inherent features in the form of advanced electronics, energy storage (it doesn't matter if it's a battery or a fuel cell), etc.
2nd vehicle - an old truck with a diesel engine (for example, "Lobaty MAZ")
The result will be as follows:
1. "Electric train" will burn out, well if without an explosion, but it should be VERY lucky ...
2. "Lobaty" will not even stall, although the electrical system is all under replacement, but it costs immeasurably ...
Tested in practice: MAZ in 1983, Tesla two years ago
PS Maz was driving at night, the headlights were on, if not for that, there would have been nothing at all.

[HOWEVER 200]

"... in the dilapidated country there was an acute shortage of powerful motors for ships, generators, tractors, tractors and other equipment ..." - the end of the quote.
hmm
In a dilapidated country, people themselves dragged the plows across the field - there were NO horses, nor the weak heirs of the Fordzons.

And here praise sagas are being sung about tank diesels.

[vick vickers]

I will say more, and not only tank ones. There is such a concept as an engine resource, when it is exhausted on a tank, this does not mean that the engine is suitable only for melting, in the national economy, derated, that is, working in a sparing mode, it will still serve well, this is such a "conversion" 40 -x 50s. In the village where my great-grandfather lived, until the mid-50s, a diesel generator from a submarine was used as a source of electricity.

[seti]

The author you should know - there are no "Ukrainian" motors. And it won't be. There are Soviet motors 5TDF and 6TD. And this is not the fault of the Russian Federation - it is the fault of the Ukrainians themselves.

[monster]

Holy eggs .... the Japanese girls, in the secret bunkers of the sacred mountains, already have mechanoids in rows, in full combat readiness! And in our country, in 2021, the tank engine turned 82 years old since it was put into service !!! Until the executions of embezzlers begin, nothing will change!

[Rumali]

But the ancestor of the family of civil motors 2B-12-3A, unlike B-2, will never become. Taking into account the potentially small series of release of the Armata platform, this still will not allow to fully bring it to mind. Only when several thousand motors are simultaneously operating "in the field", it is possible to take into account all the design flaws that cannot be tracked on a motor stand. Small run is a small sample for statistics.
____________
A controversial claim, it was in the scoop the entire economy was a subsidiary farm at a military unit, but now why is this?

Once again, we have to assert that, unfortunately, Russia is rapidly losing technical competence. First of all, in the motor industry
__________________________
Ultimate hypocrisy. The question is - were they, competences? In fact, throughout history, Soviet tank building traveled to the V-2s of the 1930s and 5TD - dating back to the origins of the Jumo in the same 1930s. And there was a gas turbine engine from the T-80, into which a lot of dough was poured and for some reason did not become the ancestor of the family of civil motorsas well as 5TD. For the Savetskys, the diesel was an overwhelming hi-tech, it is enough to recall the same automotive industry - with a bloody anguish they mastered the production of YaAZ-204,206 and spent 20 years developing the YaAZ-236,238,240. With foreign help, KAMAZ was able to master the production of KAMAZ-740. Only 3 models in almost 50 years - well ... not impressive.

And now there are licensed Cummins. There is YaMZ-534,536. There is the Tutaevsky Automobile Plant, which Chago did not want to remember.

[Soldatov V.]

The problem of using high-tech tank engines in civilian technology can be solved in principle. A device for the development of a motor resource is installed and when the limit is reached, it changes to another from the exchange fund. Any engine can be powered. Of course we need shops and equipment. Logistics of supplies, exchange. At the Krasnoyarsk Shipyard, we invested thousands of V-6 and V-12 installed on river vessels and in other industries, and had a good profit. The main thing is to teach a person to collect one type and go ahead. It is interesting that in this case, a high-class specialist is not needed.
Is it possible, without the help of the Germans or someone else, to design and make a good diesel or gasoline engine? I think yes. They just talk about the problem. Aviation has the same problem. There are micrometers, calipers, well, repeat the engine you like, all the more we know how to make the blades ourselves. How many years have the French been soaring brains with the SUPERJET engine? MIG-31 has been made, but we cannot put this balalaika in order or we don’t want to.

[Vadim237]

PD 8 for the Superjet will be completed in 2024 and will be installed instead of the French ones.

[Soldatov V.]

The timing is some estooooooooooonskie. As a technologist, I don't understand at all what the design bureau is doing. The engine on the basis of which the PD-8 is made is, as I remember, twenty years old. And where is the result? If there is a Russian engine on the MS-21 and it fits the weight of the SUPERJET-100 why not put it on? Less load on the engine increases the service life and flight range by several times.
The problem is, rather, that there are two design engineers working in the design bureau, one graduate who does not know anything and the other who is working on retirement, and both receive no more than 20 thousand pay.

[Usher]

Such nonsense is written. Behind the facade of the alleged truth, lies are hidden. And the words slip

was too progressive for Soviet Russia in the 30s and 40s

The controversial Ukrainian engine, which became even more revolutionary for the country than the B-2 at one time,

The Soviet technical legacy is gradually fading away - the technological darkness of modern Russia is coming.

[Bad_gr]

Once again, we have to assert that, unfortunately, Russia is rapidly losing technical competence. First of all, in the motor industry.

Special-purpose engines of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.

[Mucose]

The ending of the article is blurry. Mentioned only about the new engine for Aurus, but what about the KAMAZ R6 ENGINE FOR THE HEAVY CAR FAMILY K5 of the Euro-5 and Euro-6 standards in the power range from 380 to 550 hp. Yes, the construction heavy Liebherr is taken as a basis, but this engine is already produced in the thousands a year and in terms of economy / resource / reliability / cost is not inferior to the best engines in its class in the world. The author of the article does not know this, it's a pity.

[Pavel the builder]

Tanks will soon be switched to electric traction for walking in the park. In a real war, tanks are not needed at all. We need guns, mortars, MLRS, high-precision weapons. And armored personnel carriers with infantry fighting vehicles on wheels

[lot]

Yes, this is also for police operations such as in Myanmar or swamp - to compete with shahidmobiles.
strategically sky and space, drone and operator, ground-based launchers and space / barrage. + BMP on wheels, of course. cheaper and more practical at the level of modern polymers.

[kolchinab]

"the technological darkness of modern Russia is coming" is the author wishful thinking?

[bar]

The Soviet technical legacy is gradually fading away - the technological darkness of modern Russia is coming.

Kapets. There are Skomorokhovs with about ... fallen aircraft carriers, here, too, the legacy is fading away. Remained about the aviation poston for the kit. How much can you whine?

[Amateur]

the design of the diesel engine, which draws its lineage from aircraft engines, was too progressive for Soviet Russia in the 30s and 40s.

In the 30-40s there was the USSR. I read the article and got the feeling that someone next to me was cheating, and you have to look at it and smell it.
Disgusting

[Cosmemedic]

After the article, apparently, you need to cry?
Only the number of tanks in the empire of good is also just as small and the problems with the turbines on the Abrams have not gone away. Crying with you?

[tirazu]

"the technological darkness of modern Russia is coming." All the rest can be ignored.

[Dzafdet]

Now in the West, everything is done by motors with a small resource. Redistribution of mileage = 60 thousand km. But the military needs a reliable engine and civilian engine technologies are simply not applicable there. Previously, diesel Iveco quietly passed 1 million km without repair. Are there such engines now? And ChTZ is bankrupt for a long time ..

[sannikow-vik]

Generally, ChTZ produces both civilian and military products. If tractors are produced minuscule, literally a few pieces, then the state defense order in 2021 for the production of diesel engines of type B-2 and 2B-12-3A has been successfully completed. Well, new equipment continues to arrive at the diesel engine production site. So it's not all that gloomy.

[alekSASHKA-36]

The peasant horse will replace the iron horse.

[Sergey Stepanov_5]

Everyone is so smart! It’s just not clear why nothing new has been invented in 30 years ?!

[Lynx-z]

I read the article and realized that we have a problem with the engines ...
I read the comments on the article and understood why it was so ... - it turns out there are no specialists at the factories. They're all commenting here.

[Nitten]

It would be interesting to look at what kind of injection pump is there and what nozzles ....

[FANTASTRON1]

Motor resource of tanks