Why German tanks were gas-powered

141
Why German tanks were gas-powered
The development of German gasoline engines on tanks. Power grew without increasing armor volume in all weight classes. Source: Walter Spielberger


It is known that almost all German armored vehicles during the Second World War ran on gasoline. And although you can find rare diesel models, all serial tanks and the famous half-track tractors were gasoline. This begs the question: why did the Germans not work out with diesels on armored vehicles? It was the Germans who created the diesel engine and set up mass production of Junkers diesel aircraft, although at that time it was a difficult task. And against the background of these achievements - totally gasoline tanks. What's the matter?



Attempts to find the answer gave rise to a number of myths. Here are typical explanations: the Germans, they say, could neither create their own tank diesel engine, nor copy the B-2; they synthesized gasoline from coal, and all diesel fuel was "eaten" fleet; they preferred gasoline engines to unify fuel and simplify logistics. In this article, we will go through all these points, consider German tank diesel engines and give the floor to the Germans themselves.

Did the fleet "ate" everything?


The Germans' fascination with gasoline tank engines is often explained by the fuel balance: the industry provided synthetic gasoline, and all the diesel fuel allegedly went to the fleet. This is not entirely true, or rather, not at all.

The Germans synthesized from coal not only gasoline, but also diesel fuel, fuel oil and even lubricating oils. In the first quarter of 1944, at the peak of production, they synthesized 315 tons of regular gasoline, 200 tons of diesel fuel and 222 tons of fuel oil. During interrogations, German experts said that before the war, synthetic gasoline was considered more affordable, but since 1942 the situation began to change. It was then that the army began to advocate for diesel engines much more actively.


Fuel synthesis in 1944. Source: German industry during the war 1939–1945 Ed. Sogomonyan G.S. - M .: "Foreign Literature", 1956

It cannot be said that all diesel fuel went to the fleet. During the war years, the Wehrmacht received about 150 diesel trucks. The single army truck Einheits-Diesel, as the name suggests, was diesel. In addition, diesel trucks and buses continued to serve in the civilian sector. The Germans even exported a small part of diesel fuel.

Obviously, the Wehrmacht was never completely gas-powered. And if you still need two types of fuel, why not build diesel tanks?

Looking for the best


In the 30s and 40s, German tank building developed centrally. The Arms Department made detailed requirements for the tank and turned to firms with assignments. One company developed the tower, another - the chassis, the third - the engine, and so on. It turns out that the design of the tank was largely determined by the requirements of the Ordnance Department. Or rather, Department No. 6, which dealt with tracked and half-tracked vehicles. This department was headed by the famous engineer Heinrich Knipkamp.


Heinrich Ernst Kniepkamp (1895–1977). Source: Walter Spielberger

At one of the interrogations after the war, Knipkamp told the reasons for choosing engines for tanks. In the first place was the minimum armored volume - the power plant should be compact. Other things being equal, a gasoline engine is lighter and smaller than a diesel engine, but requires better cooling and larger fuel tanks. The military wanted a range of five hours at maximum power, in which case the petrol engine was better. But, as Knipkamp noted, with a power reserve of ten hours, the diesel engine already came out on top.

There were other considerations as well. Kniepkamp favored compact powerful supercharged engines running at high speeds, but subject to adequate reliability. Experience suggested that suitable diesel engines were more difficult to develop and appeared 2-3 years later than gasoline ones. According to Knipkamp, ​​diesels did not have decisive advantages in fire hazard - they still tried to take the fuel tanks out of the fighting compartment. In addition, gasoline engines are easier to start in cold weather.

Daimler-Benz diesels


The Germans first thought about a 700 hp tank engine. With. way back in 1935. They understood that sooner or later they would step over the bar of 30 tons, so they needed a powerful engine “for growth”. In response, Daimler-Benz offered the MB 507 diesel engine. It was available in two versions. The younger one with a volume of 42 liters produced 700 liters. With. for a long time, and the older one with a volume of 44 liters - 800 liters. With. continuously and 1 l. With. on the limit.


Diesel MB 507. Source: warspot.ru

The MB 507 diesel engine was installed on Karl-Gerät self-propelled mortars and the VK 30.02 (D) experimental chassis - the Daimler-Benz Panther. Its supercharged modification, MB 517 with a capacity of 1 liters. s., hit the second prototype of the Maus super-heavy tank. Note that of the five engines that were offered during the development of Maus, four were diesels. But in general, the military showed little interest in the MB 200 due to its excessive length. The preference was given to more compact Maybach engines, which were very conveniently arranged.

In 1938, Department No. 6 prepared requirements for tank diesels. At the same time, Daimler-Benz began developing the MB 809 diesel engine with an emphasis on compactness and low weight. Engineers evaluated several projects, and in the end they chose the most compact version with a volume of 17,5 liters and a power of 360 hp. With. In terms of weight and dimensions, it was similar to the Maybach HL 120 gasoline engine, but it was more powerful and more economical.


Winter testing VK 20.01 (D). Source: Panzer Tracts

The MB 809 project was ready in June 1940, and in February and March 1941 the first engine was tested. Then it was installed on the VK 20.01 (D) chassis, the first German tank designed with a diesel engine. By January 1945, the prototype had traveled over 6 kilometers. However, in December 1941, after inspecting the Soviet T-34 and KV-1, the Germans decided to switch to tanks of the 30-ton class - the future Panthers. And the 22-ton VK 20.01 (D) was left out of work.

Air cooled vs water cooled


The Ordnance Department preferred water-cooled engines. According to Knipkamp, ​​air cooling requires more labor-intensive production due to the turning of the ribs. If the cylinders with fins are made cast, then the cooling efficiency will decrease, and with it the engine power. Despite this, the Germans also did a lot of air-cooled diesel engines. They had an important advantage for military equipment - the absence of a water radiator. Without it, the engine was more tenacious, at the same time, problems with freezing of water in Russian snowdrifts and its overheating in the sands of Africa were removed.


Diesel engine SLa 16 with cooling system. Source: CIOS. The War-time Activities of Dr. Ing. HCF Porsche KG

Air-cooled diesel engines had their supporters, among them Adolf Hitler, State Secretary Karl-Otto Saur and the head of the Tank Commission, Ferdinand Porsche. Since 1942, Porsche and Simmering have jointly developed air-cooled diesel engines with standardized 2,3-liter cylinders and turbocharging. Early designs for the Maus super-heavy tank featured 16-cylinder and 18-cylinder V-diesels with 750–850 hp. With. Narrow and long, they just fit between the very wide tracks. But the Tigers had shorter and wider engine compartments, so an x-shaped 16-cylinder diesel engine with 750 hp was offered for them. With. This project is known as SLa 16.

In 1944, Simmering assembled the first SLa 16 engine. It had a cooling system with two fans and two oil coolers. The tests revealed serious shortcomings, so the project had to be redone. In early 1945, a second engine was completed with four smaller oil coolers. It successfully passed the tests and was installed in the Jagdtiger self-propelled gun in April. The Germans managed to make several test trips for five engine hours, and after that the Soviet troops captured the unique diesel self-propelled gun.


Jagdtiger with SLa 16 diesel engine. Source: Tank Industry Bulletin

In general, story diesel SLa 16 is surrounded by myths. It is often written that it was installed in the "Royal Tiger", and with minimal alterations. In fact, the SLa 16 was tested on the Jagdtiger, which can be identified by the drawing of a chimney sweep. It was installed by the Nibelungenwerke plant, which assembled the Jagdtigers. The makeover was a major one, with a new engine deck and different fuel tanks.

Plans and reality


So far we have been talking about individual prototypes and experimental developments. However, the Germans had quite serious plans for the production of diesel armored vehicles and military tractors. Magirus has launched the production of RSO / 03 tracked tractors with Duetz air-cooled diesel engines. In 1944, the production of an eight-wheeled all-wheel drive armored car Sd.Kfz.234 began with a V-12 Tatra Typ 103 diesel engine with an HP 220 power. With. Note that the installation of an air-cooled diesel engine was stipulated in the requirements back in 1940.


Jagdpanzer 38 starr with diesel engine, April 1945. Source: warspot.ru

The Germans repeatedly discussed the installation of a diesel engine on the Jagdpanzer 38. This idea arose as early as March 1944, when the first self-propelled guns were assembled. On March 29, 1945, General Guderian demanded a switch to the production of diesel Jagdpanzer 38s due to lack of fuel. By April, the Jagdpanzer 38 starr prototype was ready with a rigid gun mount and a 928 hp Tatra Typ 180 air-cooled diesel engine. With. The Germans discussed its serial production, but it was too late.

In September 1944, the Germans decided to start production of the Jagdpanzer 38 with a Tatra diesel at the Alkett factory instead of the StuG III, which was produced there. The Czech project required serious alteration, so Alkett engineers developed a similar Jagdpanzer 38 D self-propelled gun. The Tatra Typ 103 diesel engine, already familiar to us, became its heart. Of course, because of the defeat of Germany, it remained on paper.


Plans for the production of armored vehicles in 1945. As they say, dreaming is not harmful. Source: Interrogation report of Gerd Stieler von Heidekampf

Even from this brief article, you can see that the Germans were seriously engaged in diesel engines for military equipment. In fact, the topic is much broader. For example, we did not say anything about German two-stroke diesel engines, and it was the Germans who were the first in the world to begin developing a special two-stroke tank diesel engine.

Although the German Ordnance Department, with rare exceptions, preferred armored vehicles with gasoline engines, the development of universal and tank diesel engines went on throughout the war. From 1942, the fuel situation began to change, so by 1945 diesel engines were preferred. If the war had continued for another six months, then the Germans would have managed to establish a mass production of diesel armored vehicles, and then the issue of a gasoline Wehrmacht would disappear by itself.

Sources:
Protocol of interrogation of Gerd Stieler von Heidekampf, June 28, 1945
Protocol of interrogation of Heinrich Knipkamp about engines for military equipment (the date is unknown to the author)
Bulletin of the tank industry No. 7–8 for 1945
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Paper Panzers: Panzerkampfwagen & Jagdpanzer (Panzer Tracts Nr. 20–1) – Panzer Tracts, 2001
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Schwere Panzerkampfwagen Maus and E-100 (Panzer Tracts Nr. 6–3) – Panzer Tracts, 2008
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Jagdpanzer 38 "Hetzer" 1944-1945 - Osprey Publishing, 2001
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Germany's Panther Tanks. The Quest for Combat Supremacy - Schiffer Publishing, 1995
Walter J. Spielberger. Panzerkampwagen IV and Its Variants 1935–1945 - Schiffer Pub. Ltd, 2011
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    29 September 2022 05: 56
    I always believed that only gasoline can be obtained from coal. However, I'm not a chemist...
    1. -8
      29 September 2022 06: 05
      Diesel fuel from coal? Is it possible?
      1. +3
        29 September 2022 11: 05
        the Germans produced synthetic in bulk, only synthetic diesel fuel had the problem of strong thickening at low temperatures.
        1. 0
          29 September 2022 13: 24
          Another question is, if the Germans were hovering over the placement of a more powerful engine in the same volume, then why didn’t they hover over the obviously inefficient layout of the tank with the power plant at the back, the cardan along the floor and the transmission at the front?
          1. 0
            29 September 2022 18: 46
            well, on the other hand, the fighting compartment in the center .. by the way, both on the T-34 and on the IS, the tower shifted forward greatly worsened the performance characteristics (for example, during sudden braking, there was an amplitude buildup of the hull and that means guns .. that is, you had to wait until everything settled down and then aim and these notes "short" stop ... this problem was solved by putting the engine not along but across the MTO, but this happened after the Second World War (although our T-44 was the first but it did not fight)
          2. 0
            4 November 2022 18: 57
            Why is it ineffective? This layout gave better weight distribution, which means a more uniform load on the rollers, greater cross-country ability and the possibility of strengthening the frontal armor.
      2. NKT
        0
        29 September 2022 16: 40
        Why not? Oil and coal come from the same series - caustobioliths.
        If you apply the technology of coal hydrogenation, you can get oil. Approximately 2 ton of oil is obtained from 3-1 tons of coal, and then for processing and separation of fractions.

        In the United States, shale oil fields are being developed, which also includes coal shale, although it is only about 10% of the total.
      3. +1
        1 October 2022 21: 37
        The first diesel engines crawled coal to powder. Only then did the liquid solarium begin to crawl.
        1. 0
          4 November 2022 19: 01
          These were large marine engines, compact pulverized diesel engines hardly existed.
    2. +4
      29 September 2022 06: 52
      Quote: Luminman
      However, I am not a chemist.

      I, too ... but I really wanted to know if it was possible to drive alcohol from coal (or peat ...)! recourse
      1. +2
        29 September 2022 14: 43
        You can, but it doesn't taste good. However, I'm not a chemist either. laughing
      2. +1
        8 December 2022 12: 14
        "..and so I wanted to know if it is possible to drive alcohol from coal (or peat ...)!"
        can!
        "but if vodka was not driven from sawdust, then what would we have, from five bottles!"
      3. +1
        20 December 2022 18: 01
        Oil makes excellent alcohol. More precisely, from the ethylene obtained from there. Ethylene + water + catalyst = the purest ethanol...
    3. 0
      29 September 2022 19: 03
      Diesel is an intermediate hydrocarbon fraction between gasoline and oil fuels. Fuel oil, oil and benz were made from coal, which means that diffraction should have been synthesized in some quantity.
    4. 0
      1 October 2022 21: 38
      Coal when it burns according to the temperature, such as coal sees the first gas, which gas burns.
  2. 0
    29 September 2022 06: 08
    Not a tanker himself, but I watched a program where they discussed this topic. One of the versions was that when ignited, gasoline has less burning time and heat transfer.
    1. +2
      29 September 2022 07: 28
      Quote: Andrey1978
      One of the versions was that when ignited, gasoline has less burning time and heat transfer.

      A trick is known with lowering the torch into buckets of gasoline and solarium ... gasoline caught fire, but there was no solarium! Clearly, but this is, in fact, "a cheap trick for a novice magician"! By the way, during the war, there were more tankers who suffered from a solarium fire than from a gasoline fire! The fact is that when gasoline ignited, first of all, gasoline vapors burned, forming a kind of “gasket” between the skin and the flame! In addition, on German gasoline tanks, the tanks were moved to the stern, isolated from the fighting compartment with a fire-resistant partition, automatic fire extinguishing systems were developed ... In the T-34, KV tanks, the fuel tanks were located in the fighting compartment ... here are the tankers on these tanks and suffered more! Few people pay attention to the fact that diesel engines are technologically more complicated, more expensive to manufacture ... they require more scarce alloy steels! For example, the M-17T gasoline engine cost the country 17.000 rubles; and a diesel engine of comparable power - 100.000 (! ) re! The technology for the production of diesel engines was not worked out properly by the beginning of the 40s ... and diesel tanks more often "broke"! (A lot of T-34, KV tanks were just abandoned due to breakdowns of diesel engines during the retreat in the initial period of the war ...)
      1. +3
        29 September 2022 11: 28
        By the way, during the war, there were more tankers who suffered from a solarium fire than from a gasoline fire!

        And really, where would the majority of Soviet tank crews who suffered from a gasoline fire come from, if most of the Soviet tanks were diesel, and small gasoline tanks, when hit by the enemy, along with the crews, immediately went into "no return" - there was how to save anything from a fire no one's rule.
      2. +8
        29 September 2022 11: 39
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        By the way, during the war, there were more tankers who suffered from a solarium fire than from a gasoline fire! The fact is that when gasoline ignited, first of all, gasoline vapors burned, forming a kind of “gasket” between the skin and the flame! During a fire in a diesel tank, diesel fuel itself burned! Therefore, it was more difficult to ignite the solarium; but it was difficult to put it out!

        This is the main plus in terms of fire safety. For the fuel must be stored, transported and poured several times before being filled into the tanks of the tank. And doing all this with diesel fuel is much easier than with B-70 and KB-70 aviation gasoline, which was used by all our pre-war and military tanks with gasoline engines.
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        In addition, on German gasoline tanks, the tanks were moved to the stern, isolated from the fighting compartment with a fire-resistant partition, automatic fire extinguishing systems were developed ... In the T-34, KV tanks, the fuel tanks were located in the fighting compartment ... so the tankers on these tanks suffered more !

        You can also recall the domestic wartime LTs, in which the tanks were taken out to the aft compartment, separated by an armored partition. The statistics of 1942 are known, when the percentage of fires on gasoline LTs was lower than on diesel T-34s.
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Few people pay attention to the fact that diesel engines are technologically more complicated, more expensive to manufacture ... they require more scarce alloy steels! For example, the M-17T gasoline engine cost the country 17.000 rubles; and a diesel engine comparable in power is 100.000 (!) re!

        Here it is necessary to consider the problem in a complex way - the engine and fuel. Yes, diesel was more expensive than a gasoline engine. But the problem is that all domestic tank gasoline engines ate expensive B-70 and KB-70 aviation gasoline. And it was not so much the price, but the fact that the Air Force was already leaving the B-70, starting the transition to the B-78. And in fact, the factories for the production of aviation gasoline for the most part plowed for the GABTU - instead of increasing the production of B-78 for the Air Force. And this aviation gasoline was so lacking that even according to the plan for 1941, the Air Force should have received less than a quarter of the needs of peacetime.
      3. +1
        29 September 2022 16: 53
        In addition, durite hoses were passed through, there were many connections and mechanical drives, and almost the entire crew wore overalls, and in winter they also wore quilted jackets soaked in solarium.
      4. +2
        29 September 2022 17: 14
        For example, the M-17T gasoline engine cost the country 17.000 rubles; and a diesel engine comparable in power is 100.000 (!) re!

        Could you clarify when they cost so much, because
        ... the T-34 tank in 1941 cost 269 thousand rubles. "In 1942 there were already 193 thousand, and in 1945 - 135 thousand. https://ria.ru/20181020/1531120776.html
      5. 0
        29 September 2022 19: 14
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        For example, the M-17T gasoline engine cost the country 17.000 rubles; and a diesel engine comparable in power is 100.000 (!) re! The technology for the production of diesel engines was not developed properly by the beginning of the 40s ... and diesel tanks more often "broke"! (A lot of T-34, KV tanks were simply abandoned due to diesel failures during the retreat in the initial period of the war ...)


        These are the problems of the transition period of technologies.
        In the pre-war period, they began to switch from gas engines to diesel engines, and when the war began and it took a lot, a lot of new tanks, it was no longer possible to "jump" back to gas engines. A very expensive engine limited production - with a gas engine and a fireproof wall T-34 and KV, much more could be produced.
        1. 0
          15 November 2022 18: 19
          Due to the shortage of diesel engines in 1942, part of the T-34 (a couple of hundred vehicles) was equipped with M-17 gasoline engines. And they were all lost very quickly.
          1. 0
            15 November 2022 20: 41
            In 42, they lost a lot due to malfunctions and not only when cars were hit. On the other hand, it was possible to supplement gasoline models with high external fuel tanks at the rear, deployed across the movement, and remove the internal tanks, and protect the ventilation of the engine and crew from filling with fuel. The fact is that the manuals of the Germans demanded to hit the sides, and with such an arrangement of tanks, they were hit one at a time, and the fire instead of the internal one could now only be external.
  3. +1
    29 September 2022 07: 06
    German tanks did not have a diesel engine, simply because a gasoline engine is much cheaper than a diesel one. For example, the M-17 cost the USSR 19 thousand rubles, the B-2 already cost 62 thousand rubles, a difference of more than three times! Plus, you also need to take into account that the resource of the M-17 was 250 hours, the resource of the V-2 in 1941-1943 was only 50 hours, only from 1944 did the resource increase to 100 hours. That is, the V-2 cost the USSR more than three times more, and the resource of the V-2 was five times less than the resource of the M-17, that is, if we hypothetically assume that a certain T-34, without being burned by enemy artillery, passed 250 hours , then he would have to either change the motor 4 times, or capitalize the first motor as many as 4 times (engine capital is also an expensive pleasure). Not without reason, even now, when the production of diesel engines is well developed and mastered, cars with a diesel engine are noticeably more expensive than the same cars with a gasoline engine, and repairing a diesel engine will cost a car owner several times more than a car owner with a gasoline engine. For example, replacing the injectors alone on Kruzak will cost 200 thousand!
    1. 0
      29 September 2022 16: 42
      These are idle speculations. I have never seen any mention in the original German documents that gasoline engines were installed because of their low price. If the Germans did not consider it possible to save, they did not save. Hence the expensive 13 mm armor on early tanks, equivalent to standard 14,5 mm armor, needle bearing tracks and other expensive frills.

      Modern pseudo-market realities have nothing to do with the topic of the article.
      1. -3
        29 September 2022 16: 50
        In fact, there was capitalism in Germany, and they bought what was cheaper.
        1. -1
          29 September 2022 17: 19
          Capitalism is not when people buy what is cheaper (and vice versa). Already the Germans, motorizing the Wehrmacht, mass-produced very expensive and complex equipment with whole lists of technical delights. In the first place was the fulfillment of the requirements, if it required a complex expensive design, then such an output usually turned out.
    2. 0
      15 November 2022 18: 20
      Then explain why the "thrifty" Germans coated the tanks with absolutely stupid zimmerite?
  4. +4
    29 September 2022 07: 48
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    tanks T-34, KV fuel tanks were located in the fighting compartment

    Do not take it for work, find pictures with the American M-1, Abrams which. So, in it the carrier sits between two agronomic fuel tanks. That must be a happy guy...
    1. +5
      29 September 2022 08: 01
      There are cunningly inverted cellular tanks in the form of honeycombs, they are not prone to detonation and, on the contrary, provide additional protection.
      1. +6
        29 September 2022 08: 51
        In the Swedish S-103, the screen was made from gasoline cans, and it's fine.
        1. +5
          29 September 2022 11: 00
          T-34 tanks were tested after the Kursk Bulge, when the percentage of burnt diesel T-34s far exceeded that of gasoline T-70s. As a result, we found out that a fully filled tank in the fighting compartment (when there is no diesel fuel vapor) works quite well as protection. It becomes bad if the tank is partially filled. Diesel fuel vapors detonate on impact with depressing effect. I don’t understand what prevented filling the tanks with nitrogen or exhaust gases and making the tank protectable, as in aviation, where it was widely used.
          1. -1
            6 November 2022 16: 50
            The talent of the designer, of course.
          2. 0
            15 November 2022 18: 28
            In aircraft, the tanks were filled with inert gas (mostly exhaust) as the fuel ran out. Leakage of tanks and pipelines in the event of production and operational defects or combat damage did not matter - all exhaust or fuel vapor was instantly blown away.
            Can you imagine tankers on the battlefield, who are already suffocating from powder gases from shots, vapors from spilled fuel and lubricants? And add diesel exhaust to this? Well, to the heap - there was no silencer on the T-34 at all)
            1. 0
              15 November 2022 23: 08
              In general, no one bothered to separate the tank with an armored partition, as on later tanks.
    2. +2
      29 September 2022 08: 09
      Actually, the carrier there is most protected by armor, as are the tanks. They need to go somewhere.
    3. +2
      29 September 2022 09: 10
      Quote: swzero
      M-1, Abrams which. So, in it the carrier sits between two agronomic fuel tanks.

      But there is kerosene!
    4. +2
      29 September 2022 09: 30
      Behind the strongest part of the tank? Next to the most protected member of the crew, also at the lowest possible height? There is no need to consider designers as idiots, both ours and Western ones. British maybe :)
  5. 0
    29 September 2022 08: 08
    And now let's estimate how much diesel solariums would be needed if German tanks switched to diesel? The author is sure that it was the lack of diesel fuel, or rather the understanding that it would arise, that caused the rejection of diesel?
    1. 0
      29 September 2022 16: 46
      No, the author never claimed this, and the article is not about that at all. Here on Topvar, articles about the fuel balance of the Germans have already been posted, in one of the commentary threads the needs of the tank troops were analyzed in detail. They would have had enough fuel, and the Germans themselves did not start the air-cooled diesel program in 1942 from scratch.
  6. +10
    29 September 2022 08: 12
    The Germans were simply fools, well, or very smart, which is much worse. As you like more.
    If in aviation and missiles their sophistication eventually paved the way for humanity to a brighter future, then in tank building the German path led and led to a dead end. Moreover, even having reached a dead end, the Germans continued to beat their heads against the wall. The only bright spot on this "Malevich" is tank guns, but this is not the topic of discussion.
    To begin with, one should not exaggerate the centralization of German work in the field of tank building, otherwise the picture becomes completely clinical. Firms and their representative in the authorities pulled the blankets over themselves right up to the cod.
    If we talk about engines, then tunnel crankcases, combining the crankshaft cheeks with the main journals and the introduction of roller bearings on them can hardly be attributed to rational acts, in any case, this is not used now.
    In addition, the German engines were distinguished by their high height, and indeed their compactness, especially taking into account fuel reserves and the volume of the cooling system, is highly questionable.
    In general, there is a lot of schizophrenic in German tank building, I mean the Pz III - Pz IV and V - VI pairs, here in general, kmk, the analogy with medicine is complete. Gusli on pins and needles, chess pendant, putty on the armor.
    In the same row, the uncontrolled Maybach monopoly, if we talk about engines.
    In my opinion, decisions in the field of tank building were made using the "heel itched" method, and the owner of this heel obviously loved gasoline very much. I wouldn't be surprised if I did.
    In short, no one worked in the field of compact aviation diesel engines of traditional orientation in Germany, and therefore there was no groundwork for ordinary V-patterns with main and trailer connecting rods, and the entire tank authorities turned out to be bought up by Maybach in the bud. In general, the tankers did not find their Sholp (was that the name of the creator of modern aviation?).
    1. +4
      29 September 2022 12: 27
      Finally, I found a person who has a similar view on the armored vehicles of the Wehrmacht.
      I believe that Hitler was killed not by political adventurism, but by his own industrialists and the generals interacting with them. For I can’t explain SUCH a mess in the nomenclature of technology. Well, only if Knipkamp and comrades were not recruited by the communists. soldier laughing
      Instead of a clear strategy for the development of tank building, the mobilization of industry and the saturation of troops with equipment, we have 100500 types and types of vehicles. At the same time, by the middle of the war, the generals and designers had finally lost touch with reality, engaging in frank delirium in the form of "Maus" and the like. Like an X-shaped diesel, instead of a simple and maintainable motor.
      In fact, instead of the total mobilization of industry and its complete centralization back in the fall of 41 - in the winter of 42, the Germans were marking time until the spring of 44, when there was nothing to save for a long time.
      1. -2
        29 September 2022 17: 44
        Like an X-shaped diesel, instead of a simple and maintainable motor.

        Tell us how to fit a simple and maintainable diesel engine of the required power into the engine compartment of a Panther or Tiger using the technologies of those years.
        1. 0
          2 October 2022 08: 19
          Just like they put a diesel engine in the IS-2, which weighed like a Panther with much heavier armor and incomparably more powerful weapons. Have you seen "Panther" live? This is an armored shed in size, and not a "medium tank", as the Germans appointed it.
          1. 0
            3 October 2022 02: 45
            This is an armored shed in size

            So what. The tank is big, but the engine compartment is small.

            Just like they put the diesel in the IS-2

            Are you playing with words or do you really not understand the essence of the matter? The IS-2 was designed for the B-2 and produced from the B-2. There is plenty of room for a motor. The Panther was designed for the compact HL 230; it was impossible to fit a diesel engine of the same power in its place without frills. Deutz offered a two-stroke V-8 diesel and was able to get the required power from the cylinder on the test bench (they did not have time to assemble the full engine due to the defeat). And still, this diesel turned out to be larger than the HL 230 and would hardly fit.
    2. -1
      29 September 2022 16: 43
      Quote: Grossvater
      Pz III - Pz IV and V -VI, here in general, kmk, the analogy with medicine is complete. Gusli on pins and needles, chess pendant, putty on the armor.

      The PzKpfw lll and lV had no staggered suspension. And in general, Pz lV was one of the best WWII tanks.
      1. 0
        1 October 2022 04: 19
        Pz IV is a dinosaur obsolete at birth. Bulky, with an outdated suspension, without rational angles of inclination of the frontal armor, with a low power density. Yes, even without a solid reserve for modernization.
        All he was good for was an infantry support tank, and the armor did not allow him to carry out the function of direct support when overcoming a dense defense saturated with anti-tank artillery.
        What this leads to is clearly seen in two of his reincarnations: Sturmpanzer IV and Panzer IV / 70V.
        The first was an attempt to create an effective close infantry support tank based on a well-mastered chassis. The project managed to solve the problem of protection relatively well (and even then - only felling!), And install a fairly effective infantry mortar of 150-mm caliber. But, the lack of reserves for modernization led to the fact that it was still not possible to achieve sufficient security, the weapons had small pointing angles, and the mass of the vehicle exceeded the original one and a half times, which negatively affected maneuverability and reliability. Of course, a vehicle with the "Brummbar" cutting protection level and the installation of similar weapons in a rotating turret would be in great demand in infantry units, but the design of the base chassis did not allow it to be created. I had to use the resulting ersatz.
        The second version - Panzer IV / 70 (V) in terms of armament was quite consistent with its purpose - it destroyed medium tanks of the allies from distances of 1500 - 2000 m, while remaining invulnerable in frontal projection for return fire. However, the installation of powerful weapons (similar to the Panther!) And an attempt to give proper protection to the frontal projection led to an overload of the chassis, crowding in the control compartment and the fighting compartment. And there is nothing to say about the maneuverability and controllability of the car - the army nickname "Guderian's Duck" speaks for itself. And of course, the reduced reliability of the machine, aggravated by the maintainability deteriorated due to the tight layout, led to the fact that most of the machines were simply abandoned due to breakdowns.
        An attempt to simplify the production of the Panzer IV / 70 and improve the maintenance of the vehicle led to the creation of a version of the Panzer IVA - installing a cabin on the hull of a serial Pz IVJ tank. However, all this led to an additional increase in the mass of the vehicle, an increase in the silhouette (which is critical for a tank destroyer) and a decrease in the protection of the vehicle. Needless to say, maneuverability was further reduced and in no way met the requirements for a tank destroyer.
        So Pz IV became obsolete already in 1941 and could not, even with increased production, influence the course of hostilities.
        The only really successful version of the combat vehicle based on it is the Hummel self-propelled guns (although the Pz III / IV backlog was used here). True, this machine is a self-propelled artillery howitzer, not a tank.
        1. -1
          1 October 2022 10: 14
          Considering that lV fought until the end of the 20th century, then your conclusions are so-so ... namely, the service life primarily determines the success of armored vehicles.
          1. 0
            1 October 2022 18: 59
            Won from the poor.
            They also had a rifleman since WWI.
            1. -1
              1 October 2022 20: 40
              Was Yugoslavia a poor country? lol
              Plus, the Korean War on the part of the United States, the Iran-Iraq War, on both sides ... and in the first post-war years, France, Italy, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria ...
        2. +2
          1 October 2022 15: 21
          Pz IV is a dinosaur obsolete at birth.

          Completely disagree with you. Let's start with when he was born. Krupp began design work in 1934. In 1936, testing of the prototype began. In 1938, the production of Ausf.B began, from which the rest of the "four" grew.

          And what were these tanks? Five crew members, each with their own hatch. Commander's cupola, good review. Auxiliary power unit, planetary slewing mechanism, 6-speed gearbox with synchromesh. Specific power 16 hp/t. In the process of development, the tank gained weight by 6,5 tons - a third of the original weight. "with low specific power. Yes, even without a solid reserve for modernization."?

          All he was good for was an infantry support tank.

          Well, you took it from the ceiling. A versatile fire support tank as it was meant to be. The troops quickly recognized him as the best tank available.

          An attempt to simplify the production of the Panzer IV / 70 and improve the maintenance of the machine led to the creation of the Panzer IVA version.

          And this is an outright lie. Panzer IV/70(A) is an ersatz created literally on the knee. No one seriously considered it, and even more so as a promising replacement for IV / 70 (V).

          The only really successful version of the combat vehicle based on it

          All the more untrue. Jagdpanzer IV turned out to be very successful. This is the best assault gun with L/48.
          1. -1
            1 October 2022 17: 01
            Good afternoon, Dmitry!
            It amazes me how tenacious stereotypes are. The vaunted G. Guderian wrote that the salvation of the Reich was the "four" - and everyone was stuck!
            Well, what the hell is a modern tank that came into service in 1938 with conditional armor of 20-30 mm! Yes, and without the slope of the VLD. Against the beater (which since 1936 has been in service with the Wehrmacht) - who is he?
            Five members in the crew - not the members are fighting, but the car in their hands. The gun - to hell with neither field fortification nor tanks. At least somehow against tanks only KwK 40 could, from the middle of 1942. And then, it was a little better than our ZiSok.
            Jagdpanzer IV - as a tank destroyer, complete misery, like everything with the Pak 39 L / 48. All equipment with this mallet is designed for ambush actions - he fired, he was lucky - he knocked out and died himself. He does not have a gun for "extermination" plus all the problems of the Panzer IV / 70.
            At the same time, we must pay tribute to the German tankers - on this shit they managed to win the whole of 1944 and half of 1945.
            So in general, the incomplete luck of the Panther does not justify the preservation of this relic in production.
            1. 0
              3 October 2022 02: 40
              The vaunted G. Guderian wrote that the salvation of the Reich was the "four" - and everyone was stuck!

              Never stuck. I hope everything is ok with me.

              Well, what the hell is a modern tank that came into service in 1938 with conditional armor of 20-30 mm!

              And here's one. At the level of T-28, S35, D2 and other armored buckets of that time. Evaluate in context. When the first Ausf.A series appeared in 1937, angular shapes and bulletproof armor were commonplace.

              Cannon - to hell with neither against field fortification nor against tanks

              A normal gun for its tasks. Light fortifications and typical mass armored vehicles of those years at the time of creation, she struck without problems. Or are you going to settle KV-1 in 1937? I remind you that the Germans did not have the Internet then, as well as the aftermath.

              KwK 40, from the middle of 1942. And then, it was a little better than our ZiSok.

              Not "a bit better", but much better. The T-34-85 appeared en masse only in 1944, before that the "fours" in the middle class were ahead in armament.

              Jagdpanzer IV - as a tank destroyer, complete misery, like everything with the Pak 39 L / 48.

              Very low silhouette, good frontal armor and a good gun. T-34s and Shermans are just enough to turn into a sieve.

              All equipment with this mallet is designed for ambush operations.

              We've arrived. StuG III with a similar gun went on the attack behind the infantry. Is that how you fight stereotypes by inventing from the ceiling?

              He does not have a gun for "extermination" plus all the problems of the Panzer IV / 70.

              And again not true. The Jagdpanzer IV has better reliability and no front end overload. It is not necessary to add on non-existent problems.
              1. 0
                3 October 2022 07: 48
                Thank you for reacting, otherwise my grandfather decided. that his dementia had completely eaten him up.
                I will answer again to be understood.
                The German command created its combat vehicles on the basis of the experience of the First World War and on the basis of maneuvers carried out even within the Reichswehr. What was reflected in the German concept of the tank. Indeed, if the modern Soviet vehicles (T-28, BT-7, T-26 T-38) were a product of creative borrowing (after the T-24, the development of their own tank concept in the USSR was abandoned), then the German tanks are original and, most importantly, functional.
                Functionality Pz-I - auxiliary service, reinforcement of the occupying forces;
                Functionality Pz-II - reconnaissance, outposts;
                Functionality Pz-III - the main tank of mechanized units;
                Functionality Pz-IV - artillery support tank.
                The classification of the tank was determined by armament (and here the Germans were right). So for the first time, the Pz-II and Pz-III corresponded to their purpose, but the Pz-IV immediately raised questions from both the designers and the military. How else can one explain the hectic work on a series of Vk-30 projects with a 105-mm field howitzer? The fact is that the KwK-37 push was powerless not only against pillboxes, but also well-built field fortifications. The Germans correctly identified the caliber that was supposed to replace the 75-mm - 105-mm, but the outbreak of war confused all the cards. And 105 mm appeared only on StuH 42 in 1942.
                Let's drive past the armor, because. the strengthening of the frontal part, caused by the experience of the war (and it was impossible to find out at the training ground?) led to the fact that the tank became heavier and remained vulnerable to Soviet and British artillery until the appearance of the 80-mm frontal part. The requirement for servicing the brakes and final drives prevented the Aryans from completing the upper frontal part of the inclined Aryans. Hence - a short moment in 1943, when the tank, in terms of security, at least somehow corresponded to its combat purpose.
                Let's move on to weapons. KwK-40 is not the epiphany of the "gloomy German genius" at all, but a miserable improvisation to the cry of the military "give at least something against the Bolshevik tanks!" From this cry were born PaK-40, all the freaks "Marder", not bad (for 1942-1943) StuG-III F and (that's really lucky!) Pz IV F2 and beyond. If we take the actual armor penetration of the shells of this gun, then it was half enough to fight the T-34 from 800 m in the frontal projection and 600 m from the KV-1. Considering that there are more Soviet tanks, in the oncoming battle the Germans would have been able to fire 1 - 2 shots to kill and die themselves. In 1944, the chances of surviving at a distance of 1000 m for the Pz IV and others like the StuK 40 were reduced to zero, except that for the Jagdpanzer IV they remained up to 800 m. The fact that the chassis was not overloaded (and then conditionally!) Is true only for the first modifications. The increase in booking of the cabin led to a redistribution of the load forward, and then the installation of StuK 42 L / 71 in this cabin added only 250 kg.
                No, the real answer to the "tank hordes of the Bolsheviks" was the PaK 43 L / 71, which, firstly, was late with its introduction, and secondly, it required a completely different chassis to create a full-fledged tank destroyer.
                A compromise version of the StuK 42L/70 (also a military improvisation, by the way) in combination with 80 mm armor gave certain chances to a tank destroyer, but the Pz-IV chassis was not suitable for a vehicle with such characteristics from the word at all.
                1. 0
                  3 October 2022 22: 19
                  Functionality Pz-IV - artillery support tank.

                  Not just a support tank, but literally an escort tank - the Begleitwagen. That is, he must not only support the infantry, but also keep up with the rest of the tanks, so he was not loaded with armor.

                  but the Pz-IV immediately raised questions from both the designers and the military.

                  Strictly the opposite. The military tank was quickly appreciated, in the early campaigns the "four" was recognized as the best German tank. There is talk from the side of the designers, then of all the early German tanks, only the "four" turned out almost immediately and without serious alterations, and only she fit into the requirements.

                  How else can one explain the hectic work on a series of Vk-30 projects with a 105-mm field howitzer?

                  The VK 30.01 (H) was built with the same 75mm gun as the Panzer IV. Discussions about strengthening its weapons were carried out in 1941, these were long-barreled guns of 50 and 75 mm caliber.

                  In the middle of 1940, Henschel was given the task of converting the VK 30.01 (H) to fit a 105 mm gun in a new turret, and so the original VK 36.01 was born. The Germans were in such a hurry to stick a 105-mm gun into the VK 30 that they got together for three years, and then began to make a new tank.

                  The fact is that the KwK-37 push was powerless not only against pillboxes, but also well-built field fortifications.

                  And no one created the Panzer IV for the assault on pillboxes and serious field fortifications. How do you see it for yourself? "Four" could support the infantry and accompany other tanks. What will we do, will we send Panzer I and II to the powerful enemy fortifications with the support of the "fours" or immediately infantry to be slaughtered?

                  For these purposes, the AW project was started, from the turret of which the VK 36.01 with a 105-mm gun was obtained. It's a completely different story. And the 75-76 mm caliber for supporting infantry and tanks was relevant until the end of the war, the SU-76 and Shermans would not let you lie.

                  KwK-40 is not the epiphany of the "gloomy German genius" at all, but a pathetic improvisation to the cry of the military

                  This miserable improvisation, as you say, at the time of its appearance became the best mass-produced weapon on tanks in the middle class. It is better than the American 75-mm Sherman gun, and even better than our tank 76-mm guns.

                  Considering that there are more Soviet tanks, in the oncoming battle the Germans would have been able to fire 1 - 2 shots to kill and die themselves.

                  Sorry, but this is World Of Tanks level reasoning.
                  1. 0
                    4 October 2022 21: 32
                    Thank you, Dmitry, it is interesting to communicate with you. I will wait for the continuation.
                    So just in case - a tank destroyer, this is someone who, from a distance, remaining invulnerable to a single return fire, methodically stops the enemy’s tank attack, intensively maneuvering on the battlefield to take an advantageous position. StuG-40, 80-mm vertical armor, weak engine and the imperfect chassis does not provide this, but is forced to fight in the style of a kamikaze.
                    1. 0
                      5 October 2022 15: 54
                      a tank destroyer, this is someone who, from a distance, remaining invulnerable to a single return fire, methodically stops the enemy’s tank attack, intensively maneuvering on the battlefield to take up an advantageous position

                      Only no one demanded this from the StuG III and the future Jagdpanzer IV. Assault guns should cover the infantry following it into the attack. Therefore, they have closed cabins and good frontal armor. Jagdpanzer IV, if anything, was originally called leichtes Sturmgeschuetz - a light assault gun. What you described is best done by a tank like the Panther, because with a turret the maneuverability of fire is, of course, much higher.
                      1. 0
                        6 October 2022 06: 56
                        Dmitry!
                        I'm very sorry, but the StuG III is a military improvisation, a little better than the Marders. A low-powered (for a fighter) cannon dooms to a dangerous battle at a medium distance, and insufficient maneuverability - to a transition to close combat, where a self-propelled gun with its fixed cabin and small angles of fire is doomed to be destroyed by a tank. And in terms of armor resistance of the frontal projection, the thirty-four and the Sherman outperform both the Stug III and the Pz IV due to the slope of the armor.
                        Separately for Jagdpanzer IV. Here, even the 60-mm front armor plate of the cabin is invulnerable to the 75-mm Sherman and 76-mm T-34 guns. And a chance to knock out these tanks from a distance of up to 600 - 800 m. But this is too little for a battle with a tank company. Yes, they will lose 4 - 6 aircraft, but all four fighters will also be destroyed. So all that's left is ambush action. Here you can already exchange one to three.
                        But the Jagdpanzer IV 70(V) is able to impose a battle up to 1500 m frontally and up to 2000 m from an ambush (the first shells are on the sides). And the frontal 80 mm armor is not taken by either the 76 mm American or the 85 mm Soviet gun at real combat distances. But the misfortune of an overweight car is that it barely crawls on rough terrain and how much it breaks in vain. And then - they go to her flank or rear and that's it ...
                        Ironically, the real tank destroyer is the British Conqueror, a kind of Jagdtiger brought to mind, but he was godlessly late for his war.
                      2. 0
                        6 October 2022 07: 25
                        And yes, about the Panther.
                        I am not a fan of this car. You correctly noted its anti-tank properties, but it is completely unreasonable to use such an expensive tank as a tank destroyer. And the gun is rather weak for such a mountain.
                        And with the installation of the StuK 40, the value of the StuG III as an infantry support vehicle has declined. As a result, the Stug III F and G were used (and must be admitted successfully) as a mobile anti-tank reserve, and infantry support was assigned to the StuH 42 with its 105 mm howitzer. However, the changed situation at the front did not allow the latter to influence the course of the battles.
                        By the way, Zh.Ya. Kotin appreciated the Stug III quite highly, but only as an anti-tank self-propelled gun.
                      3. 0
                        6 October 2022 16: 37
                        but StuG III is a military improvisation

                        The idea of ​​assault guns was proposed by von Manstein in 1936. He expressed the task of assault artillery very clearly: it does not attack like tanks and does not break through the defense, but follows the infantry into the attack and hits dangerous targets with direct fire. The project on the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.B chassis was completed in 1938. Where did you get military improvisation from?

                        But for a battle with a tank company, this is too little.

                        Nobody created it to grind tank companies. The Jagdpanzer IV was designed as an improved analogue of the StuG III. He could hit the mass armored vehicles of the enemy at medium distances, if the infantry suddenly stumbles upon enemy tanks.

                        but it is completely unreasonable to use such an expensive tank as a tank destroyer

                        The best tank destroyer is the tank itself.

                        And the gun is rather weak for such a mountain.

                        In terms of anti-tank properties, it is even slightly better than the 57-ton Tiger gun.

                        And with the installation of the StuK 40, the value of the StuG III as an infantry support vehicle has decreased.

                        Why did it decrease? And if the infantry collides with enemy medium tanks? A perfectly reasonable compromise.
                      4. 0
                        6 October 2022 20: 35
                        The StuG III with the cigarette butt is the base model, while the F series with the StuK 40 is an improvisation. It was she who was slapped in an accelerated manner and in 1942 - 1943. it spoiled the blood of our tank troops quite a bit. Well, the support of the infantry, which "runs into" the tanks ... It's the T-34 from a dashing march that destroys the rear and rips open the German positions from the rear. This is where fighters are needed to delay, force them to take the fight, buy time. And here everything is decided by the gun and the armor of the fighter. Or repel a tank counterattack.
                        And the fact that the StuK 40 is a bad weapon for assault operations and infantry support is a well-known fact, in my opinion Svirin described this.
                        For me, the release of Pz IV, Stug III, etc. in 1942-1943. - forced necessity, and in 1944 - an unjustified waste of resources.
        3. 0
          2 October 2022 08: 22
          Well, porridge ... I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the history of the Pz.IV in more detail.
          1. 0
            2 October 2022 09: 38
            KB-3 of the Kirov Plant learned the history of German tank building by heart.
            1. +1
              2 October 2022 23: 20
              And what does KB-3 have to do with it in general? Do you even understand in what concept the Pz.IV was created? Or are we like that, we don't read Guderian, we write history ourselves?
              "Four" is a high-quality amplification machine. And KWK37 was enough for her needs. If it were not for the resilience of the Soviet soldiers, the "Blitzkrieg" would have ended with a "cigarette butt". Moreover, the tanks were mostly hit by artillery, not tanks. Tank ambushes were the last resort.
              Plus, only Guderian's squeals at the entire Ministry of Armaments left the "four" on the conveyor. For its replacement on the conveyors of many factories with the Pz.V meant, in fact, the disruption of the program for the production of armored vehicles. That is why they did not dare to replace the frankly crude T-34 with a more advanced machine. As for various types of self-propelled guns based on the "four", here elementary savings and the possibilities of industry came into play - gluing self-propelled guns is easier and faster than tanks. And in fact, all these hobbies for "long-barreled" on a frankly outdated cart were nothing more than a desire to give the front at least something to counter the advancing Red Army. Like the frankly wretched Hetzer.
    3. +1
      29 September 2022 17: 04
      in tank building, the German path led and led to a dead end.

      What is the German way in tank building?

      Firms and their representative in the authorities pulled the blankets over themselves right up to the cod.

      You might think that the Tank Commission or the Arms Department did not pull, each in its own direction. From an interrogation of Kniepkamp after the war: "To ensure that the initial requirements were met, Kniepkamp supervised the firms responsible for the development and construction of prototypes. In the event that a firm had any difficulty in implementing these requirements due to an inability to achieve them or because of a desire to support his own concepts and proposals, Kniepkamp would bring in influential experts to oversee and/or help the firm meet its original requirements."

      These are not empty words. For example, in 1937, Knipkamp came into conflict with Krupp and pushed it out of the development of new tank chassis for several years. And this is Krupp, not a small-town firm of one and a half people.

      otherwise the picture becomes completely clinical

      It is no more clinical than the pulling of the blanket by Soviet factories. One story of the development of the IS-6 is worth something.

      In addition, the German engines were distinguished by their high height, and indeed their compactness, especially taking into account fuel reserves and the volume of the cooling system, is highly questionable.

      Let me guess, you read this in Pasholok? He has been developing this myth lately. The HL 230 engine serves as an illustration. But there is one caveat: the HL 230, like the HL 210, has air filters above the carburetors, while the B-2 had them on the sides of the engine. Therefore, in the case of the HL 230, engine height actually means the height of the engine itself plus air filters.

      and there was no hitch on ordinary V-patterns

      From this supposedly missing backlog, the normal V-shaped MB 503 and MB 507 grew.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
  7. +2
    29 September 2022 09: 15
    The diesel engine in our conditions had a huge advantage, which few people pay attention to. The diesel engine is almost impossible to turn off when stragging. But this is the cornerstone of learning to drive. Despite the fact that it was necessary to train drivers as mechanics for young guys who had not dealt with equipment at all before.
    1. +7
      29 September 2022 10: 41
      Especially when you consider that until the end of 34, the T-43 had two speeds that really worked in the checkpoint: the second and the rear.
      1. +7
        29 September 2022 10: 49
        Quote: Grossvater
        in the checkpoint, two speeds were really working: second and reverse.

        I have in UAZ and now so.
        1. +1
          2 October 2022 09: 00
          Continuity of generations, long-term traditions. laughing
      2. +3
        29 September 2022 10: 57
        And it is. Diesel leveled the shortcomings of the checkpoint.
        1. 0
          29 September 2022 17: 06
          Let's face it, due to a bad gearbox, engine power was used extremely irrationally. With a normal design, the same performance could be achieved with a faster motor.
          1. -2
            29 September 2022 21: 24
            Better a diesel engine and a bad gearbox than a gasoline engine and a good gearbox. For the novice driver.
            1. 0
              1 October 2022 04: 26
              For the novice driver

              Well, if a novice driver is only good enough not to stall, then he is guaranteed to bring the car and crew to the mass grave.
              1. 0
                1 October 2022 09: 36
                You just didn't understand what it was about. Read how difficult it was to move from a place on the T-60. And this had to be taught, to work simultaneously with gas and clutch, like in a car. There was no such problem on the T-34 and it was possible to train the driver immediately in the following elements.
                And you shouldn't be so dismissive. At that time, the tanks fired from a stop. And after the shot, it was required to immediately start moving.
            2. +1
              1 October 2022 15: 38
              Strictly the opposite. There is no need to mock newbies by torturing them with terrible gearboxes. And over the engine, by the way, there is also nothing to scoff at. An internal combustion engine is not an electric motor; it is not capable of working well in a large range.

              I will also respond to your comment below:
              Read how difficult it was to move from a place on the T-60.

              You do not know how the main clutch of the T-34 worked? It's definitely not for a beginner.
              1. 0
                1 October 2022 16: 05
                Have you dealt with diesels at all? In practice, not theory?
    2. +1
      29 September 2022 11: 15
      With an engine resource of 50 hours, it is generally difficult to teach driving - while you train the driver, you need to write off the tank.
      Despite the fact that it was necessary to train drivers as mechanics for young guys who had not dealt with equipment at all before.

      It is hard to believe that in the USSR there were not enough people for mechanical drivers who dealt with equipment. Well, or there was no real selection of such people.
      1. 0
        29 September 2022 13: 14
        Believe it or not, but there is evidence from 1941 that in the formed mechanized corps there were about 1500 people with primary education-3rd grade, until 2000 with about 5-7th grades of education, and even about a thousand who did not know the Russian language (Ulanov, Shein-Order in tank troops).
        1. -2
          29 September 2022 15: 01
          Talks about the quality of the selection, in my opinion.
          1. 0
            29 September 2022 17: 08
            There was no one to select from then. So, in the year 41, if a person is 20 years old, then he was born at 20, 7 years old turned into 27. Hunger, collectivization, shock construction projects are in full swing. Oh yes, it is likely that an orphan. Here to survive, especially in the outback. So, further - the guy is 16-17 years old, this is 37-38 years old. Repressions, arrests, searches for spies. Teachers for the most part non-ruling class - sit and do not shine
            1. 0
              30 September 2022 10: 32
              30s - industrialization is actively going on in the country, requiring technology.
              By what methods is the second question. But there were clearly people in the country dealing with technology, and it was quite possible to select from such.
              1. 0
                30 September 2022 11: 25
                There were, but very few. When choosing where to send them - to a tank or to a power plant or a smelter or a turner of the 6th category - they were sent to the rear. If he doesn’t make a tank or an airplane, then it doesn’t matter how many and what kind of tankers and pilots, if they have nothing to fight on
                From personal. My great-grandmother remained illiterate until her death in the 70s. Grandmother had 3 classes of education and for the village it was considered very good. Grandfather had 7 classes of education and was considered a very educated person, in the Second World War he was the commander of an anti-tank crew, in a sergeant's position
                1. +1
                  2 October 2022 09: 05
                  Grandmother from Yakutia. I went to study at a technical school with a couple of potatoes. Then she graduated from the university. Those who wanted to study studied. Despite the terrible hunger.
            2. +1
              1 October 2022 04: 44
              There is no need for la-la on the topic "Russia that we have lost" and "dark scoop". My father was born in 1921, and my mother was born in 1922. Both graduated from the ten-year, entered the institute. Well, if the father is the son of a red commander, then the mother is from Vladimir peasants. Yes, my grandfather moved to Leningrad in industrialization, but all the village relatives studied poorly, they got used to driving tractors with electricity.
              That's not the problem. Before the war, the training of mobilized modern technology was not thought out. It was believed that the tanks and aircraft would be controlled by personnel, but the mobilized would fill the infantry and cavalry, and the war would not last long.
              No one could have foreseen that tanks would be produced by the tens of thousands, and that the main educated youth would remain in the occupied territories. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of the outskirts of the Soviet Union, massively dying in the battles for their homeland, managed to contribute to the victory. And the survivors, who fought, were in no way inferior to opponents from Großdeutschland and Totenkopf.
              1. 0
                1 October 2022 23: 05
                It was very lucky that there was a ten-year-old herself in the nearest district. And that none of the relatives was a kulak or ChSIR, and getting into such lists was oh so easy. Yes, at least they themselves are not orphans, of whom there were a lot after the Civil
              2. 0
                2 October 2022 18: 58
                No one could have foreseen that tanks would be produced in the tens of thousands.

                In fact, there were already more than 20 thousand of them before the war.
      2. 0
        29 September 2022 13: 21
        Why write off a tank when running out of a motor resource? Just change the engine. Gtd t80 in the field is practically unrepairable, so we just removed them for maintenance and put them in service from the factory. It took a couple of hours, but it was in the park, with a multi-ton crane.
        1. -1
          29 September 2022 15: 03
          Times were different. There were no extra engines. Therefore, in reality, the training of mechanical drivers was low.
          1. 0
            29 September 2022 15: 06
            Were there any extra engines? Also, say there were no spare parts, and the tank was cheaper than the engine.
            1. 0
              29 September 2022 16: 36
              If you are required to have a maximum of engines, and from a plant that produces tanks, respectively, a maximum of tanks, then you simply do not have the opportunity to make a spare engine for each tank for training a driver.
              1. +3
                29 September 2022 16: 49
                That is, engines were produced exactly or less than the number of tanks? These are your words that, after the exhaustion of the motor resource, the TANK was decommissioned. I want to understand your logic. Or maybe you have some documents on hand, and not liberoid-perestroika propaganda.
                1. 0
                  29 September 2022 20: 39
                  you are not reading carefully. They didn’t "write off the tank", but
                  With an engine resource of 50 hours, it is generally difficult to teach driving - while you train the driver, you need to write off the tank.

                  I wrote about one of the reasons for the low level of training of mechanical drivers
      3. -1
        29 September 2022 15: 05
        It is hard to believe that in the USSR there were not enough people for mechanical drivers who dealt with equipment. Well, or there was no real selection of such people.

        And yet. The fact is that tractors were not made caterpillar then, it was the prerogative of tanks. Tractors were made with healthy iron wheels at the back and small ones at the front. (Does it remind you of anything? wink ).
        1. +1
          29 September 2022 16: 55
          And even with one rear wheel. But also technology.

          But already in 1924 caterpillar tractors were produced in the USSR. And even more so by 1941.

          They even made a movie about it.
          1. 0
            30 September 2022 15: 34
            Unfortunately, although there were T4 tractors (in my opinion) on caterpillar tracks, in practice they were not even "in the fields" even at 41-45. I speak second hand - my grandmother at the age of 15 drove such a wheeled tractor in 1941. And there were wheeled tractors in the fields.
        2. 0
          1 October 2022 04: 47
          This is in the 20s, and in the 30s - entirely caterpillars S-60, s-S-80.
      4. 0
        29 September 2022 16: 32
        50 hours is operation in a combat situation, with a guarantee that during this time the engine will work reliably without loss of power.
        In training units, and even in sparing modes, the operating time is much greater.
        1. 0
          29 September 2022 20: 59
          In educational departments...
          with inexperienced mechanical drivers, the resource will be even less. B2, like the T34 as a whole, required constant adjustments and maintenance of all kinds of components and mechanisms.
          1. +1
            29 September 2022 21: 25
            The same was true for petrol engines. Needed maintenance and adjustments.
            1. 0
              30 September 2022 10: 27
              We are talking about a specific engine at a specific time.
              Comparing the ease of use of the T34 and Sherman, Loza writes in his "Tankman on a Foreign Car" that the T34 drivers had to constantly tweak and adjust something.
              1. 0
                30 September 2022 11: 20
                Under what conditions were the T-34s and Shermans created and produced? Or do you think that only B-2 required adjustments?
          2. +1
            2 October 2022 09: 08
            Like any other technique, it requires maintenance.
      5. 0
        29 September 2022 20: 09
        Quote from solar
        With an engine resource of 50 hours, it is generally difficult to teach driving - while you train the driver, you need to write off the tank.


        It was possible to make stands and simulators using the technologies of those years - to imitate the terrain with a movie or a paper map with mechanical indicators, and the engine and resistance on the ground - with powerful electric motors that simulate the behavior and resistance for the internal combustion engine - a cadet drives one engine and the other (creating resistance to the first electric engine ) an instructor who knows how he really behaves on the ground. This is how the gunners were taught at first then.
        [media=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/The_Rear_Gunner.ogv]
      6. Alf
        +1
        29 September 2022 20: 27
        Quote from solar
        With an engine resource of 50 hours, it is generally difficult to teach driving - while you train the driver, you need to write off the tank.

        Not write off the tank, but change the engine. Several different things.
    3. +3
      29 September 2022 12: 06
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      The diesel engine in our conditions had a huge advantage, which few people pay attention to. The diesel engine is almost impossible to turn off when stragging.

      Difficult. But you can. As experts from Kubinka wrote in a 1942 report on the transmissions of domestic tanks, the T-34:
      ... shifting gears slows the tank down to a stop and is associated with the danger of turning off the engine
      1. 0
        29 September 2022 21: 01
        For this reason, they did not switch it in battle, so they went to the second one.
  8. -2
    29 September 2022 09: 35
    And where did the Germans take so much coal?
    All of Europe was diligently digging.
    And now he is demanding reparations. Yes, on both sides.
    1. +2
      29 September 2022 17: 07
      Suddenly, they took it from themselves. Take, for example, the Ruhr coal basin.
      1. +1
        29 September 2022 22: 17
        Quote from: geraet4501
        Take, for example, the Ruhr coal basin.


        And woodlands. The tablet from the article says that naval fuel oil was driven from tar. And tar can be wood (a product of wood chemistry) and coal tar (coal tar) - a waste product of coke production. So German submarines to some extent had fuel "from firewood" - even coal, fossil and wood, was not immediately processed into fuel, at first coke was made from it for steel smelting and only from coke waste - fuel. The purest synthetics are aviation gasolines, apparently - then piston aircraft engines needed stable and high quality fuel, later jet engines could use fuel with worse characteristics.
        1. 0
          2 October 2022 13: 21
          How much tar was required?
          The fact that wood tar was used - do you know or assume?
          1. +1
            2 October 2022 14: 06
            So far I've only speculated on these facts. However, before the era of Siberian oil, the now forgotten coal chemistry and wood chemistry were very developed in the USSR and other countries. The oil of Eurasia was Baku, Romanian, and they were produced little, by modern standards, and the distant North Americans were the world leader in oil production. Before the era of fossil coal, coal for metallurgy was prepared from wood (therefore, in the Republic of Ingushetia, the Finns were engaged in high-quality metallurgy, using their forests, and the Swedes were one of the world leaders in high-tech engineering and steelmaking of that era) and wood tar will inevitably form - this is how the chemical process proceeds (The meaning of the word tar in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron).
            From the interesting thing that can be extracted from the table - this is (presumably) the priority of steelmaking over the production of fuel. At first, the Germans cooked steel and only then made fuel from coke chemistry waste and not vice versa - although it is much easier to burn liquid fuel by pumping it with a furnace pump than working with coke. Perhaps - the "bottleneck" of the Germans was actually steel production and not fuel.
            1. 0
              2 October 2022 14: 38
              I remember it. The question of quantitative estimates.
              1. 0
                2 October 2022 15: 18
                First you need to assess the pre-war situation, from which everything else started. For numbers, see
                - European Petroleum Union and Russia
                (according to German archival documents)
                - German publications

                * https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/geschichte/schauplaetze/Erdoel-Geschichte-Als-schwarzes-Gold-noch-aus-der-Heide-kam,erdoel292.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=ru&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto =sc

                * "PMV Oil Mesopotamian Front" in search

                * https://www-oekosystem--erde-de.translate.goog/html/geschichte_erdoel.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

                Rommel, for example, operating in Africa, planned to gain access to the Middle East, African and Caucasian oil - that is, it was a natural continuation of the German oil plans of the WWII.
      2. 0
        30 September 2022 09: 07
        Upper Silesian?
        Dombrsky?
        Before the war, France mined coal, as it were, no more than Germany. Where and for what purposes did this coal go under Vichy?
  9. 0
    29 September 2022 10: 25
    Heinrich Knipkamp - the developer of the staggered arrangement of rollers used on German armored vehicles during the war.
  10. +1
    29 September 2022 10: 48
    Dimensions:
    B-2 - length 1565, width 856, height 1072
    HL 230 - length 1310, width 1010, height 1185.
    The question is which is more. Especially if you take into account the difference in the working volume - 39 liters for B 2 and 23 for the German. Moreover, B 2 diesel, which means it has significantly higher pressures in the cylinders.
    1. 0
      29 September 2022 12: 22
      More than HL 230, by volume (if we consider both sort of "cubes"), by 9%. Mass: 1200 vs 870. But it is also 40% more powerful (700 vs 500). And the roots of gasoline should rather be sought in the unwillingness to radically rebuild production during the war: Maybach rivets engines, and let them rivet them. Yes, not quite optimal, but there is no downtime for release.
    2. 0
      29 September 2022 17: 29
      The question is how and what to count. Air filters, a drive to the cooling system fans, a starter and other attachments were mounted on the HL 230 P30. If you look at the photo (https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2020-06/1591209455_vpk_name1.jpg), you can see that a significant part of the height falls on the filters and the fan drive.



      It turns out that in one case we take an almost bare engine, and in the other - with filters and a cooling system drive. In terms of weight, the HL 230 also loses, but this is rather an advantage - instead of aluminum, the Germans spent gray cast iron. What is the extra 500 kg on a 57-ton Tiger? Saving light metals is much more important here.
  11. +2
    29 September 2022 10: 52
    As for the resource. By the end of the war, B 2 was quietly nursed for 250-350 hours. Evacuation you know!
    For those who doubt the influence of this factor, I advise you to try to swap furniture in two rooms in your own apartment and detect when life returns to normal after that. Like 75, if I'm not confused of course, the plant took root in a new place, so everything fell into place.
    1. +2
      29 September 2022 11: 26
      Not "calmly nursed", but "some specimens".
      Diesel problems were solved after the war.
      And they consisted not only in the quality of manufacture (which is also important, B2 is basically an aircraft diesel, and highly qualified personnel were required for assembly), but also in the design decisions made - somehow 4 valves per cylinder, a complex scheme of camshaft drives containing a large the number of mechanical gears, the high rate of increase in pressure on the piston group (the so-called rigidity of the engine), the lack of joint balancing of the crankshaft and flywheel, etc.
      1. +1
        29 September 2022 14: 31
        Are 4 valves per cylinder archaic? On the contrary, to obtain more power per unit volume, a 4-valve circuit is preferable. Now it is used in all types of reciprocating engines and allows you to get high specific power. What is the complexity of the camshaft drive? They are driven by shafts, no "rocker arms", rods, extra gears. The design is quite advanced, the quality of materials is a question.
        1. +1
          29 September 2022 14: 44
          On the contrary, to obtain more power per unit volume, a 4-valve circuit is preferable.

          Preferable, but more difficult to manufacture for a time when the technological level was much lower than post-war. For an aircraft diesel engine in those days, this could be justified, but not for a tank one.
          What is the complexity of the camshaft drive?

          While in those days there were problems with reliable belts for their drive, capable of operating at high speeds, therefore, mechanical transmissions were forced to be installed, which reduced reliability and complicated the design.
          1. +1
            29 September 2022 16: 13
            During the operation of any internal combustion engine, the valve and valve seat are highly temperature-loaded parts, especially the exhaust valve. Therefore, they are made from heat-resistant alloy steels. such steels were produced in the USSR, but alloying additives were not always available, so the quality of the valves floated. The timing system on the V-2 is more reliable than the drive from chains and belts, the location of the camshafts above the valves reduces the number of moving parts, and also allows you to increase the engine speed. The scheme of the gas distribution mechanism of the V-2 engine is still used both on direct descendants and on high-speed diesel engines, for example, marine engines M401, M507,
            1. 0
              29 September 2022 17: 14
              Gas distribution system on V-2

              due to the complexity, it requires highly qualified specialists and equipment for manufacturing. What was impossible to provide in the pre-war and war years.
  12. +1
    29 September 2022 11: 23
    Quote: Luminman
    I always believed that only gasoline can be obtained from coal. However, I'm not a chemist...

    From coal, both theoretically and practically, everything that can be made from oil and gas can be made.
  13. +3
    29 September 2022 11: 55
    Quote: Luminman
    I always believed that only gasoline can be obtained from coal. However, I'm not a chemist...


    By the Fischer-Tropsch process, any hydrocarbon can be synthesized in general, only a catalyst would be enough.
    The same Yuarovtsy drive diesel fuel with zero sulfur content from synthesis gas and natural gas.
  14. +3
    29 September 2022 12: 01
    They wanted to show the first prototype on April 20, 1945, for Hitler's birthday, and mass production was planned for the summer. Of course, because of the defeat of Germany, it remained on paper.

    Finally, they realized that they needed a lot of cheap weapons, and not a dozen wunderwaffes, but they were hopelessly late.
    But the most amazing thing is that no one learns from this catastrophic mistake. And they make the same mistakes today.
    1. -1
      1 October 2022 04: 53
      A lot of cheap weapons are Volkssturm. Mass death of the personal composition with low efficiency. Hetzer worshipers would be stuffed into this tin, in which you only think about how to jump out of it, and not about how to fight.
  15. +3
    29 September 2022 15: 29
    and somewhere they wrote that it was just Maybach’s desire to monopoly supply engines to tanks. And the diesel engine was not introduced for all sorts of nonsense reasons such as "too complicated transmission" (this is the case with German tanks!), "Too long" (what's the difference if it stands along and the box is in front!).
    1. +2
      29 September 2022 17: 49
      was not implemented for all sorts of nonsense reasons like "too complicated transmission"

      It was not about complication, but about the fact that diesel engines on average in the hospital are less resourceful and with higher torque. This means that, all other things being equal, the transmission will be heavier and more cumbersome.

      "too long"

      This concerned one motor - MB 507 with a length of 1720 mm versus 1350 mm for the HL 230.

      (what's the difference if it stands along and the box is in front!)

      Big - the engine simply won’t fit into the engine compartment, and what difference does it make in this case, is the gearbox front or rear? In 1943, Daimler-Benz proposed to shorten the MB 507 to become a V-8, but this required a major rework, so the idea was abandoned. Although the idea itself is good, they realized it too late.
  16. kig
    -1
    29 September 2022 16: 32
    It seems to me that everything is simpler: in the conditions of war, it was necessary to do what was well developed, produced in large quantities, had good spare parts and was mastered in operation. We can also find examples of this approach, for example, the Tu-2 was better than the Pe-2, but they were released almost five times less.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      1 October 2022 05: 02
      Oh, there are no veterans left alive!
      They would tell you how to fight on a kind of ersatz, like Pe-2.
      Pe-2 - alteration of a fighter into a bomber. Hence all its shortcomings: short range, low bomb load, low survivability. Yes, and he was only listed as a dive bomber - the brake bars were removed in order to somehow dodge the Messerschmites. Reserves for modernization - zero!
      A terrible mistake was the removal of the TU-2 from production in 1942. This machine is really outstanding, and when it was deployed in mass production, our troops really received formidable bomber aircraft.
      1. kig
        -1
        1 October 2022 09: 14
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        They would tell you how to fight on a kind of ersatz, like Pe-2
        Well, why, there is a book by Drabkin with the memoirs of pilots. And the fact that very few TU-2s were produced during the war only confirms the proverb "the best is the enemy of the good"
        1. 0
          1 October 2022 16: 36
          It wasn't good.
          Our personnel officer (God rest his soul) fought the entire war on the Pe-2. I believe him more than all the post-perestroika writings. He told (and he ended the war in Germany as a squadron commander) that the main task of the Pe-2 was to jump on the target, throw bombs anywhere from horizontal flight and dodge the attacks of the Messers. But about the "Fokkers" he said that this is a sure grave. How many comrades have lost!
          And then he moved to the TU-2 and, in fact, he already learned on it and keep the system against fighters and bomb accurately and fly not for 200 km, but for the whole 1000.
          So the wrong decision (say, Pe-2 in a large series, why also Tu-2) backfired on us throughout the war with heavy losses and low efficiency of front-line bomber aviation.
  17. 0
    8 October 2022 20: 26
    Quote: Clever man
    and front transmission?

    The transmission is a cheap iron for Germany, which is made in a week and protects the driver, which is significantly more expensive to train, and longer. Making a new tank instead of a broken one is faster than teaching a driver to replace a dead one.
    1. 0
      18 November 2022 10: 26
      This is a certain school and tradition of tank building. Plus minus worked out. And it didn't perform well at all. At that time, the traditional layout was not an axiom. There was a search for the optimal layout. With the increase in the thickness of the frontal armor, the front location of the transmission became critical. But this happened in 44-45, when it was not relevant to fundamentally change the schemes. And in the USSR, the main schemes for the T34 and KV were made before the war .... And if we take the confrontation between the most massive T34 and T-4, then these are medium tanks and they were plus or minus similar in characteristics.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. 0
    18 November 2022 10: 20
    The younger one with a volume of 42 liters produced 700 liters. With. for a long time, and the older one with a volume of 44 liters - 800 liters. With. continuously and 1 l. With. on the limit.

    Quite at the level of our post-war diesel engines on the T72 ....
  21. 0
    8 December 2022 11: 26
    and what if we assume the simplest, the manufacturers of tank engines had used and inexpensive gasoline engines for tanks, but there were no used and inexpensive diesel engines, so they put engines in production in tanks, or those that required minimal fine-tuning. why no one is considering this version of the development of events.
    in the USSR, a tank diesel did not appear on its own, but at the direction of the supreme, but in Germany it could not be so, there was a different system.
  22. 0
    8 December 2022 11: 37
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: Andrey1978
    One of the versions was that when ignited, gasoline has less burning time and heat transfer.

    A trick is known with lowering the torch into buckets of gasoline and solarium ... gasoline caught fire, but there was no solarium! Clearly, but this is, in fact, "a cheap trick for a novice magician"! By the way, during the war, there were more tankers who suffered from a solarium fire than from a gasoline fire! The fact is that when gasoline ignited, first of all, gasoline vapors burned, forming a kind of “gasket” between the skin and the flame! In addition, on German gasoline tanks, the tanks were moved to the stern, isolated from the fighting compartment with a fire-resistant partition, automatic fire extinguishing systems were developed ... In the T-34, KV tanks, the fuel tanks were located in the fighting compartment ... here are the tankers on these tanks and suffered more! Few people pay attention to the fact that diesel engines are technologically more complicated, more expensive to manufacture ... they require more scarce alloy steels! For example, the M-17T gasoline engine cost the country 17.000 rubles; and a diesel engine of comparable power - 100.000 (! ) re! The technology for the production of diesel engines was not worked out properly by the beginning of the 40s ... and diesel tanks more often "broke"! (A lot of T-34, KV tanks were just abandoned due to breakdowns of diesel engines during the retreat in the initial period of the war ...)

    When the B-2 was worked out, put into mass production, its cost dropped MUCH. In 1943, the TOTAL labor intensity of manufacturing the T-34 (i.e., the labor intensity of manufacturing a tank with ALL equipment) at plant No. 183 and at ChKZ was about 17500 man-hours, incl. 3700 man-hours 183 factories or ChKZ. The labor intensity of manufacturing a V-2 diesel engine in Chelyabinsk and Barnaul in 1943 was about 3500 man-hours, compared with 11700 man-hours in January 1941 in Kharkov or Stalingrad.
    After working out the manufacturing technology, the transition to conveyor assembly, the cost of the V-2 only fell every year.
    So a comparison of the cost of the serial M-17 engine and, in fact, the still experimental B-2 model of 1940 is not an indicator at all.
  23. 0
    1 December 2023 18: 54
    And why only tanks? - Why wasn’t all equipment, both military and civilian, converted to diesel - for a country exporting oil, is this especially important?