How the Soviet Union looked for a replacement for the V-2 tank diesel engine, but never found it

168
How the Soviet Union looked for a replacement for the V-2 tank diesel engine, but never found it
B-2-34


Searching for an alternative


The twelve-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine acquired the features of a serial product back in 1939. The engine is unique in its own way and for tank quite fit. Recently, a lot of critical materials have appeared about its build quality during the Great Patriotic War and design flaws.



Without going into all the details, one can agree with the opinion of historian Nikita Melnikov, who noted that “the desire of the Soviet leadership to have a modern powerful engine in service far outstripped the design potential and production capabilities of the domestic industry.”

Only these very “production capabilities” occurred at the time of the Nazi occupation of a large part of the Soviet Union, including Kharkov, where the B-2 was planned to be produced. If not for the war, tank diesel in the USSR would have reached its standard not in 1945, but in 1941–1942.

Therefore, it is worth considering the testimony of American experts about the unsuitability of the B-2 for tanks with a fair amount of skepticism. During the war, they tested the T-34 and KV-1 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and came to disappointing conclusions - the weakest link in the vehicles was diesel.

To be fair, neither the Americans nor the Germans would have been able to organize such a complex production of diesel engines under conditions of evacuation into the interior of the country. Practically from scratch, assembly was established during wartime in Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Stalingrad and Barnaul. In places where there was not enough production culture even for relatively simple gasoline engines, not to mention precision diesel engines. And there were always not enough engines - the front devoured everything. Maybe this is why the V-2 began to issue the required warranty life of 250 engine hours only by 1945.

Why is this all?

Moreover, the V-2 tank engine revealed its true potential only after the war, due to getting rid of childhood diseases in normal peaceful conditions. And invaluable experience in combat operation also made it possible to eliminate design flaws. By adopting a diesel engine that was initially difficult to manufacture, Soviet managers provided tank builders with the foundation for modernization for many decades.

But this did not cancel the search for new designs, especially since the B-2 had many shortcomings.

First of all, the dimensions - with a cylinder block angle of 60 degrees, it is difficult to design a low profile of a combat vehicle. For comparison: the Americans have an AVDS-1790-2A diesel engine for the M-60A1 tank with a cylinder angle of 90 degrees. The German MB838 CaM-500 diesel engine for Leopard-1 has a similar design.

We can say that with the adoption of these NATO tanks, domestic diesel engines began to lag behind in technical terms. For example, the Germans on Leopard-1 combined the engine with a cooling system, lubrication and hydromechanical transmission into a single power unit, which greatly simplified the replacement of the unit in the field.

And, of course, the power of imported diesel engines - the Leopard-2’s MB873 Ka-501 engine produced 1 hp on the stand. s., while the newest domestic 500TDF is 5 l. With. And the descendant of the B-700, which traces its ancestry to the B-46, had 2 hp. With. The lag could not be called critical - the arsenal of the Soviet Army included the gas turbine T-780 with a capacity of 80 hp. s., which made it possible to get ahead of some NATO vehicles in terms of power supply.

The Germans can be called the leaders in diesel engine production for tanks. In one of the USSR-era engineering books, the authors admire the successes of their opponents:

“Increasing the working volume of the engine cylinders (cylinder diameter, piston stroke, number of cylinders), as a rule, requires an increase in the dimensions and weight of the engine. However, in the practice of tank engine building there are examples of exceptions to the rules. Thus, when creating the MB873 Ka-501 engine from MTU for the production Leopard-2 tank, the cylinder and piston diameters were increased from 165 to 170 mm and from 155 to 175 mm, respectively, compared to the MB873 Ka-500 engine installed in the prototypes tank, as a result of which the working volume increased by 20 percent. At the same time, the dimensions of the engine remained practically the same, which, however, required a significant change in its design.”


MB873 Ka-501

Let us recall that the working volume of the most modern diesel tank engine V-92S2F does not differ from that of the V-2 and is 38,8 liters. However, increasing the displacement is only one way to increase power and is far from the most effective.

But the Soviet design school has a rich story the search for a replacement for the proven B-2, however, it did not always end in mass production.

Three directions


Diesel engine production literally blossomed after the war.

In Kharkov, at plant No. 75 in a special design bureau, they began to build a two-stroke turbo-piston diesel engine, which would later become 5TDF for T-64 series vehicles. In Chelyabinsk, at SKB-75, among other things, the design of the B-2 was finalized. The Kharkov Design Bureau clearly took the place of the most progressive office; traditionalists worked in Chelyabinsk, although they cannot be denied innovation.

In Barnaul, in turn, the OKB of the transport engineering plant worked on the UTD family - these were four-stroke engines with a cylinder angle of 120 degrees. Since 1964, the UTD-20 became standard for the BMP-1 and has not left domestic infantry fighting vehicles since then.

And these are not all the sites where they worked on tank diesel engines. In particular, their own versions of the B-2 were built at the Ural Turbo Engine Plant in Sverdlovsk. For example, engineers at the local design bureau created the V-14M, whose displacement was increased to 44,3 liters. The first prototype was ready by the beginning of 1945, and its power was 800 hp. With.


UTD-20 is a conditionally tank diesel engine, the design of which does not contain the legacy of the V-2

But let's return to Barnaul, where they built their tank diesel engine under the name UTD-30. The engine copied the V-2 in many ways, for example, the cylinder angle and the number of cylinders in the engines were the same. The unit developed 580 hp. s., which did not differ from the power of the Ural B-55.

The only advantage of the diesel engine from Barnaul was its low heat transfer - otherwise the UTD-30 turned out to be quite trivial. It was eventually recommended as a backup for the new medium tank, but that was the end of the story.


DTN-10

Things were much more interesting with diesel engines for heavy tanks. Let’s not focus on the numerous variations of the B-2, but rather look at some truly unusual ideas.

At the end of the 50s, the DTN-10 was created at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant - this is exactly the case when we are talking about Ural innovation. For compactness, the diesel engine was equipped with ten cylinders in two rows and... two crankshafts were designed. The torque from the two shafts was collected through a gearbox with a coupling. Here, for the first time in the country, a turbocharging powered by exhaust gas energy was used on a diesel engine.

By the way, the modern B-92 series still has drive turbochargers, which limits the growth of diesel power. The DTN-10 turned out to be not only unusual, but also powerful - the unit produced an impressive 1 hp for its time. With. Liter capacity 000 l. With. per liter of working volume significantly exceeded that of the most modern modification of the V-31,2-12B tank diesel engine at that time (6 hp/l.).


2DG-8M

The 2DG-8M diesel engine from the Ural Turbo Engine Plant in Sverdlovsk turned out to be even more interesting.

The engine also had two crankshafts, but there were sixteen cylinders at once! The designers stacked two opposed eight-cylinder diesel engines, and solved the problem of power removal from two shafts by installing a gearbox with a clutch.

If we delve deeper into the design of the unit, it turns out that two diesel DG modules were stacked, which in turn were developed to replace the V-2. Unlike the DTN-10, the 2DG-8M puff engine had a drive turbocharger, and the liter power was 22,1 hp/l. All the tricks were only for the sake of the high overall (liter) power of the unit and small profile. In the best traditions of the Soviet school of tank building, the combat vehicle had to be as low as possible.

As you know, Kharkov engine builders have advanced the furthest in this, creating a two-stroke diesel engine with two crankshafts and counter-moving pistons in horizontally located cylinders. The above-described diesel engines 2DG-8M and DTN-10 were not continued due to the closure of the topic of heavy tanks in the Soviet Union. Similarly, the “long” DGM was unlucky, for which the engineers arranged 12 cylinders oppositely. Here they worked without revolutions, and the engine made do with one crankshaft.

In the early 60s, the star of the Kharkov 5TD rose, which conquered with its lowest height - only 580 mm and an exorbitant liter power of 42,8 hp / l. Only it required a truly aviation-level engine, for which the domestic tank industry had to grow for decades.

In many ways, the sad history of the mentioned replacements of the B-2 series is due to the fact that after the war the diesel engine was developed for a specific promising tank. As soon as they rejected a promising car, they immediately put the diesel project on the shelf. This clearly wasted resources. In addition, work on gas turbine engines was going on in parallel, which did not allow concentrating efforts on diesel issues.

At the same time, the B-2 itself allowed us to ignore promising designs, the potential for modernization of which seemed inexhaustible. And as soon as they realized that the ultra-modern T-64 and its 5TDF were too complex for mass production in wartime, the descendants of the B-2 settled even more firmly in the factories. The time to create a new four-stroke diesel engine was already lost at that time.

As a result, modern Russia does not have an adequate replacement for the B-2 series. It is unknown how much more the most powerful of the serial diesel engines, the V-92S2F, can be developed with the tanks constantly getting heavier.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

168 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +23
    16 January 2024 04: 43
    When entering the Barnaultransmash plant, all newcomers are required to be taken to the plant museum.
    The most impressive exhibits and photos relate to the period of evacuation and start-up of production in winter conditions
    1941-42! A real labor feat. What a culture of production and quality in such extreme conditions! 10% of all engines of the B2 family were produced in Barnaul during the Second World War!
  2. -9
    16 January 2024 05: 05
    “yes, the engine is bad, yes, it was a blunder, but we can always find an objective justification for this”
    As always....
    1. +14
      16 January 2024 06: 53
      The V-2 engine is not bad, it is simply a child of its time, the design of this engine is stuck on the layout solutions of the early 30s of the last century, namely, separate cylinder blocks and a crankcase block. All this is assembled on anchor studs and a bunch of studs and M-6 nuts. For the author of the article, a note: our engines do not have drive turbochargers, there are drive centrifugal superchargers. Something similar may be installed on compound supercharging systems, but this is a completely different story; we have never used it on tank diesel engines. The trouble with the V-2 diesel engine is that it does not have a rigid enough block design, hence increased deformations during operation and low engine life. The engine has long been obsolete, there is a more modern engine of the UTD type, according to its design it makes sense to make tank diesel engines.
      1. +3
        16 January 2024 12: 49
        Quote: 2112vda
        There is a more modern engine of the UTD type; according to its design, it makes sense to make tank diesel engines.
        In my opinion, it's worth a look:
        "Military acceptance. Engines for infantry fighting vehicles" https://youtu.be/oQwe9wzN0po?t=2
        Pay attention to the crankshaft: it is not on liners but on rolling bearings
      2. D16
        +2
        16 January 2024 22: 22
        There is a more modern engine of the UTD type; according to its design, it makes sense to make tank diesel engines.

        UTD has the same silumin blocks. Therefore, you should not rely on high liter power. At that time, the 187-cylinder Chelyabinsk cast iron A-16-85 was installed at facility 2. A shortened version is now installed on Armata. With the same working volume as the V-2, 1500 hp are removed from it.
        1. 0
          17 January 2024 20: 36
          Quote: D16
          UTD has the same silumin blocks.
          The Wright brothers' plane had an engine with a cylinder block made of aluminum alloys. That is, since the flight of the first aircraft, there has been no progress in engine manufacturing. Did I understand correctly?
          There it is, one of these engines has been lying under a fence since then (next to the Kharkov 5TDF) in not at all ideal conditions, but even from this photo it is clear that the cylinder block is aluminum (in addition to the exhaust manifolds, which are beet-colored in the photo, perhaps they are cast iron )
          1. +2
            17 January 2024 20: 50
            The time for correcting the sent message was too short. Sometimes you don’t immediately see mistakes in an already published message. As in this case, I did not specifically indicate which engine, what lies under the fence, we are talking about. This is an X-shaped Chelyabinsk A-85-2 engine with a power of 1200 hp. s, which was tested together with a hydrostatic transmission at facility 187
            1. D16
              +1
              18 January 2024 07: 55
              I didn't understand what kind of motor this was from the picture. To be honest, I didn’t think that it could just stand under the fence, especially in the sixteen-cylinder version. Only a few of them were released. Unlike V-2, the crankcase and blocks 2B are made of cast iron. I can’t immediately find where I read about this, but the weight of the 12N360 of 1550 kg versus 1020 for the B-84 speaks indirectly about this.
              1. +2
                18 January 2024 10: 23
                This is A-85-2. Photo from the same landfill where objects 187 are located. But it is a 12-cylinder. The 16-cylinder version of this engine line was installed on the Object 219RD. This is a T-80 with a 2V-16-2 engine.. Developed by the St. Petersburg people at the same time as the Kharkovites with their T-80 with 6TDF
                But the parameters of the 16-cylinder version of the engine were much worse than its 12-cylinder version
                Object 219RD
                1. D16
                  +1
                  18 January 2024 21: 00
                  The NNP on ob.187 was also 2V16-2. For this purpose, its body was lengthened. And the 2B12 was made after its tests according to the wishes of the military.
                  But the parameters of the 16-cylinder version of the engine were much worse than its 12-cylinder version

                  I read somewhere that at first it was naturally aspirated, but the TK received 2V12.
                  1. +1
                    18 January 2024 21: 19
                    Quote: D16
                    The NNP on ob.187 was also 2V16-2. For this purpose, its body was lengthened. And the 2B12 was made after its tests according to the wishes of the military.
                    I was confused by different names for the same engine. The A-85-2 seems to have 16 cylinders, and the A-85-3 has 12 cylinders. In appearance, the 16-cylinder block is cast iron. (https://alternathistory.ru/obekt-187-kakim-mog-byt-t-90/)
                    1. D16
                      0
                      18 January 2024 21: 34
                      Well, yes. Silumin would be lighter than the B-84. Carter and KV are half as long, all other things being equal. And it is one and a half times heavier.
          2. D16
            +1
            17 January 2024 22: 11
            Since the flight of the first aircraft, there has been no progress in engine manufacturing. Did I understand correctly?

            Aviation diesel RED A03 V-12 has a power of 500 hp. with a dry weight of 363 kg (with gearbox) and a working volume of 6.134 l. Moreover, its blocks are made of high-strength aluminum alloy. Compression ratio 16:1. So there are changes. smile
            1. 0
              21 January 2024 15: 22
              And what is its size, rpm and average piston speed?
              1. D16
                0
                21 January 2024 15: 51
                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_A03
                1. 0
                  21 January 2024 16: 33
                  Yes, its average piston speed is even lower than that of the V-2, which means it is boosted by boost. (I considered the continuous mode to be 460 hp, 3750 rpm).
                  It is clear that an intercooler was needed, which, by the way, is not available on the B-92
                  1. D16
                    0
                    21 January 2024 17: 00
                    It is clear that an intercooler was needed, which, by the way, is not available on the B-92

                    Everything has already been squeezed out of him. RED's cylinder block is clearly not made of silumin. I wouldn't be surprised if it's forging.
                    1. 0
                      21 January 2024 17: 01
                      In addition to silumins, there are aluminum cast alloys that are stronger.
                      And the average effective pressure is also not exorbitant 1,8 MPa.
                      1. D16
                        0
                        21 January 2024 17: 32
                        It's the same size as an automobile, and they hardly bothered with replaceable sleeves.
                      2. 0
                        21 January 2024 18: 10
                        Of course, probably a hard coating on aluminum.
                      3. D16
                        0
                        21 January 2024 18: 12
                        Our soldiers are conservative in this regard.
                      4. 0
                        21 January 2024 18: 41
                        . Our soldiers are conservative in this regard.

                        Maybe not only ours. I don't know if there are sleeves on the MTU880.
                        And for some reason the 890 series died out. But just recently they said that this downsizing is the future of tank diesel production.
                      5. +1
                        21 January 2024 19: 49
                        I found a cross section of MTU883, after all, it is sleeved.
      3. 0
        21 January 2024 15: 21
        . There is a more modern engine of the UTD type; according to its design, it makes sense to make tank diesel engines.

        UTD is also morally outdated. This is especially true for the central articulation of connecting rods a la Maybach. The circuit must be taken from YaMZ-240.
        1. D16
          0
          21 January 2024 17: 45
          IMHO the forked connecting rod is not the biggest problem with the UTD.
          1. 0
            21 January 2024 18: 16
            .IMHO the fork connecting rod is not the biggest problem of the UTD.

            Fair. The central connecting rod has a tribotechnical problem: low sliding speed, passing through zero, which does not contribute to achieving hydrodynamic lubrication, and short length. The forked one has excessive bending stresses due to its configuration.
            1. D16
              0
              21 January 2024 21: 31
              tribotechnical problem: low sliding speed passing through zero

              But the timing drive is on straight gears. wink Although I don’t really understand how the sliding speed of the fork and central connecting rod bearing on the same crank pin differs.
              1. 0
                22 January 2024 13: 10
                The forked one has a solid long lower head, and the central one works along its outer surface.
                The connecting rods standing next to each other (YaMZ-240, “470”, I’m mentioning those that have large-diameter main roller bearings) work at the same speed along the crankshaft journal.
                1. D16
                  0
                  22 January 2024 22: 58
                  I looked at the picture. I thought the fork and central ones had their own bearings on the CV crankpin. And so the central one is lubricated worse.
                  1. 0
                    24 January 2024 03: 49
                    The fork legs are pulled together by the lower head (detachable), otherwise it would be really bad.
                    1. D16
                      0
                      24 January 2024 07: 39
                      But everything is symmetrical and the HF crankpin is more comfortable. laughing
    2. +7
      16 January 2024 08: 16
      Quote from ivan_zaitcew
      "yes, the engine is bad, yes, it was a blunder

      The Reich did not have such a “bad” tank engine. They say they didn’t need it, because the Kriegsmarine needed diesel fuel. And this nonsense fool replicated from article to article. But for some reason these liberal “experts” did not think about the question, why did the Germans manage to find fuel for one hundred thousand of their diesel trucks? This is called a good face on a bad game. My opinion is that the production of the B-2 is simply a feat of the young Stalinist industry. Not every country, especially one that experienced civil war and devastation, was capable of this.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +7
          16 January 2024 10: 41
          Quote from ivan_zaitcew
          Germany was even more devastated

          Complete nonsense! According to the Treaty of Versailles (not capitulation, mind you), Germany practically did not lose any of its territories. Even Polish Silesia and Pomerania and cities such as Danzig, Breslau, Stettin and so on remained with the Germans. Then I’ll pose the question this way: what large German enterprise was destroyed by the Entente? Or maybe there was a civil war in Germany?
          1. -12
            16 January 2024 13: 22
            That's it, nonsense!!! The Treaty of Versailles was signed after the surrender of Germany, and not instead of it. What does this have to do with territories? What large Russian enterprise was destroyed by the Entente?
          2. -14
            16 January 2024 13: 36
            Germany was devastated by reparations. Your beloved, “unique” V-2 is a diesel conversion of the M-17, which, in turn, is a licensed copy of the BMW-VI. Incl. The Wehrmacht had just such engines, and the USSR, with its “Stalinist industry,” copied them.
            1. Alf
              +8
              16 January 2024 20: 33
              Quote from ivan_zaitcew
              and the USSR, with its “Stalinist industry,” copied them.

              What else could the USSR do, if we remember that there were no engine factories in the dancing and crispy bun of the Republic of Ingushetia? From the word Va-a-shche. And these factories appeared only during the time of the “bloody tyrant”.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. 0
                        21 January 2024 21: 00
                        Right! It didn't work out.
                      4. 0
                        22 January 2024 14: 14
                        So your hypothesis is that the Stalinists wanted to kill themselves against the wall?
                      5. -1
                        22 January 2024 14: 18
                        I'm not putting forward any hypotheses. I present the facts.
                      6. 0
                        22 January 2024 14: 21
                        About the gratuitous confiscation of grain from peasants and the killing of entire villages?
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +1
                    23 January 2024 11: 31
                    Quote from: ln_ln
                    Did they just take it away? And they didn’t give you tractors in return?

                    I’ll take action: collective farmers tractors were given under Khrushchev. After which they mostly began to turn into scrap metal.
                    And initially, tractors and other equipment were given to a purely technical structure - the MTS system - from which peasant collective farms rented them as needed, concluding contracts for land cultivation and other services. As they would say today, agricultural machinery is outsourced.
            2. D16
              +3
              16 January 2024 22: 09
              The B-2 is a diesel conversion of the M-17, which, in turn, is a licensed copy of the BMW-VI.

              And what do you find in them in common with the B-2, except that they are all internal combustion engines? laughing
              1. +1
                17 January 2024 01: 25
                Nobody seems to question the fact that the B-2 is a diesel modernization of the M-17; this is the completely official story of its creation.
                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В-2
                1. D16
                  +3
                  17 January 2024 07: 57
                  Sometimes it's better not to quote Wikipedia.
                  It can be said that the Lada Vesta is a remake of the Fiat 124. laughing
                  In the process of "remaking" the B-2 received
                  1. Another dimension.
                  2. Cylinder blocks, which were not present on the M-17.
                  3. 2 camshafts on each cylinder head (DOHC) and four valves per cylinder to speed up gas exchange.
                  4. Fundamentally different TA
                  And the only common features that remain are the casting of the crankcase from silumin, the presence of a crankshaft and pistons. lol
                  The USSR, with its “Stalinist industry,” copied them in a very unique way. At that time, the B-2 was truly “ahead of the rest.” wink
                  1. -4
                    17 January 2024 09: 19
                    Yes, this is called deep modernization.
                    Did you not know?
                    1. D16
                      +3
                      17 January 2024 13: 40
                      This is called bullshit that Wikipedians like to talk about the “damned scoop” and the “gloomy Teutonic genius”. Well, you spread it to the best of your ability. lol
                      1. -3
                        17 January 2024 14: 22
                        Well, expose this vile conspiracy. Give quotes and links to how the B-2 was actually created, so that it can be seen from them that it had nothing to do with imported engines.
                      2. D16
                        +1
                        17 January 2024 21: 43
                        The wiki provides a link to Viktor Berezin’s article “On the way to B-2”. It clearly states that this was a completely new development, made from scratch. It’s just that someone really wanted to grab the BMW-6 by the ears.
                      3. +1
                        18 January 2024 01: 27
                        The wiki provides a link to Viktor Berezin’s article “On the way to B-2”.

                        Berezkina.
                        It clearly states that this was a completely new development, made from scratch.

                        There is a lot written there that related to the creation of the B-2 only indirectly. UNIADI, CIAM, whatever - but not about the creation of B-2 itself. For example, the work of the person who actually created the B-2, who was the Chief Designer of the project, Konstantin Fedorovich Chelpan, is mentioned in passing - once at the beginning, then it is casually written that he received an order, and twice that he was imprisoned, and the author doesn’t know that he was imprisoned as part of a “Greek operation”, and not because there were problems with the engine.
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Греческая_операция_НКВД
                        As for "it was a completely new development, made from scratch"
                        Nothing of the kind is said there; the exact opposite is stated there.
                        These considerations led to the idea of ​​using aircraft engine liquid cooling - light, powerful and high-speed - as a prototype tank diesel.

                        The author just did not directly indicate that he was talking specifically about the M-17.
                        The article says nothing at all about the creation of the B-2 itself and the work of the chief designer of the engine; the author immediately moves from the task to a description of its design, and then we talk about its fine-tuning and preparation for mass production, generously flavoring this with secondary information.
                        I’ll tell you a secret - at the beginning of the war in 1941-1942, the T-34 was produced in fairly large quantities at several factories, not only with the V-2 diesel engine, but also with its gasoline prototype, the M-17 engine, although, of course, it just fell into place You can’t install a gasoline diesel engine - the power supply system, cooling, and so on required changes, especially since many engines were taken in the aviation version after repair, removed from aircraft. In some cases, there was parallel production - whatever type was available, that was the one they installed.
                      4. D16
                        0
                        18 January 2024 22: 48
                        The author just did not directly indicate that he was talking specifically about the M-17.

                        The M-17 was not the first aviation V12 in the USSR. Before it there was the M-5, which was installed in the BT-5. By the way, BD-2 was made to replace it. And in 31, CIAM was already developing the AN-1. And in my service, I’ve seen enough of both the M-401 (AN-1 with TK) and the 3D12 (deformed V-2). 3D12 is a much cheaper M-401 in 15x16 dimensions. But it is obvious that the same solutions were used there. But the relationship with the M-17 is not visible at all.
                        Konstantin Fedorovich Chelpan is mentioned in passing there - once at the beginning, then it is casually written that he received the order

                        Chubais probably also has government awards laughing
                        I don’t care why he was formally shot. In April '37 “Varangians” from CIAM came to KhPZ and made 2000 changes to the design, and also took part in its testing and fine-tuning.
                        I'll tell you a secret

                        I'll tell you another secret. The M4 Sherman tank was equipped with 5 power plant options. From the star-shaped Continental to the Multibank of five six-cylinder engines. This was normal practice.
                    2. 0
                      5 March 2024 07: 08
                      My God, they are all specialist mechanics! Have you ever designed engines yourself? All of our motorists are “major specialists” in the field of piston engine construction, and in all areas of engine application. Damn, there’s no one to send. Read the wiki less.
                2. +1
                  21 January 2024 15: 28
                  . This is quite the official story of its creation.
                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В-2

                  There is nothing official on Wikipedia. And about tank transmissions there is just cruel nonsense.
            3. 0
              21 January 2024 13: 59
              The B-2 has nothing to do with the BMW-VI. In it you can find similarities of some solutions with Hispano-Suiza. Connecting rod caps on pins, camshaft drive, valves.
            4. 0
              18 February 2024 17: 12
              Yes, sir, your level of intelligence does not allow you to hope for a constructive conversation. Such nonsense to skimp!
            5. 0
              18 February 2024 17: 12
              Yes, sir, your level of intelligence does not allow you to hope for a constructive conversation. Such nonsense to skimp!
        2. +4
          16 January 2024 16: 10
          Quote from ivan_zaitcew
          Germany was further devastated

          Did the Civil War last longer on the territory of the Reich than on the territory of the USSR? wink
          Quote from ivan_zaitcew
          and also limited to Versailles

          What does Versailles have to do with civilian products, which formally are trucks?
        3. +5
          16 January 2024 16: 49
          Quote from ivan_zaitcew
          The “feat” of Stalin’s industry means hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions of ruined human lives!


          Millions. Even hundreds of millions. Since you started to lie, do it according to Goebbels’ precepts, the more monstrous, the faster they will believe :)
          1. -2
            17 January 2024 19: 26
            Judging by such a hysterical reaction, am I dealing with a descendant of one of Stalin’s executioners? Tired of being ashamed? I can't help you... (
            1. +1
              22 January 2024 19: 38
              Zaytsev, you are apparently just a Ukrainian clown, with your famine, boy, go and rip your ass with a Maltese cross, don’t stop the stupid person from talking to smart people
              1. -2
                22 January 2024 22: 49
                You, “smart person”, I see you’ve already been torn!))) Veteran!
            2. 0
              22 January 2024 19: 38
              Zaytsev, you are apparently just a Ukrainian clown, with your famine, boy, go and rip your ass with a Maltese cross, don’t stop the stupid person from talking to smart people
          2. 0
            18 January 2024 10: 42
            Quote: abc_alex
            Since you started to lie, do it according to Goebbels’ precepts, the more monstrous, the faster they will believe :)

            I’ll take action:
            It was not Joseph who wrote about belief in a monstrous lie, but Adolf himself in his programmatic work. And he wrote this as part of his criticism of his political opponents, who use this technique to denigrate Ludendorff:
            They tried to put General Ludendorff in charge of the lost war. Here one has to say frankly: all the shamelessness of the Jews and all the brass forehead of the Marxists are needed to dare to throw the responsibility on precisely that person who alone in all of Germany fought with the greatest exertion of strength, with almost inhuman energy, to save Germany from disgrace. , humiliation and disaster. But the Jews and Marxists knew what they were doing. By attacking Ludendorff, they thereby paralyzed a possible attack by Ludendorff on themselves, for Ludendorff alone could become the most dangerous accuser for them, he alone had all the data to successfully expose the traitors. That is why the traitors hastened to wrest from Ludendorff's hands his moral weapon.

            These gentlemen proceeded from the correct calculation that the more monstrously you lie, the sooner they will believe you. Ordinary people are more likely to believe big lies than small ones. This corresponds to their primitive soul. They know that they themselves are capable of lying in small things, but they will probably be embarrassed to lie very much. Big lies don't even cross their minds. That is why the masses cannot imagine that others would be capable of too monstrous a lie, of too shamelessly distorting the facts. And even when it is explained to them that this is a lie of monstrous proportions, they will still continue to doubt and will tend to believe that there is probably some truth in it. That is why virtuosos of lies and entire parties built solely on lies always resort to this method. These liars are well aware of this property of the mass. Lie only harder - let something of your lies remain.
        4. Alf
          0
          16 January 2024 20: 34
          Quote from ivan_zaitcew
          millions of ruined human lives!

          Billions
      2. +4
        16 January 2024 16: 07
        Quote: Proxima
        The Reich did not have such a “bad” tank engine.

        The Germans had tank diesels. The same MB 507 "Daimler-Benz". Plus Porsche Sla 16. Plus Tatra diesel Typ 103 for Czech chassis based on 38t.
        But, firstly, the Maybach monopolist reigned in tank engines, closely allied with the Armaments Directorate (which entered its engines into the TTT for new tanks). And, secondly, no one would have allowed the logistics and OHS of tank formations to be screwed up during the war for new fuel.
        1. 0
          22 January 2024 19: 43
          I may not know about the singing of Maybach, but at that time in the United States the Ministry of Defense chose one Allison aircraft engine (it seems) purely from practical decisions on logistics, repairs and supply of spare parts. And although the engine was not very good, it was accepted as the main one for the Air Force.
      3. +2
        16 January 2024 21: 12
        Quote: Proxima
        The Reich did not have such a “bad” tank engine. They say they didn’t need it, because the Kriegsmarine needed diesel fuel. And this fool’s nonsense is replicated from article to article.

        I don’t know what you’re arguing about here, but the reason for using gasoline engines in German tanks is well known. This is a liter capacity. A gasoline engine with equal power is less than a diesel engine.
        1. 0
          21 January 2024 14: 07
          That's it! Less!
          And this made it possible not to install fuel tanks in habitable compartments.
    3. +4
      16 January 2024 11: 58
      Or maybe it’s something bad for you? The B2 is an excellent engine, created in difficult times, when the USSR was lagging behind in everything. There is no technology without drawbacks.
  3. +2
    16 January 2024 05: 15
    I think that now our engine building school is not up to par. Have we designed many new, modern engines, for example, for passenger cars? I mean new ones, not modernized ones. This is visible in all areas. And in aviation, where if new units appear, it is with difficulty, and with long fine-tuning, elimination of shortcomings. And in shipbuilding. Naturally, tank building is no exception. On the other hand, the B-2 was so good that its modern modifications are still quite on par.
    1. +4
      16 January 2024 06: 55
      Engine tuning is a costly and time-consuming process in any country, without this there is nowhere in engine building.
    2. Alf
      +3
      16 January 2024 20: 35
      Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
      Have we designed many new, modern engines, for example, for passenger cars?

      However, like the passenger cars themselves...
    3. 0
      21 January 2024 14: 10
      Well, not at all up to par. Even the oil seals on the valves are not installed. It's burning oil.
      1. 0
        22 January 2024 17: 53
        Even the oil seals on the valves are not installed. It's burning oil.
        He also eats diesel fuel. But this is absolutely not important. Military technology is not about saving money. The internal combustion engine of a combat vehicle must be reliable, and this cannot be taken away from the B-2, and as maintainable as possible. Compared to Western models, the engine is at its best here too.
        1. 0
          22 January 2024 21: 39
          .Military equipment is not about saving.

          It's not about saving money. In war, any supply is a problem. And oil too. And on V-2 you don’t need to change it, just top it up.
          And the caustic exhaust when moving in a column is not a gift.
          By using long-known and not too complex design solutions, this could be avoided.
          Electronic control is definitely not needed on an engine for military equipment; this is the only thing that blows your mind on Western engines.
          1. 0
            25 January 2024 13: 56
            He served as a conscript on MAZ 543, as part of the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR. On the car was the same old, good B-2. The exhaust in the column was absolutely not felt. Solarium consumption - yes. But we didn't worry about it. And the maintenance took place in one of the technical regiments. Once a year. And they changed our oil there too. Once a year. smile
  4. +10
    16 January 2024 05: 41
    At one time he ran a workshop for repairing V-6 engines. Ship version B-2. The engine is excellent. Does not require great qualifications from repairmen. It also still has great modernization potential.
    Miracles do not happen; all piston engines have almost the same design of the cylinder-piston group. The only differences are in the ratio of the cylinder diameter to the piston stroke, long or short.
    You can experiment endlessly with the rest.
  5. +1
    16 January 2024 06: 16
    During the war they tested the T-34 and KV-1 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and came to disappointing conclusions – the weakest link of the cars turned out to be diesel.

    The T-34 and its B-2 proved their suitability and effectiveness to the whole world by the defeat of “high-tech” Europe led by a demoniac on the ruins of Berlin in 1945.
    And until 1991, the Americans themselves were just as afraid of the atomic bomb as they were of the Soviet tank armies, the main engine of which were the descendants of the “worthless” B-2. To the article and the author - bold "-"
  6. +8
    16 January 2024 06: 27
    The most unusual and interesting machines for me with the V2, or more precisely, its civilian version 2D12, are the first heavy excavators of the Voronezh plant, such as the two-cube E-2004 and cranes based on it. It's no joke, originally developed as an aircraft engine, this engine ended up on equipment that could barely crawl at a speed of 2 km/h. But at that time it was the only sufficiently powerful serial engine in the country; the truly tractor KDM-46 was not yet ready. But ours did not install a composite power plant, which, for example, the Americans loved. So the winning motor also contributed to the post-war reconstruction of the country.
    At the same time, a crane and an excavator were probably the worst options for a B2, even a deformed one. This motor is initially designed for long-term operation at full load and at high operating temperatures, only then is the design thermal clearances established and the oil appetite is relatively normalized. On construction equipment, he worked in a “ragged” mode with constant load surges from idle to full load (excavator) and prolonged idling (crane), which was the least favorable mode for him.
    And back in the mid-90s, after a fire at the KamAZ engine plant, Barnaul diesel D6 ended up on MARZ buses from the Michurinsk plant. Those cars were distinguished by noise and bluish smoke from two exhaust pipes.
    1. 0
      16 January 2024 15: 35
      Quote: Corvair
      originally developed as an aircraft

      Initially, as a tank one to replace the aviation one installed on BT tanks. And aluminum due to the backwardness of the industry, which did not allow the production of cast iron blocks without an exorbitant amount of defects. Aluminum, due to its higher thermal conductivity and heat transfer, made it possible to simplify the technology of uniform cooling of the casting.
      1. +7
        16 January 2024 17: 06
        Quote: mat-vey
        Initially, as a tank one to replace the aviation one installed on BT tanks. And aluminum due to the backwardness of the industry, which did not allow the production of cast iron blocks without an exorbitant amount of defects. Aluminum, due to its higher thermal conductivity and heat transfer, made it possible to simplify the technology of uniform cooling of the casting.


        You've got something wrong. Or rather, we haven’t fully figured it out.
        For Soviet industry, an aluminum cylinder block was much more complex than ANY cast iron one. First of all, because throughout the entire USSR there was only ONE aluminum production center and that was in Ukraine. There was a terrible shortage of aluminum, which is why our aircraft were mostly made of wood. The advantages of aluminum are unconditional and understandable, but it is not correct to explain its choice by technological backwardness.
        The reason was that the tank and aircraft engines were supposed to be made within the same project. And until 1938, specialists regularly traveled from Moscow, where Charomsky made aviation diesel, to Kharkov to solve problems. But in 1938, the engine failed during testing. Without even completing the minimum program. The decision was then made extremely harshly; the developers were subjected to repression. The main ones were shot. I do not undertake to assess the adequacy of such actions, but there is no doubt that the failure of the tank diesel engine was largely determined by a subjective factor - competition between two design bureaus and inconsistency in the actions of the engineering staff.
        After this, the development of the tank engine was completely entrusted to the Charomsky Design Bureau. And due to the extremely tight deadlines, it was decided not to understand the Ukrainian homemade product, but to directly borrow ready-made components from the aircraft engine.
        So the V-2 is more of an aviation diesel engine adapted for a tank.

        This, by the way, did not make everyone optimistic. EMNIP in 1940 received a letter to the Central Committee condemning the very idea of ​​putting aviation diesel in tanks from scarce aluminum. Instead, it was proposed to create a range of tank engines with power from 100 to 500 hp based on ready-made tractor engines. The Central Committee, which is typical, listened and allocated funds for the development. But the war began.
        1. +2
          16 January 2024 17: 38
          Quote: abc_alex
          So the V-2 is more of an aviation diesel engine adapted for a tank.

          V-2. Unfortunately, the link and document are lost, but there is a work where the history of the creation of V-2 is considered in all aspects and details. The cylinder block has a complex multi-chamber structure and, due to uneven cooling after casting, the cast iron one had a multiple excess of defects compared to aluminum .Charomsky developed his aviation independently, but later they also began to attract him to the tank to speed up work. Zharkovsky was not “homemade”; it was immediately a tank, but to replace the aviation one for the tank. In parallel, a similar fuel system was developed (essentially copied) Bosch. This was directly stated in those instructions.
          This topic was already discussed at VO, then I had a handy source... The tank was initially developed as a universal block, on the basis of which it would be possible to produce a line from 2 to 12 cylinders, including in-line ones for tractors.
          1. +4
            16 January 2024 17: 50
            Yes Yes Yes. You absolutely correctly described the project as it was conceived. As it was planned. But I repeat, the Kharkov motor did not take place. In 1938, it completely failed in tests. I don’t remember exactly, but it was just a nightmare. The samples simply did not work or went to waste. There was simply no engine.
            After this, the entire development team was removed from the project and specialists from Moscow left for Kharkov. And they made a wild number of changes to the design. I also don’t have a source at hand, but I remember it’s almost more than 1000. In fact, the motor was simply created from scratch based not on Kharkov developments, but on an aircraft engine from Moscow. Well, Tupolev later did the same thing by “upgrading” the Tu-22 to the Tu-22M. :)
            1. 0
              17 January 2024 02: 23
              the Kharkov motor did not take place. In 1938, it completely failed in tests. I don’t remember exactly, but it was just a nightmare.

              You don't remember very much.
              The B-2 was created on the basis of the M-17 gasoline aircraft engine under the leadership of Chelpan.
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В-2
              At the first stage it was called BD-2 (later called V-2), passed official state tests and was installed on the BT-5. At the same time, a decision was made to mass produce it, while improvements continued in different versions.
              Under the leadership of Chelpan, the V-2 aluminum tank diesel engine was created, which was installed in the T-34 tank and other vehicles. For the development of the engine, the engineer received the Order of Lenin and the title of Chief Designer in 1935.[4].

              Chelpan’s execution had nothing to do with the engine; he was shot as part of a “Greek operation.”
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Греческая_операция_НКВД
              Chupakhin, appointed instead of him, had previously worked under the leadership of Chelpan, and was not sent to replace him.
              There was no engine failure during testing.
              Management of the preparation of serial production was entrusted to I.Ya. Trashutin and T.P. Chupakhin. By the end of 1937, a new, improved tank diesel engine, which by that time had received the designation B-2, was installed on the test bench. State tests carried out in April-May 1938 (Chelpan was shot on March 11) showed that it was possible to begin small-scale production, which was led by S.N. Makhonin. In 1938, KhPZ produced 50 V-2 tank engines
              1. +2
                18 January 2024 02: 48
                Quote from solar
                You don't remember very much.

                On the contrary, it’s been a long time since I’ve been captivated by the Soviet mythology of the issue. :) And you just have a fairly common and greatly simplified version of events.
                I’ll jump right out, I didn’t say ANYTHING about the reasons for Chelpan’s execution. I only said that the developers were subjected to repression.
                Next, you have a very simplified version of the history of the emergence of a powerful tank diesel engine in the USSR. If only because in the early 30s it was made by at least 4 different organizations. Including two in Kharkov. And also in Moscow and Leningrad. And for example, a single module for KhPZ was manufactured by a completely different organization, and until this organization was joined to KhPZ with diesel it was a mess.

                Quote from solar
                At the first stage it was called BD-2 (later called V-2), passed official state tests and was installed on the BT-5. At the same time, a decision was made to mass produce it, while improvements continued in different versions.


                Once again, you have a simplified version. Yes, in 1937, the first batch of 14 engines was manufactured at KhPZ, and even a tank was tested with one of them. But the trouble is, ALL the manufactured motors turned out to be substandard. Their parameters “walked” from instance to instance. The motors did not meet the technical specifications and did not fully comply with the drawings and therefore could not be accepted for mass production. That is why BT tanks never received diesel engines either in 1937 or in 1938. When they began to find out the reasons, they came to the conclusion that KhPZ was simply fooling around and was not capable of mass-producing diesel engines. The investigation showed a lack of experience in working with high-speed diesel engines and the corresponding technical production culture; insufficient attention of the management of plant No. 183 and its diesel department to the production of tank diesel engines, which, in the absence of an independent base, were assembled in the workshop where heavy T-35 tanks, large locomotive units, and couplings for submarines were produced; duration of development of diesel parts by cooperative plants. There was and could not be any series on KhPZ. The motors were actually made at home.

                Systemic administrative measures were taken. Among them is the separation of the diesel section into a separate plant. And from Charomsky’s laboratory at plant 138 they sent senior design engineer T.P. Chupakhin and technologist M.P. Poddubny. It was they who, after the arrest of Chelpan and the shake-up of the administration, became the head of the plant and deputy chief engineer for fine-tuning the tank diesel engine. In addition, ten additional design engineers and technologists were seconded to plant No. 183.

                You may ask, what does Charomsky have to do with this? He has an aircraft engine. But the thing is that in 1936 his AN-1 was already in the metal. And according to the Decree of the Labor and Defense Council (STO) of May 23, 1936, the AN-1 diesel engine was to be installed in the T-35 heavy tank, mass production of which was organized at KhPZ. On July 26, 1936, working drawings of the AN-1 were received from CIAM, and on January 16, 1937, one copy of the diesel engine was received. But after the first experiments, it turned out that the powerful torque of the diesel engine would require such a volume of changes to the tank that it was comparable to the development of a new car. And the dimensions of the engine weren’t particularly suitable either. So it was from Charomsky’s laboratories that KhPZ had experience of working together.

                So, having taken the first measures to organize essentially a new production, the “Muscovites” assembled three copies according to ready-made drawings and carried out full tests in May 1938. And they ended in outright collapse. All three engines failed during testing in 1938. The first one had a jammed piston, the second one had cracked cylinders, and the third one had a cracked crankcase. This meant that there was simply no engine. And it was then that a ton of changes were made that essentially changed the entire engine. And I remind you that serious “business” was going on at the plant at that time and it was necessary to act extremely quickly. Therefore, we use solutions from the Mokov engine and the experience of its development. As a result, the engines worked during tests from May 10 to June 3, 1939. And based on the test results, a set of documentation was prepared for launch into series.

                These engines were installed on the A-8 tank and carried out full field tests. On them, the motor showed a lot of positive aspects, some of which are inherent more in a mature design than in a product that two years ago did not even exist as a standard. For example, B-2 showed exceptional temperature stability. Average water temperatures were in the range of 69–85 °C, oil temperatures were 49–64 °C at the inlet and 67–83 °C at the outlet. The average daily air temperature ranged from 15,7 to 23 °C.
                In 2nd gear at 1300 rpm, the A-8 could cruise for hours. Thanks to the high performance of the water pump and good cooling of water in the radiators, the A-8 ensured stable water temperature even when the water system was more than half full.

                Agree, it doesn’t look very much like a crude engine whose crankcase was falling apart. And here I will remind you again: Charomsky’s engine was ready already in 1936...

                So it's not that simple :)
                1. 0
                  22 January 2024 19: 56
                  The old truth - a kind word and a boot with a special revolver improve both productivity and quality
  7. +3
    16 January 2024 06: 38
    Quote from ivan_zaitcew
    “yes, the engine is bad, yes, it was a blunder, but we can always find an objective justification for this”
    As always....

    Yap, yap, yap!!!
    Engines In the series, the best tank engines in history, which demonstrated their outstanding qualities in the most severe conditions! And, by the way, the engine began to provide a service life of 250 - 300 hours not in 45, but already at the end of 43. When the 75th plant was finally evacuated.
    In general, calling a car unsuccessful, the power of which during the development process managed to be increased THREE times, is at least stupid.
    By the way, simply replacing the monitoring station with a turbocharger will allow you to return a couple of hundred horses to the shaft.
  8. +9
    16 January 2024 06: 42
    The article is not bad, but well-mannered people, when posting notes, usually indicate the title of the work being taken notes:
    Zubov, “Tank Engines”, in two parts, Moscow, Informtekhnika, 1991.
    1. +2
      17 January 2024 00: 11
      I'll correct you a little. Excerpts from the second part of the book, “the post-war period,” which was published in 1995, are published here. A strange book, it describes more about the gas turbine engine and 5TDF, 6TD and engines of the UTD series. And about engines like V-2 and beyond, it’s very superficial. The table indicates that the V-84M engine was installed on the T-72M, and it was installed on the T-72B and its variants. In 1983, it was experimental and had the A-65 brand. Were there persecutions against EDP in those years? were facing bankruptcy, so it is not surprising that such a book appeared.
  9. +3
    16 January 2024 06: 53
    Quote: V.
    It also still has great modernization potential.

    Alas, the increase in power from 400 to 1200 has practically exhausted this resource. The last thing you can do is replace the monitoring station with a turbine and return these couple of hundred horses to the shaft.
    The aviation heritage of the series has one weak point, the small diameter of the lower bushing of the trailing connecting rod, and the main direction of engine development is an increase in the diameters of the crankshaft connecting rod journals.
    On the other hand, its 1200, and taking into account the losses on the supercharging drive 1400-1500 hp. The motor produces a 1000 hour resource.
    In terms of dimensions, in principle, everything is not so bad; the difference in height of the B-46 and 5TDF did not prevent the T-72 from performing MTO at the same height as the T-64.
    1. 0
      21 January 2024 14: 37
      The turbo has already been installed. As a result, 1130 hp. With. And even then rather on paper.
      I completely agree with the criticism of trailed connecting rods. It's a fossil. Like the central connecting rods on the UTD.
      'The circuit is needed both on the YaMZ-240 and the Kharkov "470".
      And monoblocks, like on the ship's "Stars".
  10. +2
    16 January 2024 06: 56
    Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
    in aviation, where if new units appear, it is with difficulty, and with a long fine-tuning, eliminating defects.

    Under the most favorable conditions, the full development period for a new aircraft engine is now 20 - 30 years. What we have, what the Americans have, what the English and French have.
  11. +3
    16 January 2024 07: 58
    Quote: V.
    At one time he ran a workshop for repairing V-6 engines. Ship version B-2. The engine is excellent. Does not require high qualifications from repairmen.


    I wrote, and I’ll say it again: Leopards are taken to Lithuania for maintenance, but ours are serviced “on the spot”
  12. +1
    16 January 2024 08: 35
    I would venture to remind the author that the V-2 tank diesel engines were created almost in parallel with the aviation ACh, and, one might say, on the same basis. So already in the 30s. “aircraft engine” technologies were required for the production of tank diesel. What do you want? Diesels were then used mainly on ships and diesel locomotives. And here you need to stuff everything into what is actually a small “armored box”, which is also quite compressed in terms of weight (albeit not as rigidly as an airplane).

    The Leopard-2 diesel is probably good. However, judging by the problems with repairs of both Leopradov-2 and Challengers, the “low-resource” descendants of the V-2 and the “capricious” 5TD/6TD win outright. The engine in the same block with the transmission is presented as an alleged advantage. But think about it - how many of these spare units will you have in wartime, which cost a third of the entire machine? And is it really so rational to change the second one because of problems with one of the components? Did you have to pick out the silent blocks from the levers?
    1. +3
      16 January 2024 09: 50
      Who told you that the block is being thrown away? They removed the unit and installed a new one, the equipment went to the front and is working as intended. The unit was moved to a workshop (think about it, it can be mobile and there is everything for repairing the unit and sterility and a master and tools and warmth), the breakdown was repaired and put into storage. Factory repairs depend on the craftsman; if it’s a hand job, then they take the entire unit to the factory, if it’s not a hand job, then...
      Watch the video in what conditions equipment is being repaired on the front line... the organizers' hands are being torn off, people are in the mud, sometimes in the open air, what kind of quality is there?
      A repair base is: 1 - tools, 2 - workplace/warehouse, etc., 3 - CLEANLINESS and warmth (even if it’s hot, but not cold), 4 - test benches.
      1. +3
        16 January 2024 09: 55
        Did I say they are throwing them away? I see the result - the T-72 and T-64, with everything that you listed, drive and fight, most of the Leopards are already faulty, and not mainly due to enemy influence. And attempts to repair them in Ukraine lead to even greater damage. Moreover, even these few hundred Leopards-2 had to be scraped together throughout Europe. Still suitable for repair. Those. There are simply no such spare units.
        1. +3
          16 January 2024 10: 43
          I'm talking about the principle of constructing a repair; block repair is correct.
          But there are “monetary, political, etc. generals” who didn’t order, didn’t purchase, didn’t deliver, they’re just stupid bastards. Therefore, Russian equipment can be repaired in the “swamp” (thanks to Soviet engineers), but this is not correct! We must strive for the best, and not try to make candy out of shit and sticks. Airplane engines are no longer repaired in the “swamp”, nor are tank engines, etc. people must repair in optimal conditions.
          1. +2
            16 January 2024 12: 06
            This is the best, alas, only better in theory. But in practice, no one will give enough money to have a third of a tank for each tank in reserve. For low-intensity conflicts this still works, but in northwestern military districts it no longer works.
            1. +1
              16 January 2024 23: 51
              Quote: Dimax-Nemo
              Leopard-2 diesel is probably good......
              It may be good, but the engine compartment of the Leopard-2 takes up twice as much space in the tank and is twice as heavy as ours. In addition, the cooling system, due to not very efficient radiators, takes 200 l/s from the engine. For comparison, our 1000 hp T-90 cooling system takes 75 l/s (I have no data for other MTOs). The Merkava has a licensed copy of the German engine, but due to problems with cooling, it was throttled to 1200 l/s (at least, this was the case not long ago)
      2. 0
        22 January 2024 20: 05
        It's not sterile in PARM. Tank engines and gearboxes, due to their size and weight, must be serviced in the field. This is not electronic equipment. Although, before being mounted on an airplane, any missile, even air-to-air missiles with close combat range, undergoes diagnostics at the airfield. And for this there is a Ural car with a kung car. And also unsterile.
    2. +3
      16 January 2024 10: 43
      The V-2 was created on the basis of a completely different aviation diesel engine with a claimed power of 800 hp. and was intended for the same P-5 type aircraft and light bombers. AC has a completely different dimension.
      1. 0
        16 January 2024 12: 07
        Perhaps, but the basis and technology are approximately the same. High-speed marine diesel engines have legs that grow from about the same place.
    3. 0
      16 January 2024 11: 29
      Did you have to pick out the silent blocks from the levers?

      Do you pick out silent blocks from the levers without removing the lever from the car?
      1. 0
        16 January 2024 12: 08
        No, I haven’t gotten to that point yet.
  13. +6
    16 January 2024 11: 20
    The Americans had complaints not about the diesel engine, but about the air purifier. In their opinion, he did not fulfill his function.
    1. +4
      16 January 2024 15: 41
      As it turned out later, the air cleaner was originally designed for an engine with a power of no more than 300 hp. With more power (and therefore more air flow), it very quickly became clogged with dust.
  14. 0
    16 January 2024 11: 23
    Author, what the... it’s impossible to read. And the tongue is cloth, and error upon error.
    “First of all, the dimensions - with a cylinder block angle of 60 degrees, it is difficult to design a low profile of a combat vehicle. For comparison: the Americans have an AVDS-1790-2A diesel engine for the M-60A1 tank with a cylinder angle of 60 degrees. The German MB838 CaM diesel engine has a similar design -500 for Leopard-1."
    What are we talking about? The camber of the V-2 is not 60, but 90 degrees.
    1. +2
      16 January 2024 11: 51
      I'm withdrawing my comments. The article is useful, my clarifications do not add anything essentially to it.
    2. +2
      16 January 2024 22: 35
      [quote]What are we talking about? The camber of the V-2 is not 60, but 90 degrees./quote]A new word in engine building? Since when did the camber become 2 degrees in B90? At least read Wikipedia - The cylinder diameter is 150 mm. The piston stroke of the left group is 180 mm, the right one is 186,7 mm. The cylinders were arranged in a V-shape at an angle of 60°.
      1. +1
        16 January 2024 23: 06
        I have already removed my comments. See above. )
  15. +5
    16 January 2024 11: 59
    During the war, they tested the T-34 and KV-1 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and came to disappointing conclusions - the weakest link in the vehicles was diesel.

    Not a diesel engine, but an engine oil filter.
    About tests at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (test results are known from Khlopov’s report)
    Condition of tanks
    Medium tank T-34 after a run in 343 km has completely failed and cannot be repaired.
    Reason: Due to an extremely poor air cleaner on a diesel engine, a lot of dirt got into the engine and an accident occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were destroyed to such an extent that they could not be repaired.

    By engine
    Engine

    Diesel is good and light. The idea of ​​using diesel engines on tanks is entirely shared by American specialists and the military, but, unfortunately, all diesel engines produced by US factories are taken by the Navy and therefore the Army is deprived of the opportunity to install diesel engines on its tanks. The disadvantages of our diesel engine are the criminally poor air purifier on the T-34 tank. The Americans believe that only a saboteur could construct such a device. It is also incomprehensible to them why in our manual it is called oil. Tests in the laboratory and testing it showed that:

    the air cleaner does not clean the air entering the engine at all;

    its throughput does not ensure the flow of the required amount of air even when the engine is idling.

    As a result of this, the engine does not develop full power and dust entering the cylinders leads to their firing very quickly, compression drops and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter is made from a mechanical point of view in an extremely primitive manner: in places of spot electric welding, the metal is burned through, which leads to oil leakage, etc.
    1. -1
      16 January 2024 22: 39
      [quote]Not a diesel engine, but an engine oil filter. The air cleaner does not clean the air entering the engine at all;/quote] Actually, the engine oil and air filters are slightly different things.
      1. +2
        16 January 2024 23: 42
        Quote: Tima62
        Actually, engine oil and air filters are slightly different things.

        You didn't understand what was meant. There are air filters with an oil bath, which additionally cleans the air of dust particles.
      2. +3
        17 January 2024 00: 22
        Actually, engine oil and air filters are slightly different things.

        Different. But the T-34 had an oil air filter to clean the air from dust.
        1. 0
          22 January 2024 20: 09
          This one was later installed on the UAZ-469. Air filter with mesh and filled with oil. You can add it to the engine if necessary.
  16. +3
    16 January 2024 12: 44
    By the way, the modern B-92 series still has drive turbochargers, which limits the growth of diesel power.
    By the way, the B-92 has a full turbocharger. That is, the exhaust gases spin a turbine, which turns the wheel of a centrifugal compressor through a shaft.
    The photo clearly shows where the exhaust pipes fit
    1. +1
      17 January 2024 00: 27
      V-46 engines (780 hp) with a centrifugal supercharger (supercharger drive from a diesel engine)
      V-84 [840 hp] (T-72B, T-90) - .......similar
      V-92 (1000 hp) ---------- turbocharging
  17. +4
    16 January 2024 13: 24
    The UTD line also had UTD-45, W-shaped, with three blocks.

    And the DG line died out not due to the cessation of work on heavy tanks, but because it did not have “its” customer: Kharkov, which initially installed the DG on its experimental self-propelled guns, switched to the “suitcase” as soon as something started to work out with it, and Leningrad/Omsk became interested in turbines.
  18. +4
    16 January 2024 14: 01
    the cylinder and piston diameters were increased from 165 to 170 mm and from 155 to 175 mm, respectively
    .
    Am I the only one laughing at the author's stupidity? Who can tell me the missing word?
    1. +3
      16 January 2024 16: 55
      The cylinder diameter and piston STROKE were increased, it should have been written that way, but everyone understood correctly.
  19. +1
    16 January 2024 14: 15
    Quote: Roman_
    A repair base is: 1 - tools, 2 - workplace/warehouse, etc., 3 - CLEANLINESS and warmth (even if it’s hot, but not cold), 4 - test benches.


    Where did you serve? - at headquarters? then there are no questions - we all see how our Defense Ministry commands
    what they show us (in the cart) is that “low-level” work - which allows you to receive and return equipment within a day or two at the LBS
    Have you seen the test bench "live"?
    purity? - at “branded” stations - until recently they fought hard for this cleanliness...
    How does our equipment compare favorably with “theirs” - in that it can be repaired on the knees...
    and although its performance characteristics are not impressive, ITS maintainability allows one to count on such equipment in war conditions
  20. +3
    16 January 2024 14: 19
    Quote: Roman_
    I'm talking about the principle of constructing a repair, block repair it is right.
    But there are “monetary, political, etc. generals” who didn’t order, didn’t purchase, didn’t deliver, they’re just stupid bastards. Therefore, Russian equipment can be repaired in the “swamp” (thanks to Soviet engineers), but this is not correct! We must strive for the best, and not try to make candy out of shit and sticks. Airplane engines are no longer repaired in the “swamp”, nor are tank engines, etc. people must repair in optimal conditions.


    There is no concept of “unit” repair, there is the concept of “aggregate”
    no need to drag kitchen fabrications here, it’s not a “yellow” sheet yet
    And what is rear logistics - you don’t know at all
  21. +1
    16 January 2024 15: 42
    One way or another, the Russian Federation needs a serial diesel engine of 1500-2000 hp. And our tanks have a mass of 60 tons. And the gas turbine engine must be brought to the same values.
    1. +2
      16 January 2024 16: 57
      and not only . Marine diesel engines of 5000 and 10000 hp are needed. Previously, everything was purchased in Europe..
    2. +3
      16 January 2024 17: 22
      Quote: Zaurbek
      One way or another, the Russian Federation needs a serial diesel engine of 1500-2000 hp. And our tanks have a mass of 60 tons. And the gas turbine engine must be brought to the same values.

      In the USSR, having “scratched their turnips,” they seriously thought about replacing diesel with gas turbines. The Kharkov cadaver turned out to be unsuitable for a mass-produced tank, so in Leningrad they decided to install a gas turbine on the T-64. Then it turned out that in many other ways the T-64 was, to put it mildly, eccentric, and after “light sanding” the T-80 turned out. Which, despite all that, turned out to be more promising than the T-64. Yes, its range was much shorter, but for operations in Europe (based on the experience of using the T-34 :)) it was quite sufficient. Therefore, it was the T-80 that began to replace the T-64s being withdrawn from the Western Group.

      In Kaluga this year they resumed production of the GTD-1000TF and even began working on modernization. Maybe they decided that a high-power diesel engine does not meet the requirements for a combat vehicle engine and is too complex? And is it easier to develop a gas turbine?

      After all, military equipment is a special thing. As they explained to me at the time, in theory you can create a rifle that will shoot at least 3 or 5 kilometers. But a shot from it will be more expensive than from a howitzer...
      1. +2
        16 January 2024 17: 40
        Quote: abc_alex
        After all, military equipment is a special thing.

        This is precisely why the gas turbine (progenitor from the MI-8) is primarily for quick start-up in cold conditions.
      2. +3
        17 January 2024 10: 39
        Even if we take Diesel Locomotives and Ships... replacing a Diesel with a turbine is not always relevant. Up to 4-5t.hp. Diesels rule, then turbines.
    3. -1
      16 January 2024 17: 36
      Well, there are trophies. You can take captured MTUs as a basis, and then make your own based on them.
      1. -1
        17 January 2024 02: 39
        MTU is the same as B2, a decrepit, worthless old man. Something new and cool are turbines on the Abrams and T80 and a modern diesel on the Leclerc. The turbine is still far from being exhausted; very primitive designs are being used, but internal combustion engines as a whole must be abandoned and a recovery circuit must be used.
        1. +2
          17 January 2024 09: 25
          This is the best tank diesel engine today. And MTO. Its layout is not the most compact...it is longitudinal, like on the T34, but on ours the Diesel is placed across.
        2. +2
          17 January 2024 11: 20
          1500 hp against our maximum 1200 hp. The prospects for the A-85-3A are vague. And it’s unlikely to stuff this colossus into the T-90M MTO. When Kharkov is taken, reviving the 6TDF topic is, in my opinion, a utopia. There are no trophy Leclercs in sight. We start from what we have.
        3. 0
          21 January 2024 17: 58
          . MTU is the same as B2, a decrepit, worthless old man.


          MTU880 is only 30 years old.
          And there are many valuable solutions there.
          For example, an oil tank and a water-oil heat exchanger integrated into the engine. No hoses and therefore no oil leaks.
          Two-stage air purification, occupying a much smaller volume.
          It’s not for nothing that the Arabs wanted it instead of Hyperbar (it turned out to be Leclerc Tropicalese)
      2. +1
        17 January 2024 10: 41
        Even in civilian diesel engines for GAZ (and Chinese Vichai) Steyer was licensed, Kamaz was licensed by Livher.....although “trophy” civilian diesel engines of any format have been on the entire market for 30 years in the country.
    4. 0
      21 January 2024 14: 46
      . One way or another, the Russian Federation needs a serial diesel engine of 1500-2000 hp. And our tanks have a mass of 60 tons. And the gas turbine engine must be brought to the same values.

      We raise the documentation for the Kharkov engine "470", which was made under the ideological leadership of the Moscow NIID, and here it is, happiness.
  22. +4
    16 January 2024 18: 12
    Barnaul. In places where there was not enough production culture even for relatively simple gasoline engines, not to mention pretentious diesel engines.

    Pretentious -
    Devoid of simplicity, pretentious, mannered.

    Precision -
    Highly accurate or manufactured to high precision parameters;

    You need to be more careful, author.
  23. -1
    16 January 2024 18: 46
    Tanks haven't changed since the 60s, so the engines haven't changed either.
    New realities, we need to run away, the faster the better.
    Haven't they found a replacement? But what about the T-80, it was the last one. The T-90 was a series that began after the collapse of the USSR, divorced from reality. Economical.
    The lack of our tanks, in my opinion, they have become very cramped.
    Diesel engines will never be powerful.
    1. Alf
      +2
      16 January 2024 21: 25
      Quote from Alexwar
      Diesel engines will never be powerful.

      Why do you think so ? And how many mares are “powerful”? On Leo-2A7 1500 l/s.
  24. +1
    16 January 2024 22: 12
    Converting an aviation gas turbine engine to work on land vehicles will not be easy or simple. This will take years. In the case of the USSR, this took more than twenty years. Therefore, hopes that we will take a turbine from the Mi-8 and add it to the T-90...T-14 are unfounded.
    1. +2
      17 January 2024 10: 43
      There is a ready-made gas turbine unit for 1000 hp for the T80..... you can bring it to 1500 and 2000 hp. I don't know about the transmission.
      1. +1
        18 January 2024 00: 25
        A gas turbine engine requires its own transmission, different from the transmission of a diesel tank. With a significant increase in torque, it will no longer be possible to use a ready-made transmission from the T-80.
        1. +2
          18 January 2024 14: 32
          I’ll tell you a secret - and on a diesel engine it will not be possible to use a transmission from the B92 to some kind of diesel engine with 1500 or 2000 hp. There and Nm will rise strongly. And on cars, gearboxes come with a certain pitch in Nm....
        2. 0
          21 January 2024 14: 57
          The Chinese took our side boxes and scaled them by about %% by 20.
          In any case, this was the case on prototypes of type 98.
  25. 0
    16 January 2024 22: 12
    Converting an aviation gas turbine engine to work on land vehicles will not be easy or simple. This will take years. In the case of the USSR, this took more than twenty years. Therefore, hopes that we will take a turbine from the Mi-8 and add it to the T-90...T-14 are unfounded.
  26. +2
    17 January 2024 02: 30
    It’s very clear what will happen to B2. There is a textbook “Domestic Engine Building”, it clearly shows what can be achieved in practice using technologies from the 50s and 60s. Based on this book, even the latest version of B2 is far from the limit. But of course, it is impossible to live on old luggage. We need R&D and a special engine. Or rather, a reasonable development plan for 30 years ahead. But since the state has lived for one year since 1991, this is fantastic; any serious R&D is the same. I would bet on a Stirling engine with a replaceable heat source. Yes, this will need to be paid to a couple of students and not 25 thousand rubles. per month, allocate industrial capabilities, budget and build experimental versions for 10 years, otherwise there is no other way.
  27. 0
    17 January 2024 02: 47
    Quote: Dedok
    and although its performance characteristics are not impressive, ITS maintainability allows one to count on such equipment in war conditions

    If the performance characteristics differ by more than 25%, this is already unacceptable both from the point of view of economics, logistics, war, and from the point of morality, and a replacement should be in development already at the stage of modernizing old engines and other units. And for this we need long-term plans, not rush jobs. And for long-term plans we need social elevators for talented and motivated people, a stable economy and full-fledged science. And for social elevators, economics and science, it is necessary to crawl out of oligarchic feudalism back at least to socialism, or, at worst, to cave capitalism.
  28. +6
    17 January 2024 12: 01
    It so happened that from the mid-90s to 2008 I was engaged in electric-assisted turbocharging of diesel engines. Initially, this direction started as an attempt to make a HyperBar system (diesel engines for French corvettes and Leclerc tanks).
    I had a chance to visit such diesel plants as Kolomna, Cheboksary, Bryansk, Penza (these are not tanks, they are closer to Russian Railways)
    My observation of the governing public there.
    They don't really need any new developments. Something new is terrible hemorrhoids. And if you haven’t spent your whole life understanding the processes in diesel engines, then there is no chance of relatively quick success.
    In factories, such people as Adolf Vasilyevich Kasyanov, one of the best specialists in the USSR in the field of work processes in diesel engines, I haven’t really seen any others.
    And who did you see in large numbers -
    “Listen, let’s step aside, I’m explaining something to you. In this work we have to grab money.. And it’s more convenient for us to fail the work itself. We need to make it look like it’s not us, but others, who are to blame..” ( Chief Power Engineer of Penza-DieselMash Yu. Eremin)
    1. +2
      17 January 2024 14: 00
      This is called the lack of real competition. The plant knows that its engine will be bought anyway. Therefore, the plant simply does not need to improve its characteristics.
      1. +4
        17 January 2024 14: 09
        I would like to draw your attention to something else.
        To make an outstanding development, you need to gain experience on something either simpler or smaller, partial... And where will you gain experience?
        It is necessary to incur monstrous personal labor costs in mastering the same theory and testing it in some form or practice.
        And then some figure comes out and declares
        - And I just want to steal everything (former director of SKBT Kireev, I’m talking about you).
        or
        - And I want to put my whims into the project (it was totally everywhere)
        or
        - And I’m just a big Baboon and I won’t allow anything to anyone.
  29. 0
    22 January 2024 01: 09
    How the Soviet Union looked for a replacement for the V-2 tank diesel engine, but never found it
    Isn't gas turbine an alternative?
    1. 0
      23 January 2024 23: 23
      As it turns out, not really. Higher complexity and cost, different fuel, etc.
      1. 0
        27 January 2024 00: 22
        As far as I know, this type of engine does not have any special multi-fuel capabilities.
        It’s also difficult to say about the complexity of the engine itself. Unlike a diesel engine, there is no conversion of reciprocating motion into rotational motion and, as a result, there are no additional gas distribution devices and sources of friction losses. From this side, too, everything looks simpler for the gas turbine engine. If it’s not difficult, could you please enlighten me about the complexity?
        It’s clear about the main source of cost. For decades now, materials scientists have been promising blades either made of titanium carbide or silicon nitride. They don’t explain how they will process these materials with an accuracy of a fraction of a micron, but they promise everything. There is a similar song with fire tubes.
        1. 0
          27 January 2024 16: 49
          GTE is technically and technologically more complex. A very difficult and long process of developing and testing gas dynamics. For turbines it is much more complex. Higher demands on materials and parts, such as bearings. Complex and expensive turbine impellers and blades. Therefore, all other things being equal, a gas turbine engine is 10...12 times more expensive than a diesel engine.

          Now about fuel. The problem is not multi-fuel, but a change in logistics and fuel supply system.

          As far as I remember, during the years of the USSR, diesel purchase prices were around 9600 rubles, the T-80 gas turbine engine was already 103 thousand rubles.
          1. 0
            27 January 2024 23: 25
            A very difficult and long process of developing and testing gas dynamics. For turbines it is much more complex.
            I've heard about problems from rocket scientists. Most calculations are approximate and based on approximate data.
            Judging by the extremely sluggish and neglected process of designing aircraft engines, it is unlikely to expect any progress in tank gas turbine engines.

            Complex and expensive turbine impellers and blades.
            The Achilles heel of all turbines. No matter how hard you try to smooth it out, it always turns out to be more complicated and more expensive.
            Maybe on topic, but in tank gas turbine engines such an engine condition as surging is possible? Theoretically there are no restrictions.

            Therefore, all other things being equal, a gas turbine engine is 10...12 times more expensive than a diesel engine
            It is purely economically more profitable to make “disposable” diesel engines than to tinker with a gas turbine engine. Sad but true. In your opinion, are there alternatives to both engine options, but without the main disadvantages of diesel and gas turbine engines?
            1. 0
              28 January 2024 01: 07
              It's not all doom and gloom for turbines. If we consider the problem comprehensively, taking into account the cost of all stages of the life cycle and the cost of fuel, then not everything is so sad. In addition, turbines have advantages in terms of cold start-up, adaptability, etc.

              Now they are writing about the prospects of stirling and other “alternative” power plants. This is hard to believe, because... fine-tuning Stirling with decent efficiency will cost more than creating a new turbine. And the engine itself is not easy. More precisely: it can be simple, but with low efficiency, or with high efficiency, but more complex than a gas turbine engine.

              Therefore, the choice will probably be between a 4-stroke diesel engine and a gas turbine engine. Possibly with auxiliary electric drive.
              1. 0
                28 January 2024 01: 32
                Therefore, the choice will probably be between a 4-stroke diesel engine and a gas turbine engine
                Is it really still impossible for our engine specialists to come closer to creating a reliable 4-stroke diesel engine? It seems like YaMZ produces similar engines for diesel generator sets. I thought that everything was bad with engines in the aircraft industry. It turns out on almost all fronts.

                Possible with electric auxiliary drive
                For gas turbine engines? Really can’t take it out and do you need help? Although it is not so difficult to make a gas turbine engine “hybrid”))) It is enough to make the compressor blades magnetized or build something like a “squirrel cage” and the rotor is ready. But we cannot afford such pampering.
            2. 0
              28 January 2024 01: 11
              A regime similar to surging was encountered when testing turbine tanks. In principle, “aviation” causes of surge also occur on the ground. For example, dust, powder gases, snow, etc.
  30. +1
    22 January 2024 11: 30
    Who interfered with bringing the TDF to fruition, back in the days of the USSR, and even then, together with the Kharkov residents, who knows.
    Now, here we are left with nothing. There are almost no engineering personnel capable of creating something. And the worst thing is that it won’t happen, with such “successes” in education reforms.
    1. 0
      23 January 2024 23: 25
      I think the TDF has several inherent flaws, including the complexity and torque issues common to all two-stroke engines.
  31. 0
    22 January 2024 12: 14
    Power and liters are of course good, but for military equipment, reliability and simplicity, training and familiarity in work, and coherent production are more important.
    It's like a Zhiguli, which can be repaired in the village, and a Merc, with which you can't do anything without a computer.
  32. 0
    22 January 2024 14: 55
    I didn't quite understand the author. The V-2 engine is pre-war and cannot be compared with post-war engines.
    It would be nice to remember the entire history of the creation of this diesel engine. It was created by Charomsky as a high-speed diesel engine for aviation. Yes, yes, they tried to use diesel engines on heavy bombers. But Charomsky was unable to develop it as an aircraft engine and had to develop it as a tank engine. Neither the Allies nor the Germans simply had anything like this before the war. And the fact that after the war they tried to make promising engines based on the B-2, this, I think, was a flaw of our designers; apparently they wanted to make it cheaper.
    1. 0
      23 January 2024 23: 29
      The Germans and allies had their own diesel engines, but the fleet took them from the Americans, and all the diesel fuel from the Germans went to the fleet. Plus various national problems. For the Americans it is the unification of fuel, for the Germans there are problems with alloying elements, etc.

      After the war, the USSR had no less problems than during the war, so the creation of a new diesel engine was postponed until better times. But they never came.
  33. +1
    22 January 2024 19: 06
    I do not agree that only by 1945 did the B-2 begin to produce the required operating time. Already in 1943, many T-34s had a service life exceeding that established for the B-2.
  34. 0
    25 January 2024 09: 27
    They're tired of accusations of lack of novelty. There cannot be any fundamental novelty in the crank mechanism, no matter how hard you try. Novelty can be in outwardly imperceptible technologies, coatings and lubricants. Nikasil, Alusil, modern coatings, modern lubricants... Replacing the babbitt in the liners with steel-babbitt ones, and today I don’t even know what’s in there. But instead of 50 km it runs 000 or more. Lightening pistons and connecting rods. This is where the effort should be put.
    .
    And so... From time to time brilliant ideas appear, and then you do the math and find a bottleneck. And this is even worse: they already tried it a hundred years ago, but refused...
    Unlike us, Western grant-eaters embody this in metal. There is money, why not try, maybe it will work out. But so far they haven’t done anything better than an in-line internal combustion engine.
    .
    Interesting design with two crankshafts. So these are practically two engines with the double problems of rigidity and weight. But it is promising in the form of switchable engines to save fuel. Previously it was difficult to control, but today electronics make it possible. But you count the options and it turns out that a hybrid with lithium-titanate or sodium-ion batteries is better. Or two separate engines.
    .
    The prospect of engine building lies elsewhere: in the creation of a cheap, maintenance-free engine, non-dismountable and irreparable in principle. I drove it for 150-200 thousand km and replaced it. In our area, it is advisable to have a preheating device. Among other things, preheating will reduce the requirements for lubricant quality...
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 13: 10
      I will add regarding turbocharging. Firstly, turbocharging can only be given as much as the engine can handle. That is, we again come up against the strength and service life of liners, pistons, liner materials and the treatment of friction surfaces on the pistons, cooling... Secondly, the drive turbocharger is not flexible, the air supply often does not meet the needs of the engine. Thirdly, excess turbocharging wastes energy, reducing engine power and efficiency.
      .
      The drive boost should be replaced with an electric one, which will be even better than the current turbines... The required power, according to my calculations, will be about 1-2% of the engine power... It will be possible to regulate the air supply, achieving ideal efficiency at any speed....
      .
      Why isn't this being done? Because of the generals' fear of EMP. The dumbest fear!
      1. 0
        27 January 2024 23: 32
        Because of the generals' fear of EMP. The dumbest fear!
        What should EMP generals be afraid of? After all, they are not the ones who decide what a smart circuit design solution and its implementation in life will be. I don’t know if you have the opportunity to participate yourself or observe from the outside how the order and acceptance of products by military representatives takes place. There is a great confrontation going on at times between the customer and the supplier.
  35. 0
    25 January 2024 14: 17
    Quote: also a doctor
    There can be no fundamental novelty in the crank mechanism, no matter how you try


    The novelty may be in fuel equipment, optimization of the cylinder block in terms of strength and weight, etc.
  36. 0
    25 January 2024 14: 18
    Quote: also a doctor
    Why isn't this being done? Because of the generals' fear of EMP. The dumbest fear!


    I think that it is not being done because there is no production capability.
  37. 0
    4 March 2024 05: 41
    In the USSR, American GMC 71 diesel engines were produced for a very long time under the names YAZ-204 and YAZ-206.
    Moreover, they changed very, very little for us and by the beginning of the 60s they were completely outdated and they were not modernized and their fuel consumption was very poor.
    In the USA, on the contrary, they were modernized several times, both structurally and technologically, and produced a running line of standardized engines with a number of cylinders from 2 to 16.
    In the USA, GMC 71 diesel engines were produced in-line with a number of cylinders from 2 to 8 and V-shaped with a number of cylinders of 6, 8, 12 and 16.
    Power from 60 HP to 650 HP, at 2800 rpm.
    Their reliability and service life were very high.
    There were also, it is mentioned that there were much lesser-known W-shaped ones with a number of cylinders of 18 and 24.
    As were twin and quad units from GMC 71 engines.
    In the USSR, only 4 and 6 cylinder engines of this type were mastered.
    There was an attempt to establish production of 3-cylinder GMC 71 at UAZ, but the Americans did not supply the equipment.
    And that's why everything died down.
    But somehow it didn’t work out to do it ourselves.


    By the way, the Americans modernized diesel engines of the 53 and 71 series into multi-fuel ones and produced them for a long time!
    This is exactly what we didn’t succeed in!
    Which required some modifications to the engine for the Americans.
    To achieve this, the compression ratio was increased from 17 to 23.
    A heat ring was installed on the piston in close proximity to the piston bottom and the piston itself was made prefabricated from a heat-resistant bottom and a separate aluminum throne - this made it possible to increase speed and power.
    The design of the pump injector nozzle was changed so that the amount of fuel in front of the valve was minimal and a sharper fuel cutoff was obtained at the end of injection.
    The speed of the booster pump has been increased, and a booster pump has been installed in the tank.
    Although the temperature of the exhaust valves did not increase noticeably, intensive corrosion of the exhaust valves from gasoline combustion products began to occur.
    This corrosion of the exhaust valve was especially intense when leaded gasoline was used (lead corrosion).
    To eliminate this drawback, it was necessary to make a valve seat from nichrome or nimonic, and fuse stellite onto the working surface of the valve itself.
    The engines turned out to be good, but however, the engine power on Kombat gasoline (and in general all gasolines with an octane rating of more than 80-85) dropped by 23%.
    Starting the engine on gasoline with an octane rating of 80-85 was trouble-free from 0-4C and with an air heater from -32-35C.
    The fuel consumption of the modernized multi-fuel diesel engines of the 53 and 71 series was significantly less than that of conventional diesel engines of the 53 and 71 series and was in the range of 170-190 g/hp/h.
    Our YAZ-204 and YAZ-206 did not consume less than 210-220 g/hp/hour at all!
    And they didn’t work on fuel with low cetane numbers at all!
    Thus, their modernization was real and could extend their serial production.
    The result of refusing to modernize was much worse:
    If the YaAZ-204 of the late 60s had a power of 115 HP, then the GMC 4-71 of the late 50s was already 160-170 HP, the YaAZ-206 of the late 60s had a power of 165 HP, then the GMC 6-71 of the late 50s was already 240 HP.
    The modernized diesel engines of the 53 and 71 series had power from 20 (1-53) to 650 HP (16V-71) at a speed of 2800 and could run on both high-octane gasoline and diesel fuel.

    And a two-stroke diesel of size 98,4X 114,3 type 6V-53 at 2600 rpm had a power of 210 HP with a fuel consumption of 175 g/hp/hour on diesel fuel and 185 g/hp/hour on Kombat gasoline.
    This is no worse than our YaAZ-236-238 diesel engines!

    Thus, the only alternative to the B-2 were engines based on the GMC 71, in the form of a V-shaped or W-shaped design and preferably with turbocharging.
    If the GMC 71 V-shaped engine with 16 cylinders produced 650 HP, then the W-type engine with 18 and 24 cylinders would produce between 700 HP and 900 HP.
    And twin V-16s would produce from 1200 HP.
    This would be more than enough for any Soviet tanks.

    When we started producing YAZ-204-206 engines, it immediately turned out that even with our best petroleum motor oil without additives, the engine failed after 100-150 hours of operation due to the fact that the piston rings burned and coked, in addition there were There is also corrosion of the crankshaft bearing shells (from sulfur in fuel and organic acids in oils) and, not rarely, burnout of the piston bottom from poor heat removal, as a result of carbon deposits on it from the engine oil on the “cold” side.
    I had to hastily master the production of diesel engine oil with additives.
    And this is especially and all the more surprising because there was already great experience in operating artillery tractors Y-12 with GMC 71 engines, which showed that these engines do not work for a long time on our engine oil!
    Well, our own bunglers began the production of these diesel engines without mastering the production of additives for diesel motor oils!

    Well, our running diesel fuel, which contained up to 1-2% sulfur and even more, was of course suitable for M-17 diesel engines, Stalinets-65 tractors, various stationary and sea-river diesel engines, for diesel locomotives, for submarines, with difficulty for diesel engines series V-2 and ACh (with their short resource, especially under wartime conditions), but for the GMC 71-YAZ-204-206 engines, taking into account the resource required under peacetime conditions, it was already 5000-7000 hours before overhaul It is highly desirable to have not only oil with additives, but also diesel fuel with less than 0,3% sulfur.

    Our first additive for diesel motor oils was the AzNII-4 additive, which had detergent and anti-corrosion properties, the production of which was quickly launched in 1949.
    Then it was immediately used for tank and various other diesel engines, significantly increasing their service life and reliability.
    This is how it became possible to use fuel with a high sulfur content for the GMC 71-YAZ-204-206 and B-2 series engines.
    Later, the best additive for diesel oils, Tsiatim-339, appeared, which is also widely used to this day.
    Since 1962, this additive has been absolutely mandatory for the operation of any diesel engines using fuel with more than 0,2% sulfur.
    The service life and reliability of all our engines, which have a pedigree from the V-2 and ACh, were obtained only after the development of lubricating oils with additives.
    And without this it was impossible to get a reliable engine with high liter power.
  38. 0
    9 March 2024 19: 03
    What is the problem with creating a normal classic V12 with 1,500 hp and positioning it longitudinally?
    Why these X perversions that last 50 long years?
    It is necessary to place the engine longitudinally in Armata, move the AZ behind the tower, and use a tower with a barbecue to cover the engine from drones. Being in the tower will at least give you a chance to survive in the capsule, because I don’t think that the capsule will save you from land mines if they are behind your chair.
    Make the Armata cannon and its AZ unified with the Coalition - 152mm rifled barrel, powder briquettes.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"