In defiance of the B-2 – how the Germans made a tank diesel

12 804 43
In defiance of the B-2 – how the Germans made a tank diesel
MB 507


Diesel or carburetor


Where to get it in the 30-40s tank Diesel? There aren't many options. Converting a truck engine into a tank engine is impossible—road-going diesel engines of such size simply weren't available. And there weren't many heavy-fuel engines for ground vehicles anyway. Developing a tank engine from scratch would be very expensive. Economics, as we all know, must be prudent.



In the Soviet Union, for example, they calculated everything. The tank force in the 30s was expected to be the largest in the world, which meant large production runs. This, in turn, significantly reduced the cost of each unit. As a result, in the early 30s, the Kharkov Locomotive Plant initiated the development of an entire series of diesel engines. The smallest of them, the BD-32, was single-cylinder, while the largest, the 18BD-3, had 18 cylinders. The BD-2 of this series proved the most successful, evolving into the legendary V-2 tank diesel. But this development is more the exception than the rule. When a moderate production run is intended, it's worth considering borrowing from others. For example, from engine builders in related disciplines. Where are powerful engines needed? aviation and shipbuilding. There are problems with aviators. The engines are overweight and overpowered.


The first and last tank diesel of the Wehrmacht

You can de-power them, but you can't reduce their volume and weight. Furthermore, aircraft engines typically didn't skimp, making extensive use of scarce alloys, which isn't ideal for tank construction. A key characteristic of aircraft engines was high torque even at low RPMs. While they looked great, excessive thrust required a very robust transmission. Airplanes didn't have this problem—they had propellers. There was nothing to break. Tanks, on the other hand, had delicate clutches, gearboxes, and chassis. And the drivers were often inexperienced. An engine with a moderate increase in thrust as RPMs increased was needed.

Interestingly, the Germans weren't particularly interested in tank diesel engines. There was a guy named Karl Maybach, who managed to gain control of the entire Wehrmacht's armored vehicle engine industry. He supplied the Third Reich with only carburetor engines—or, to be precise, heavily modified automotive power units. Fortunately, this wasn't a problem in Germany. Maybach had very good connections in Hitler's Armaments Office. The Germans still consider this a bottleneck in their military-industrial complex at the time.

Maybach's company failed to supply the army with sufficient spare parts for its engines, and also overcomplicated and continually improved its products. This had a negative impact on production capabilities. This contrasts sharply with the Soviet approach, where any design change was approved, practically at Stalin's headquarters. Time has proven which approach was the more successful.

History It so happened that a diesel engine never appeared in the engine compartment of the entire Panzerkampfwagen lineup. This was not because the Germans were incapable of producing suitable heavy-fuel engines, but because of Karl Maybach's monopoly. However, by the end of the war, the Panzerkampfwagen command realized the full advantages of diesel propulsion, and an order was placed for a suitable engine.

Marine motor


The main character of today's story is the 12-cylinder Mercedes-Benz MB 507 marine diesel engine. This diesel engine was produced in two versions. The smaller MB 507 had a displacement of 42,3 liters and produced rated power of 700 hp and 850 hp at 2350 rpm. The larger MB 507C, with a displacement of 44,5 liters, produced rated power of 800 hp and 1000 hp at 2400 rpm for a limited time.

These engines were developed in the early 30s and belong to the Mercedes-Benz 500 series of diesel engines. They were developed for the Kriegsmarine for a wide range of vessels. The first engines in the series—the 700-horsepower MB 500—were intended for the Schnellboote high-speed attack boats. The 1500-horsepower MB 501 was built for submarines. The U-180 and U-190 were equipped with six of these engines each, but only for a short time. They proved inconvenient for submariners and were replaced by MAN diesels.


Mercedes-Benz 507

Interestingly, the future MB 507 tank diesel engine was developed for the Leichte Schnellboote torpedo boat and was based on the Daimler-Benz DB 603 aviation diesel engine. To avoid confusion, marine diesel engines are called Mercedes-Benz, and aviation diesels are called Daimler-Benz, but they were developed by the same company. Strictly speaking, the MB 507 was a hodgepodge—the Germans added components from another aviation diesel, the DB 602. In short, they tried to reduce the cost of the finished product as much as they could.

But there were also many differences. The 507 had a different crankcase, no turbocharger, and a normal turbo setup, with the crankshaft at the bottom and the cylinders and pistons at the top. The marine version was the opposite. The 700-horsepower version of the engine was quite compact, weighing only 850 kg.

A direct comparison of the Mercedes-Benz engine with the Soviet B-2 would be imprecise, as they were products of different classes. The domestic engine produced 450-500 hp with a displacement of 38,88 liters. It weighed comparable amounts, between 750-1000 kg, depending on the version. The German engine was 200 hp more powerful with a larger displacement of 42,5 liters. The Mercedes was far more advanced, but it was only suitable for a comfortable war, and was also much more labor-intensive to manufacture and expensive. In short, the B-2 won the war, although the 507th didn't show up for it, essentially. It didn't make it in time.


Mouse

But the Mercedes-Benz 570 went down in history as the only German mass-produced tank diesel engine. The 12-cylinder engine was originally designed for the gigantic Karl-Gerät self-propelled mortars. Three units received it immediately, and over time, the remaining chassis in the series were converted to its more powerful MB 507C version. The engine's combat career in the 600mm Karl-Gerät self-propelled mortars was inextricably linked with the largest sieges of World War II.

Due to the mortar's colossal 124-ton mass, the diesel engine was used in a very specific way: it wasn't designed for long marches (mortars were transported to the front by rail), but rather for independent drives to firing positions, positioning in caseniers, and rough horizontal guidance, which was accomplished by rotating the entire vehicle hull. To improve reliability in these extreme conditions, the MB 507C's power was artificially limited to 580–590 hp, allowing the enormous engine to deliver consistently high torque at low speeds, not exceeding 10 km/h.

These engines saw their most active service during the siege of Sevastopol in 1942. The "Thor" and "Odin" mortars (chassis #III and #IV), initially equipped with diesel engines, methodically pounded Soviet fortifications and coastal battery #30. Later, in 1944, the "Tsiu" mortar (#VI), also equipped with the MB 507C, was used to suppress the Warsaw Uprising, where the diesel engine ensured the giant's maneuverability through the city's ruins. By this time, almost the entire series had been converted to the MB 507C, as it proved significantly more efficient and reliable than the older gasoline engines. The "Karls" often failed due to overloaded chassis, but the Mercedes-Benz engines themselves demonstrated enviable durability, operating in the monstrous dust and vibrations of firing two-ton shells.


Karl-Gerät

During the development of the "supertank" projects, the MB 507 was also considered as the primary powerplant. It was planned for the 70-ton Löwe (VK 70.01) and the prospective super-heavy E-100, where the diesel engine was intended to compete with Maybach gasoline engines. The pinnacle of the line's development was the turbocharged MB 517. Although the MB 517 provided the enormous vehicle with better power-to-weight ratio and reliability than its competitors, it was an extremely sensitive engine: the high boost ratio combined with the Maus tank's enormous weight led to critical overloads on the crankshaft and bearings. The turbocharger required precise tuning and high-quality maintenance, which was impossible given the collapse of German industry in 1945.

It was this engine that was installed in the second Maus prototype (V2), replacing the DB 603 gasoline engine. It was this engine that was responsible for the tank's demise at Zossen, when seized pistons turned the 188-ton vehicle into an immobile heap of iron. It happened like this: in mid-March, as the Red Army was already approaching the capital of the Reich, it was decided to use the tank as a mobile firing point to cover strategic targets. Under its own power, the Maus covered approximately 14 kilometers to Stammlager, located near Zossen, where the German General Staff headquarters was based. The tank took up a position at the crossroads between Zossen and Wünsdorf, effectively becoming part of the outer defensive ring of Berlin. However, the "heroic" battle never happened: on April 21, 1945, while attempting to change positions or advance toward the advancing units of the 3rd Guards Tank Army, the super-powerful Mercedes-Benz diesel engine succumbed to the enormous load. Thus ended the tank career of the Mercedes-Benz marine diesel engine.
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +6
    30 January 2026 06: 04
    In the Soviet Union, for example, everything was calculated. The tank force in the 30s was supposed to be the largest in the world, which meant a large series

    Tank "genius" Tukhachevsky planned to produce 100000 tanks, but he was shot down, so only 10-20 were ever built. Moreover, all of them—the BT-5, BT-7 (except for a small number of BT-7Ms), T-26, and T-28—were powered by a tank modification of a gasoline-powered, carburetor-powered aircraft engine.
    1. +5
      30 January 2026 07: 36
      Wow! And the T-26 was also equipped with a "tank modification of an aircraft engine"? And the guys don't know...
      1. -3
        30 January 2026 07: 41
        Was the 90-horsepower T-26 engine really from a truck?
        1. +2
          30 January 2026 07: 42
          This is a specially trained tank engine.
        2. 0
          31 January 2026 02: 48
          Was the 90-horsepower T-26 engine really from a truck?

          The Siddeley Puma aircraft engine was a 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled engine, while the GAZ-T-26, a modernized licensed copy of the Armstrong Siddeley Puma, was a 4-cylinder, air-cooled engine with completely different parameters.
    2. +2
      30 January 2026 08: 04
      Is almost 800 BT7M tanks a small number?
      1. +1
        30 January 2026 08: 20
        Almost 800 BT7M tanks is a small number

        4800 - BT-7
        1080 (as of June 22, 1941) - T-34
        677 (as of June 22, 1941) - KV/KV-2
        Judge for yourself whether 800 is a lot or a little.
        1. -3
          30 January 2026 10: 37
          Where did you dig up a thousand T-34s, may I ask?
          1. +2
            30 January 2026 20: 36
            As of June 1, 1941, there were 1373 medium tanks in total, including 892 T-34 and 481 T-28.
            "Statistical Collection No. 1" Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
            Incidentally, "almost 800 BT7M" is 702 tanks. Of these, 509 were line tanks, 181 were radio tanks, and 12 were anti-aircraft tanks.
            From there.
    3. AMG
      +1
      30 January 2026 10: 55
      M. Tukhachevsky, by virtue of his position, could only make proposals. In total, since 1930, the country had produced almost 28 tanks, of which the Red Army had 25,6 by June 1941, and almost 20 were operational.
      1. +1
        30 January 2026 20: 19
        In fact, most of them were tankettes, but even with the remaining vehicles, under a different organizational structure, management, and communications, the course of history could have been set on a different track, but history does not know subjunctive pronouns...
        1. AMG
          0
          30 January 2026 20: 28
          There were approximately 5,900 T-27, 37, 38, and 40 tanks. They entered the war with 30 tank corps of varying strengths and ended the war with six tank armies, using completely different equipment.
          1. 0
            30 January 2026 21: 24
            I agree that on paper this figure is astonishing, but in reality the hulls were overweight, communications and control were unsatisfactory, and the rear was rudimentary.
      2. +1
        30 January 2026 20: 39
        Quote from AMG
        Of these, by June 1941 there were 25,6 thousand in the Red Army

        As of June 1 – 23106 tanks.
        "Statistical Collection No. 1" Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
        1. AMG
          0
          30 January 2026 20: 48
          Yes, counting the Red Army's tanks based on different sources is a thankless task. I'm talking about myself.
    4. 0
      30 January 2026 23: 10
      Quote: Amateur
      That's why they made "only" 10-20 thousand tanks.

      Actually, there were only 24,000 tanks on the list, but the tanks were different. And yes, mostly gasoline-powered.
  3. +5
    30 January 2026 07: 34
    There are problems with the aviators. The engines are overweight...
    ?
  4. +3
    30 January 2026 07: 42
    The engines are overweight and overpowered.

    did not read further ...
    What does "overweight and overpowered" mean?
    here the author writes:
    A specific feature of aircraft engines was high torque even at low speeds.

    Maybe you could brush up on the terminology?
    All diesel engines have high torque from low...
    and power is the product of torque and rotation speed...
    and this is at the end of the 30s of the last century, where the engine has an aluminum cylinder block...
    Just look at the diesel engines in passenger cars, the ones that drive on the street...
    Quite a large part still has a cast iron block....
    ...
    1. -1
      30 January 2026 09: 59
      Chinese, disposable silumin block with thin-walled cast iron pistons. Everything is disposable.
      1. +2
        30 January 2026 10: 32
        Chinese, disposable silumin block with thin-walled cast iron pistons. Everything is disposable.

        What are you writing about?
        about the Germans and about us - about events more than 80 years ago??
  5. +3
    30 January 2026 10: 53
    Maybach's company failed to supply the army with sufficient spare parts for its engines, and also overcomplicated and continually improved its products. This had a negative impact on production capacity. This contrasts sharply with the Soviet approach, where any design change was approved, practically at Stalin's headquarters.

    The reason for this was the same as with the Germans: the factories got carried away adapting the equipment to their own production conditions. The catastrophe came when it became clear that it was impossible to simply transfer the turret from one factory's T-34 to another—and this reached the IVS.
    1. AMG
      -4
      30 January 2026 13: 46
      I wonder where you saw this? That the factories had different blueprints?
      1. +4
        30 January 2026 19: 59
        Quote from AMG
        I wonder where you saw this? That the factories had different blueprints?

        Among the instructions issued to the People's Commissariat of Tank Industry on June 5, 1942, by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, were demands to improve tank quality within one and a half to two months, address the impossibility of long marches without breakdowns, and improve the reliability of the T-34's transmission. Stalin demanded that the tank be simple, robust, durable, and suitable for the average tanker. This even went so far as to make certain major components (for example, turrets) non-interchangeable between two tanks from different factories.
        © "VO", "A gasoline leak and spontaneous combustion are possible!" T-34 from "Krasnoye Sormovo".
        Quote from AMG
        That the factories had different designs?

        Factories manufactured turrets to suit their existing equipment. Or they received them from other factories, where they were also manufactured to suit their existing equipment. Here's a side view of a T-34 from various factories:

        Plus, each basic tower model had its own modifications - by year, by technology (welded or cast), with or without shielding...
        1. AMG
          0
          30 January 2026 20: 18
          Thanks for the information. Of course, the turrets could have been different, as could the road wheels and tracks. The stamped turret, is it the lower one? But the turret rings should be the same diameter, right? Of course, it would be rare for a turret to be replaced during repairs.
          1. +4
            30 January 2026 20: 37
            Quote from AMG
            Thanks for the information, of course the turrets could have been different, as well as the rollers and tracks.

            Oh yeah... the rollers are something else entirely. A classic photo of a T-34 after repairs. laughing
        2. AMG
          0
          30 January 2026 21: 01
          Information on the "mold" turret was found. According to the factory report, 2050 units were used; according to the People's Commissariat report, 2062 units were used. M. Svirin, "Polygon" No. 1/2000.
    2. +2
      30 January 2026 14: 03
      Thunder struck when it became clear that it was impossible to simply move the turret from a T-34 from one plant to a T-34 from another plant - and this reached the IVS.

      These are the problems that plague today's Chinese auto industry: models are constantly changing and the changes aren't reflected anywhere, resulting in parts that are incompatible year-to-year...
  6. +1
    30 January 2026 16: 58
    In the Soviet Union, they switched to diesel fuel because diesel fuel is cheaper and more readily available than the scarce high-octane aviation gasoline or mixtures based on avibenzene.
    Engines with a compression ratio of 6 used several types of fuel[9]:

    a mixture (by weight) of 35% aviation benzene and 65% Grozny aviation gasoline;
    Baku gasoline of the 2nd grade;
    Fuel "2G" - leaded Grozny gasoline (2 ml of ethyl liquid per liter of gasoline).
    For engines with a compression ratio of 7,3 the following were used[9]:

    a mixture of 75% aviation benzene and 25% Grozny aviation gasoline;
    a mixture of 65% aviation gasoline and 35% Baku gasoline;
    Fuel "2B" - leaded Baku gasoline of the 2nd grade with 2 ml of ethyl liquid per liter of gasoline.

    It doesn't bother anyone that Nazi, French, British, and American tanks ran on gasoline before and during the war.
    There are no questions at all about Maybach, which created a unified line of engines from 100 to 700 horsepower, for tanks, self-propelled guns, and half-track tractors.

    Diesel engines are more problematic in this regard, requiring non-ferrous metals, greater labor intensity and complexity of manufacture, significantly larger dimensions than gasoline engines, a more powerful engine starting system, a transmission with a large power reserve to "digest" diesel torque, and problems with starting in cold weather.
    Diesel makes sense in the case of a very heavy vehicle where diesel torque and fuel efficiency are needed
    1. +3
      30 January 2026 20: 26
      Quote: bushmaster
      In the Soviet Union, they switched to diesel fuel because diesel fuel is cheaper and more readily available than the scarce high-octane aviation gasoline or mixtures based on avibenzene.

      Cheaper, yes. But diesel fuel availability was a major problem before the war...
      For the ground forces, the fuel supply requirements were satisfied by KB-70 and B-59 by 82,5%, by motor gasoline by 62%, by diesel fuel by 45,3%. That is, the fuel supply situation for the T-26 and BT light tanks was most favorable. However, the army's rearmament with new types of tanks with diesel engines—the KV, T-34, and T-50—was not adequately supplied with fuel.
      © Melia A.A. Mobilization training of the national economy of the USSR.
      According to the "Calculation of the Needs for Fuel and Lubricants for the Ground Troops of the Red Army," 90% of diesel fuel consumption was consumed by ChTZ-65 tractors, of which there were approximately 55 in the army.

      The transition from gasoline to diesel engines in tanks could have been caused by the fact that high-quality raw materials were used to produce B-70/KB-70 for the needs of the army (a quarter of the production of aviation gasoline of this brand), and the capacity for producing aviation gasoline was occupied, which could have been used to switch to the production of the extremely scarce B-78.
      The tank's gasoline tanks are filled with Baku aviation gasoline of the 2nd grade (specific gravity 0.748-0.755 at a temperature of +20).
      © BT-7 tank service manual, 1941 edition.
      Only premium and premium gasoline—not lower than Grozny grade—must be used to fuel new T-26 tanks. Adding automotive gasoline to the tanks is strictly prohibited, as it may damage the tank's components.
      © Brochure "Experience in Operating Light Tanks" (GVIZ NKO USSR, Leningrad, 1940)
      1. 0
        31 January 2026 17: 41
        This does not show the availability of fuel, but the approximate consumption.
        The situation is best with the T-26 and BT tanks. Firstly, there are few of them compared to other equipment, and secondly, they are often kept in parks to preserve their engine life.
        Trucks and cars are used much more intensively in the army and there are simply more of them than tanks.
        As for the tractors, what they were powered by is a question. The S-60 Stalinets ran on ligroin, while the SHTZ-NATI, of which 191 were produced from 37 to 52, had a kerosene carburetor engine.
        The S-65 Stalinets, production of which began in June 37, was the first Soviet serial diesel tractor.
        Again, the army tractor STZ-5 could run on ligroin, kerosene and gasoline

        The worst situation was with diesel fuel, because practically no one drove on it. Consequently, when the number of diesel consumers increased sharply in the late 30s, the question arose of where we would store diesel and how we would transport it. Naturally, this happened at the expense of taking away the fuel base and infrastructure from gasoline, ligroin, and kerosene, and this is not a quick matter.

        ChTZ managed to produce 37,626 S-65s by 1941, both for the army and for agriculture, after which, in October 1941, ChTZ switched to production of the T-34.
        Where did 55 thousand S-65 tractors come from in the army alone???

        Thus, in connection with the need to create a mobilization reserve, on June 16, 1941, the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) adopted Resolution No. 1624-684 ss. "On the reduction of consumption of high-octane gasoline in the Red Army Air Forces."

        The challenging (to put it mildly) situation with aviation gasoline supplies in the country was due to the poor condition of Soviet oil refineries. There, 85% of oil was processed using the outdated method of direct distillation in still and tubular atmospheric vacuum units, resulting in the predominance of dark petroleum products in the product mix. The so-called "fuel oil bias," which resulted in light petroleum product output barely reaching 20% ​​nationwide, was the main negative factor complicating the reliable supply of fuels and lubricants to both the USSR and the Red Army.

        According to the assessment of Colonel General V.V. Nikitin, the USSR oil industry in 1941 “…could only meet the needs of the People’s Commissariat of Defense for the year of war for aviation gasoline by 26,6%, for diesel fuel by 67,5%, for aviation oils by 11,1%.”
        1. 0
          2 February 2026 11: 12
          Quote: bushmaster
          The situation is best with the T-26 and BT tanks. Firstly, there are few of them compared to other equipment, and secondly, they are often kept in parks to preserve their engine life.

          In the five border districts, the majority of T-26 tanks—6436 of 8747 (as of June 1, 1941)—were classified as Category II tanks. That is, they were either being used for training or awaiting military repairs (or, more precisely, spare parts for such repairs).
          According to BT the picture is the same: 7900 out of 12223 were of the second category.
          The new KV and T-34 tanks were used the least: out of 469 KVs, 399 belonged to the first category, and out of 832 T-34s, 794. In other words, they were kept in parks, since the first category is new property, never used, meeting technical requirements and fully suitable for use for its intended purpose.
          The reason is well known: the V-2's engine life of 100 hours (on a test bench) is only twice as long as required for driving training alone. And as of June 2, 01.06.1941, only 141 spare diesel engines had been produced for all T-34s.
          Quote: bushmaster
          ChTZ managed to produce 37,626 S-65s by 1941, both for the army and for agriculture, after which, in October 1941, ChTZ switched to production of the T-34.
          Where did 55 thousand S-65 tractors come from in the army alone???

          Apparently, when calculating fuel and lubricant requirements, the army included not the available tractors, but the standard tractors. And according to wartime regulations, at that.
          The need for war:
          Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 28037
          ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - 60778
          Komsomolets - 5769
          Total: 94584

          Availability on 15.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX:
          Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 2601
          ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - 33658
          Komsomolets - 6672
          Total: 42931

          Lack of wartime on 15.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX:
          Voroshilovets ST-2 and the Comintern - 25436
          ChTZ-60, 65 and STZ-3-5 - 27120
          Komsomolets - +903
          Total: 51653
          © "Report of the Chief of the Main Armored Troops Directorate of the Red Army on the status of the provision of armored vehicles and property to the Red Army." June 1941.
          1. 0
            2 February 2026 22: 55
            The second category is essentially tanks sitting in parks without spare parts.
            In order to conserve equipment, you issued order No. 046, according to which 50% of tanks must be kept in reserve, 25% must be operated at 50% of the established norm, and 25% must be operated within the full operating norm."

            I think they saved on training to save resources.

            But still, tractors are different and use different fuels. Even if a Stalinets 2 diesel tractor could be made to run on a mixture of autol, gasoline, and kerosene, it's probably easier to get gasoline and kerosene in the army than diesel.
            Naturally, if a unit has a T-34 or KV in its supply, then it should be easier with diesel.
    2. +2
      30 January 2026 20: 27
      You're not taking into account the greater fuel efficiency of diesel engines, which is crucial for a large-scale army. Gasoline supplies require approximately 20% more fuel trucks, storage facilities, etc. Converting all tank forces to diesel engines will have a significant multiplier effect in savings, and with mass production and technology development, the cost of diesel will decrease to acceptable levels.
      1. +1
        31 January 2026 18: 13
        What does diesel fuel efficiency and a large army have to do with it?
        A mass army is primarily trucks and tractors, and in the Soviet army up until 91, trucks were mostly gasoline-powered.
        Even if we take some tank army, the number of tanks and other tracked-diesel vehicles would be good if it were a quarter, hardly a third, of the army's entire fleet of vehicles.
        The problem with gasoline for a tank only arises when it is quite heavy, which means more space is needed inside the tank for fuel tanks, or it will have to be refueled more often
        although even Soviet tanks, despite having a diesel engine, were hung with external fuel tanks, including two 200-liter barrels at the stern

        There's no need to get ahead of the game. If the main engine in all armies of the world during World War II and after was gasoline, then a cheap and simple carburetor was much more profitable for industry around the world than a diesel engine.
        Nowadays, the automotive industry is churning out diesel engines for every taste. UAZ tried with the ZMZ-514, but it didn't work out. Creating a diesel engine is expensive and complicated, and not everyone can afford one.
        1. 0
          31 January 2026 19: 22
          So now imagine needing 20% ​​more of all of this. Tank diesel engines were primarily chosen for their fuel efficiency and higher torque. The USSR had over 60000 tanks; imagine the impact this had on logistics.
          1. 0
            31 January 2026 23: 52
            I don't care about 20%
            After tanks began to rapidly gain combat weight, diesel became the only choice, just as today almost all trucks are diesel

            In the summer of 1945, the Soviet Army had 645 vehicles. A third of these were Lend-Lease vehicles, and a tenth were captured.

            As of January 1, 1945, the Red Army had 21700 tanks and self-propelled guns, including gasoline-powered BTs and T-26s from the Far East and, of course, Su-76s, plus Lend-Lease gasoline-powered armored vehicles.

            So, in the USSR there were 60 thousand tanks, and how many gasoline-powered cars were there for them???
            And how far will your tanks go without fuel and oil tankers that run on gasoline? Maybe gasoline logistics are more important...
    3. 0
      31 January 2026 22: 54
      Diesel is more problematic in this regard, requiring non-ferrous metals, and is more labor-intensive and complex...

      Aluminum was not used for airplanes, but for diesel engines.
      1. 0
        1 February 2026 00: 10
        It's not even about silumin; diesel engines use plain bearings made of non-ferrous metals, and copper tubes that deliver fuel under pressure to the injectors. If you dig around, you can find something else.
  7. 0
    31 January 2026 18: 13
    Quote: Dedok
    Thunder struck when it became clear that it was impossible to simply move the turret from a T-34 from one plant to a T-34 from another plant - and this reached the IVS.

    These are the problems that plague today's Chinese auto industry: models are constantly changing and the changes aren't reflected anywhere, resulting in parts that are incompatible year-to-year...


    Yesterday's Czech and the day before yesterday's American auto industry (passenger cars only) also had "inspect the suspension arm and visually determine", "determine the manufacturer of the heating/air conditioning system"...
  8. 0
    1 February 2026 01: 13
    Interestingly, the Germans were not particularly interested in tank diesel engines.

    This was natural. Tank diesel engines of the time had a short service life and were finicky in operation. The B-2 was no exception. The Germans weren't satisfied with the tank's 50-hour lifespan; they didn't have many of them. The Americans developed decent tank diesel engines—they combined them from two automobile diesel engines. There's a comparison in the GSS by tanker Dmitry Loza between American Shermans (Loza fought in a Sherman) and Soviet T-34s, which constantly required tweaking and adjustments—Shermans were specifically selected for long-range breakthroughs.
  9. +1
    1 February 2026 02: 20
    As a result, in the early 30s, the Kharkiv Locomotive Plant initiated the development of a whole series of diesel engines. The smallest of these, the BD-32, was single-cylinder, while the largest, the 18BD-3, had 18 cylinders. The BD-2 proved the most successful of this series, evolving into the legendary V-2 tank diesel.



    What kind of fairy tales are these? The V-2 diesel engine has nothing to do with the BD-2. The V-2 was developed under a completely different program. It's essentially Charomsky's aviation diesel engine, adapted for tank use. In the early 1930s, due to the Soviet petrochemical industry's unpreparedness for developing high-octane gasolines, it was decided to try producing high-power engines using heavy fuel. Two tasks were simultaneously outlined: Charomsky in Moscow took on the aviation diesel engine, Chelpan in Kharkov the tank engine. But contradictions within the Ukrainian engineering and production "aristocracy" led to the fact that in 1938, when Charomsky's AN-1 engine was already "flying" and in small, but still serial, production, not a single one of Chelpan's three "ready-made" prototypes passed the test. The result was an arrest in December, charges, and death in prison in March 1938. Meanwhile, a "team" was dispatched from Moscow's Charomsky Design Bureau, tasked with urgently developing a tank diesel engine. The team arrived in Kharkov and concluded that Chelpan lacked not only a metal diesel engine ready for testing, but also a set of drawings and a complete design solution. All three prototypes were different and essentially assembled in a makeshift manner, without any documentation of the changes. Ultimately, approximately 2000 modifications were made to Chelpan's diesel engine, and... it worked. Essentially, the "Muscovites" replaced everything in the engine except what was specifically required for the tank with components from an aircraft engine, since the deadlines were extremely tight and no one wanted to risk their lives. In a year, the team, led by Timofey Petrovich Chupakhin, accomplished what the Ukrainians under Chelpan hadn't accomplished in more than five years. But the engine was still crude, and Chupakhin's "Muscovites" spent another year fine-tuning it. Only in the fall of 1939 was the engine deemed ready for serial production and launched. But problems persisted. Specifically, the V-2 didn't reach 200 hours of mean time between failures in either 1940 or 1941.
    And the V-2 engine was by no means the "most successful" variant of the "Kharkiv diesel" lineup. If there's no confusion in the designation, the BD-2 was developed at the Internal Combustion Engine Laboratory (later the UNIIDVS) in Kharkov, under the direction of Professor Ya. M. Mayer, under the designation AD-1. One set of documentation for the AD-1 diesel engine was transferred by order from the institute to the plant. This was so unenthusiastic at the laboratory that, to avoid silent sabotage, in 1937 the institute was transferred to the Kharkiv Locomotive Plant as a research and experimental base for preparing the BD-2 tank diesel engine for state testing and serial production.
    Since 1930, Charomsky had been developing his own AN-1 tank diesel engine at the KhPZ, producing a whopping 850 hp for the T-35. However, when the tank's preliminary design was completed, it became clear that the larger size and increased engine power and torque essentially necessitated the design of a new tank, and the project was halted in 1937.
    And yes, the BD-2 is the predecessor of the V-2 at the KhPZ, but it was in no way “transformed” into the V-2.
  10. snc
    +1
    6 February 2026 13: 01
    It's unclear about the Maus—it had an electromechanical transmission, essentially a series hybrid without a traction battery. How could they possibly screw up the diesel engine with the load?
    1. 0
      6 March 2026 10: 07
      You answered the question yourself—a hybrid without a traction battery means you have to press the gas pedal, often with incredible force. I remember the struggles with the B2 tank diesel engines on a DET-250 bulldozer with electric traction. Our deputy director of production at the open-pit mine became a diesel supplier and drove monthly to the tank repair plant in search of a replacement diesel engine for the bulldozer. In Mongolia, my bulldozer operator on the DET-250 simply cursed the machine because he had to change the engine every month in the Gobi Desert, in freezing temperatures and sunny weather under a light canopy. He begged for a new T-160 with a 4-hour service life, while the TORO engines from Finland had 12 hours.