V-2 since it was used the longest.
Best tank engines of WWII
- Thread starter z42
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
German produced tank engines were predominantly made by Maybach;
German tank engines for panzer series.
Panzer I - Krupp 4 cylinder 59 HP
Panzer II - Maybach 6 cylinder 138 HP
Panzer III / IV - Maybach 12 cylinder 296 HP
Panther / Tiger A/B - Maybach 12 cylinder 690-700 HP
Maybach also made gearboxes and other drive train components so they were easier to pair up for
designers.
Porsche designed petrol and diesel engines which were complicated and unreliable. Krupp were busy
with armament manufacture so their engine development didn't go too far for tanks.
Aircraft engine manufacturers had a lot on their plates already so Maybach was really the only choice
in the end.
The larger HL 230 V-12 as used in the larger tanks was taking a carb petrol engine about as far as it could
go for the time. Further development was planned for fuel injection / turbos etc.
German tank engines for panzer series.
Panzer I - Krupp 4 cylinder 59 HP
Panzer II - Maybach 6 cylinder 138 HP
Panzer III / IV - Maybach 12 cylinder 296 HP
Panther / Tiger A/B - Maybach 12 cylinder 690-700 HP
Maybach also made gearboxes and other drive train components so they were easier to pair up for
designers.
Porsche designed petrol and diesel engines which were complicated and unreliable. Krupp were busy
with armament manufacture so their engine development didn't go too far for tanks.
Aircraft engine manufacturers had a lot on their plates already so Maybach was really the only choice
in the end.
The larger HL 230 V-12 as used in the larger tanks was taking a carb petrol engine about as far as it could
go for the time. Further development was planned for fuel injection / turbos etc.
Often overlooked that the US Army M10 TD were all GMC 6-71 powered, like the M4A2. No problems that I have ever come across on fuel issues in Italy or France.
The M10A1 were Ford GAA, but all those stayed in the States for training, except those set for M36 production
for more info to add to what I posted on the Liberty and Lion
Maybach HL230 1457 cubic inches 700HPmax 3000 rpm(2600 rec) Torque 1,364 ft. lbs@2100
Weight 3080 lbs Width: 100cm Height: 119cm Length: 131cm
Kharkiv V-2 2368 cu. inches 500HP@1800 1600 lbs/ft torque
weight 1984-2380 pounds Width: ~80cm Height: ~104cm Length: ~149cm
The V-2s used in the heavier tanks ran with more injection pressure an higher RPM for 600HP output, with lower reliability
- Thread starter
- #25
AFAIU V-2 versions/derivatives were used in Soviet cold war tanks all the way to the current day T-90 (except T-80 which used a turbine engine). So it seems the basic design was pretty good.
Catalytic cracking by the Houdry process allows to produce ~80 octane grade (without TEL). By high-octane additions (not TEL) you can increase octane grade over 90.
- Thread starter
- #28
I was wondering about that statement too as it's, as such, obviously untrue, so I assumed it meant catalytic cracking only. With the truckload of other processes used these days for gasoline production (catalytic reforming, isomerization, alkylation, and whatnot) it's of course possible to increase octane substantially above 72 (and 80) without needing TEL or other octane boosters like alcohols or ethers.
Aviation gasoline is a complex mixture where the different characteristics of the ingredients are important. Cumene has an octane rating of 110, but it does not provide all the necessary physical and chemical properties - other ingredients with much lower octane ratings are required. IIRC, it is possible to achieve 100 octane without TEL, but it is too expensive.
J.A.W.
Banned
One factor that can be seen in film of Soviet diesel-fuelled tanks violently exploding when hit - is the propensity for diesel fuel to
ignite instantly under shock (how diesel engines work -in measured constraints) resulting in a higher energy release than gas/petrol.
Interestingly enough, diesel fuel was tested/listed by the Nazi liquid fuel rocket research program, for this reason,
& its why NATO 'cold war era' tanks like the British Chieftain - which while ostensibly a 'diesel' - was multi-fuel rated.
ignite instantly under shock (how diesel engines work -in measured constraints) resulting in a higher energy release than gas/petrol.
Interestingly enough, diesel fuel was tested/listed by the Nazi liquid fuel rocket research program, for this reason,
& its why NATO 'cold war era' tanks like the British Chieftain - which while ostensibly a 'diesel' - was multi-fuel rated.
- Thread starter
- #31
Gasoline chemistry and octane is a complicated subject, but yes, it gets more difficult the higher you get.
100 octane avgas without TEL is indeed challenging, and the recent G100UL is more expensive, but how much is due to that so far being a boutique product and higher volume production will fix it. AFAIU the current 100LL without TEL is approximately 96 MON.
For low octane automotive gasoline it's easier, particularly if the octane is measured with RON as it is in most of the world. Current "standard" pump gasoline in much of the Western world, which is 95 RON with up to 10% ethanol, receives about 4 RON worth of octane boost from the ethanol. So without ethanol it would be about 91 RON.
- Thread starter
- #32
I was under the impression that these spectacular turret toss explosions are all due to the ammunition exploding. Do you have any further evidence that it's the fuel?
To this day liquid oxygen + kerosene is a popular rocket fuel. The narrow-cut kerosene used is pretty similar to diesel in many respects.
I thought the multi-fuel requirements was due to the desire to use any available fuel. Do you have any evidence of preferring to use gasoline instead of diesel for safety reasons? (AFAIK the Chieftain in practice was always using diesel, and subsequent tanks reverted to a "traditional" diesel engine.)
Tests revealed, that the fuel could explode, significantly enhancing the effect of an APHE of 75 mm caliber or more when the fuel tank was filled with fuel by 10...15% and the charge exploded inside the fuel tank. Fully filled tanks did not explode and caught fire in about 30% of penetrations (gasoline ignited even less often!). Fuel exploded in 1/4 filled tanks from the shaped charge, but the effect was rather small (50g TNT equivalent, even less for gasoline).
Most of the fuel fires occurred when the leaked fuel was ignited by hot fragments.
I am not sure that the most of the cases of turret toss explosions were caused by detonation of ammunition placed in the turret (another HUGE disadvantage of the T-34). From the report: "...24% of tanks were destroyed only due to internal explosion, and no traces of fire were found in them. Often even the ammunition was completely preserved in the stowage."
Last edited:
Dmitriy Loza
For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
J.A.W.
Banned
Yeah, the actual combat-veteran tankers who have a say in it, would likely prefer to use the less explosive fuel
(diesel is a component of certain explosives, too), Kerosene is only about 5% less energy dense than diesel fuel.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Was the technology and knowledge available to put a gas turbine engine into a tank by 1944? In the late 1940s Rover produced the first gas turbine car, Rover JET1 - Wikipedia
J.A.W.
Banned
Problem was, & is, gas turbines are not well-suited to ground vehicles, even the Abrams (derived from the work Chrysler Corp put into their `60s era turbine car) is problematic, thirst and gas/heat efflux-wise...
Worked well with the Swedish Stridsvagn 103, a small gas turbine paired with a small V6 diesel
- Thread starter
- #39
Germany was considering a turboshaft derivative of the BMW 003 jet engine, GT 101, for installation into future variants of the Panther tank. The motivation was that power/weight would be massively improved, and the ability to use a wide variety of low quality fuels. Fuel consumption was estimated to be twice that of the Panther with the Maybach piston engine, though the lower weight and higher power of the turbine would have allowed carrying more fuel.
BMW GT 101 - Wikipedia
- Thread starter
- #40
Many of the Shermans delivered to Russia were the diesel powered ones. In fact, did any of the gasoline powered ones end up there in non-trivial numbers?
Might also be the Shermans the author discusses were the ones with the wet ammo storage? Did Russia receive any of those?
Last edited:
