Best tank engines of WWII

[J.A.W.]

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

en.wikipedia.org

Well, if the young, newly trained Panther drivers tended to wreck the regular transmission/final drive, doing in one of those'd be piss easy!

(Seriously though, you'd have seen the big cannister mufflers fitted to late Maybach tank exhausts, a turbine with its heat signature would
be much harder to get Euro-compliance clearance compliance, surely?)

 

[J.A.W.]

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?[/i]

I have spoken with a NZ veteran (back in the day) who spoke highly of the GM Detroit Diesel powered Sherman he had in Italy,
(the stink of diesel putting off the Italian girls was about the only downside, he'd encountered, or so he reckoned).

 

[bf109xxl]

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?

The Soviet and American shells used different propellants; the Soviet ones were more prone to detonate from fire - particularly from shaped charge shells.
But fuel seems to detonate more often according to the report, which is far more reliable than any memoir.
The problem of the T-34 was the placement of shells in the turret, which was hit more frequently than the hull.

PS. I read the full version of Dmitry Loza's memoir as soon as it was first published.

 

[EwenS]

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?

In Nov 1943 diesel M4A2 production shifted to the large hatch 47 degree glacis hull and, with the exception of 200 75mm gun tanks for the USMC, all production of that model was then intended for the USSR. The 1,000 large hatch 75mm produced to May 1944 did not get wet ammunition stowage (800 for the USSR). Production then shifted to the 76mm version which did get wet stowage, with the first arriving in the USSR around Sept 1944. Production stopped in May 1945. Just over 2,000 of these 76mm gunned tanks were supplied to the USSR before Lend Lease supplies ceased in summer 1945.

Britain had received large numbers of new production small hatch 57 degree glacis hulled M4A2 in 1942/43. 1944 deliveries of that model however were of small hatch remanufactured tanks rather than new production large hatch models.

 

[WARSPITER]

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?

The M3 was sent to the USSR as a petrol version which became a problem with the requirement for units to supply
both types of fuel.

As a result the M4A2 was only sent with the diesel. later M4 were sent for evaluation but they were petrol types so
were not wanted.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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

en.wikipedia.org

Very interesting. The Germans were right on the cusp of so much innovation. To have the greatest impact early on. Germany might have been better off to focus on making a powerful diesel engine for their tanks. Considering that the fuel needs less refining and requires fewer engine components, it's odd to me that the Germans had diesel aero and naval engines, but no tank engines.

How the Wehrmacht's Diesel Stalled

A blog about World War II era archive documents, primarily dealing with armoured warfare.

www.tankarchives.ca

 

[J.A.W.]

Very interesting. The Germans were right on the cusp of so much innovation. To have the greatest impact early on. Germany might have been better off to focus on making a powerful diesel engine for their tanks. It's odd to me that the Germans had diesel aero and naval engines, but no tank engines.

Its because the German rocket/pyrotechnics research had shown just how violently/energetically diesel explodes due to shell-shock.

 

[bf109xxl]

The Germans were right on the cusp of so much innovation.

Fortunately, too much.

Germany might have been better off to focus on making a powerful diesel engine for their tanks.

The Germans had a bit of a problem with diesel fuel - it can't be produced from coal. And all the oil was used by the navy. But they achieved impressive results in the construction of aircraft diesel engines. One of them served as a prototype for Soviet tank engines largely produced.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Its because the German rocket/pyrotechnics research had shown just how violently/energetically diesel explodes due to shell-shock.

Were they wrong? Every German-produced AFV and MBT since 1945 has been diesel powered.

 

[z42]

Were they wrong? Every German-produced AFV and MBT since 1945 has been diesel powered.

I'd be interesting in seeing some research reports about this, but without further information I'd assume it's extrapolating some rare corner case into likely behavior.

No matter how hard you hit diesel (or gasoline) with a shaped charge, shell fragments or whatever, it won't explode. Just like for a regular fire, an explosion needs both fuel and oxygen (and an ignition source, which surely the shaped charge or hot shell fragment can provide, so lets not worry about that here). To get a liquid hydrocarbon fuel to explode, you need to vaporize it together with an oxygen source (like air, for an obvious choice). Now contrary to movie physics, while shooting at a fuel tank can cause an explosion, it's actually quite rare and difficult to achieve. But the mechanism for diesel and gasoline is a bit different. Gasoline is very volatile, with a DVPE (dry vapor pressure equivalent) somewhere in the 40-90 kPa range typically), and the ullage in the fuel tank (the empty space above the liquid fuel level) saturates with fuel vapor beyond the rich flammability limit. Heavy fuels like diesel, OTOH, are very non-volatile, typically with a DVPE below 1 kPa, and thus in a "normal" situation there isn't enough fuel vapor in the fuel tank ullage to go above the lean flammability limit.

Now, it is possible to make a heavy fuel tank explode (see e.g. the TWA 800 airline disaster), but such situations typically involve heating the fuel which increases the evaporation, and can thus lead to a situation with an flammable oxygen-fuel mixture in the tank.

In a situation where a fuel tank is hit and does not immediately detonate, gasoline would be much more dangerous as it's much more likely to result in a fire, either by the shell that made the hole in the first place, or by fuel leaking onto some hot component in the engine bay, or some electrical component etc.

 

[z42]

The Germans had a bit of a problem with diesel fuel - it can't be produced from coal. And all the oil was used by the navy.

It's possible to produce diesel from coal with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. IIRC Germany had a few FT plants during WWII, but most of their synthetic fuel infrastructure was Bergius process plants which produce gasoline-type fuel.

Where did Germany BTW get fuel oil for their ships? Was it from their synthetic fuel plants, or Romania, or?

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's possible to produce diesel from coal with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. IIRC Germany had a few FT plants during WWII, but most of their synthetic fuel infrastructure was Bergius process plants which produce gasoline-type fuel.

Where did Germany BTW get fuel oil for their ships? Was it from their synthetic fuel plants, or Romania, or?

It's noteworthy how all three leading Axis powers lacked any then-known domestic or colonial oil sources. Did none of these three when choosing their allies look at the dance cards and realize I'm in a trio of petrochemical losers?

 

[J.A.W.]

It's noteworthy how all three leading Axis powers lacked any then-known domestic or colonial oil sources. Did none of these three when choosing their allies look at the dance cards and realize I'm in a trio of petrochemical losers?

Romanian Ploesti. Ace in the hole.

 

[J.A.W.]

I'd be interesting in seeing some research reports about this, but without further information I'd assume it's extrapolating some rare corner case into likely behavior.

No matter how hard you hit diesel (or gasoline) with a shaped charge, shell fragments or whatever, it won't explode. Just like for a regular fire, an explosion needs both fuel and oxygen (and an ignition source, which surely the shaped charge or hot shell fragment can provide, so lets not worry about that here). To get a liquid hydrocarbon fuel to explode, you need to vaporize it together with an oxygen source (like air, for an obvious choice). Now contrary to movie physics, while shooting at a fuel tank can cause an explosion, it's actually quite rare and difficult to achieve. But the mechanism for diesel and gasoline is a bit different. Gasoline is very volatile, with a DVPE (dry vapor pressure equivalent) somewhere in the 40-90 kPa range typically), and the ullage in the fuel tank (the empty space above the liquid fuel level) saturates with fuel vapor beyond the rich flammability limit. Heavy fuels like diesel, OTOH, are very non-volatile, typically with a DVPE below 1 kPa, and thus in a "normal" situation there isn't enough fuel vapor in the fuel tank ullage to go above the lean flammability limit.

Now, it is possible to make a heavy fuel tank explode (see e.g. the TWA 800 airline disaster), but such situations typically involve heating the fuel which increases the evaporation, and can thus lead to a situation with an flammable oxygen-fuel mixture in the tank.

In a situation where a fuel tank is hit and does not immediately detonate, gasoline would be much more dangerous as it's much more likely to result in a fire, either by the shell that made the hole in the first place, or by fuel leaking onto some hot component in the engine bay, or some electrical component etc.

By all means look it up, & recall that a tank in action seldom is 100% fuel-filled.

 

[EwenS]

It's noteworthy how all three leading Axis powers lacked any then-known domestic or colonial oil sources. Did none of these three when choosing their allies look at the dance cards and realize I'm in a trio of petrochemical losers?

Germany itself wasn't a unified state until the 1860s. Italy only achieved unification in 1871. So both Germany & Italy were late to the hunt for colonies in the latter part of the 19th century. But you didn't need a colony to secure oil. Good old fashioned capitalism doing deals with Govts for concessions was enough.

But in the mid 19th century oil was being produced from shale, with Scotland being the oil capital of the world, and doing much to develop the processes necessary to extract it. Expertise which it then passed around the world including the USA and Germany. It was 1859 before drilling for mineral oil first began in the USA. It was increasing demand from the first decade of the 20th century (motor cars, naval arms race) that really drove the search for it. c1890 in the DEI and 1908 in the Middle East in parts of the then Ottoman Empire and Persia.

But Germany lost not only the colonies she had at Versailles and San Remo Conferences but the oil interests she owned in the Middle East. Deutsche Bank was a shareholder in the Turkish Petroleum Company from it's formation in 1911 with concessions in Iraq.

Japan was a backwater until forced to open up by the USA in the mid19th century.

 

[bf109xxl]

It's possible to produce diesel from coal with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. IIRC Germany had a few FT plants during WWII, but most of their synthetic fuel infrastructure was Bergius process plants which produce gasoline-type fuel.

Yes, the Fischer-Tropsch process produced appreciable amounts of diesel fuel - I don't deal with petrochemistry, I might forget important details.

Where did Germany BTW get fuel oil for their ships? Was it from their synthetic fuel plants, or Romania, or?

Along with Romanian oil, Germany received oil from Hungary, the USSR, and even produced oil itself within the Reich.

 

[J.A.W.]

Also, with the 1942 summer offensive on the Ostfront, Hitler was persuaded to go for Soviet oil* rather than Moscow,
well, that's until he got fixated/hung-up on Stalingrad, of course...

*Ironically, while Europa was blockaded from sea-imports (no doubt, Swiss money ensured they got it), Stalin also
obtained a considerable volume of petroleum product via Lend-Lease.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Also, with the 1942 summer offensive on the Ostfront, Hitler was persuaded to go for Soviet oil* rather than Moscow,
well, that's until he got fixated/hung-up on Stalingrad, of course...

Germany did seize several large Soviet oil fields, but did not bring any equipment or expertise to reverse the Soviet scorched earth and sabotage.

 

[marathag]

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?

M4A2 (75 mm)	1990
M4A2 (76 mm)	2,073
M4A4 (75 mm)	2

no wet stowage

 

[marathag]

Germany did seize several large Soviet oil fields, but did not bring any equipment or expertise to reverse the Soviet scorched earth and sabotage.

even if captured intact, didn't have the tanker cars or the locomotives to pull them back to Germany

US had these all over

for moving Crude from place to place, as pipelines didn't crisscross the country yet. Tank cars and loading platforms, that infrastructure really didn't exist in Germany
Or the USSR, either, Most of the Soviet Crude moved by barge.