V-2 since it was used the longest.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
V-2 since it was used the longest.Aside from the fuel system, was the engine the best of the war though ?
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 USMC also used some diesel powered M4A2 Sherman tanks (I am not sure what models of the M3 Lee), as they did not have the problem of access to diesel fuel that the Army had (many of the landing craft and ship's boats used diesel engines) or gelling in the warm climates they fought in.
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.
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.V-2 since it was used the longest.
T-80UD used diesel engine, but not a V-2 descendant. The T-64 also used a flat diesel engine, the ancestor of which was JuMo diesel engineexcept T-80 which used a turbine engine
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 90.72 octane is the highest grade of gasoline that can be manufactured without additives like TEL
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.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.
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.it's of course possible to increase octane substantially above 72 (and 80) without needing TEL or other octane boosters like alcohols or ethers.
Gasoline chemistry and octane is a complicated subject, but yes, it gets more difficult the higher you get.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.
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.
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).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?
Yeah, the actual combat-veteran tankers who have a say in it, would likely prefer to use the less explosive fuelI 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.)
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...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
Worked well with the Swedish Stridsvagn 103, a small gas turbine paired with a small V6 dieselProblem 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...
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
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?