Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Trouble is, that combined effect (diesel being considerably more energy dense than gas/petrol) would likely cause a total wreck/fatalitiesDoes that article you're referring to describe the mechanism for this? In "normal" circumstances one of the features that makes diesel (relatively) safe is that it's so non-volatile that the fuel vapors in the tank saturate to a point below the lower flammability level (which AFAIU is usually considered to be the same as the lower explosive level as well). To reach above the LFL the fuel would either need to be heated quite considerably, or then somehow the explosive charge exploding inside the tank vaporizes fuel and pressurizes the tank to the point a detonation occurs before the tank otherwise bursts?
As an aside, from the perspective of crew survivability I'm not sure this is much of a point against diesel. If a 76+mm shell explodes inside a petrol tank in the crew compartment, if the blast or shrapnel doesn't kill the crew, the explosion spraying and then igniting the petrol from the fuel tank all inside the crew compartment would presumably incinerate the crew.. In both cases it seems the solution is to, well, not put fuel tanks inside the crew compartment.
It was just a military report by military engineers - no in-depth investigations of the mechanism of fuel detonation. They just observed combat vehicles destroyed by APHE hit into the petrol tank with no traces of fire within the hull or the turret. Diesel is less volatile, but may be more prone to detonation under very high pressure due to a high quote of molecules with linear structure (just hypothesis, not proved). The charge exploded INSIDE THE FUEL TANK - it was clearly indicated, no shrapnel, etc. My guess is that the shaking and heat from the engine creates enough vapor pressure inside a nearly empty fuel tank. The enhancement depends on the HE amount - the large the caliber the higher the amplification. The 76(75)mm was the smallest caliber whose penetration had an effect.Does that article you're referring to describe the mechanism for this? In "normal" circumstances one of the features that makes diesel (relatively) safe is that it's so non-volatile that the fuel vapors in the tank saturate to a point below the lower flammability level (which AFAIU is usually considered to be the same as the lower explosive level as well). To reach above the LFL the fuel would either need to be heated quite considerably, or then somehow the explosive charge exploding inside the tank vaporizes fuel and pressurizes the tank to the point a detonation occurs before the tank otherwise bursts?
As an aside, from the perspective of crew survivability I'm not sure this is much of a point against diesel. If a 76+mm shell explodes inside a petrol tank in the crew compartment, if the blast or shrapnel doesn't kill the crew, the explosion spraying and then igniting the petrol from the fuel tank all inside the crew compartment would presumably incinerate the crew..
Yes, of course. But that was the main problem with the clumsy Soviet system: even though they realized the causes of the problems, they did not change anything to prevent a decline in armaments production. The Soviets tended to compensate the lack of quality with quantity (in the vast majority of cases). The reasons were relatively low technological level as well as low mean educational level of the decision-making CPSU leadership.In both cases it seems the solution is to, well, not put fuel tanks inside the crew compartment.
Makes more sense.Sorry gentlemen, typo and fail to proof read strikes again.
Correct date is Feb 1953.
As far as diesels go very few vehicles in the Army and Air force were diesel powered at this time. The M36B2 is one of the few that I can find, most or all of the Diesel powered M4 chassis had disappeared.
Uhm, most U.S. Tank Destroyers - M10s, and most M36s had Diesels. So did most of the Engineer's Construction Equipment, and a fair number of the Heavy Line-Haul trucks (The backbone of Logistics. Getting fuel in the U.S. Army wasn't much of an issue.The original early models of the T-34 had 2x fuel tanks (out of either 4 or 6 tanks total) in the crew compartment - this may have contributed to the vulnerability/fire problem. In the later models the 2x crew compartment fuel tanks were either moved to the engine compartment, or removed from the tank entirely.
One problem with diesel fuel, at least in colder climates, is that it can be problematic as far as starting and fuel 'gelling' - ie the fuel becomes too thick to flow well enough to reach the engine reliably. The Soviet Army figured out ways of dealing with the gelling problem - in the T-34 it was primarily through cutting the fuel in the engine feed tank (under normal circumstances the engine was always fed from the RH forward engine compartment tank) with a mixture of petrol and diesel, and/or running the engine periodically to keep the engine compartment fuel tanks warm. (The previous is from my translation from an original T-34 manual, so if I am off a bit on the details I apologize).
The British/Commonwealth used diesel engines in the Valentine tank (except some of the early-production) until the end of production. I think they also received most of the diesel powered M3A3 Lee/Grant and M4A2 Sherman tanks. As far as I have read they did not seem to have any particular problems with them in Europe. If anyone has any information about diesel engine related problems in the ETO I would be interested.
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 Soviets received the lion's share of the Canadian made diesel powered Valentines and - aside from the small gun - quite liked them. I am not sure what models of the M3 Lee the Soviets received, but I know the diesel powered M4A2 was the majority of the Shermans they received.
Incidentally, the gelling problem is still a problem today, though not as much as in WWII for military applications (primarily due to having learned from past experience, but also helped by modern additives).
Maybe a bit earlier, check out the USN's Nasty Class fast patrol boats, a Norge-boat powered by Napier mills, so much for N.I.H!Uhm, most U.S. Tank Destroyers - M10s, and most M36s had Diesels. So did most of the Engineer's Construction Equipment, and a fair number of the Heavy Line-Haul trucks (The backbone of Logistics. Getting fuel in the U.S. Army wasn't much of an issue.
A big drawback to Diesels in Armored Vehicles was weight. A Ford GAA or a Meteor weighed in at around 500 KG. The Twin GM 6-71s on an M4A2 massed about 2300 kg.
It wasn't until the late 1950s that the Power-to-Weight of a Diesel got to the point where they made sense.
Uhm, First, Boats Don't Count. Second, the Nastys were late '50s, Early 60s. Some showed up in the Gulf of Tonkin for Market Time.Maybe a bit earlier, check out the USN's Nasty Class fast patrol boats, a Norge-boat powered by Napier mills, so much for N.I.H!
All M10 Tank Destroyers. Almost all of the Earthmoving Equipment used by the Engineers, The larger linehaul truck tractors, and most of the Tank Transporters.Sorry gentlemen, typo and fail to proof read strikes again.
Correct date is Feb 1953.
As far as diesels go very few vehicles in the Army and Air force were diesel powered at this time. The M36B2 is one of the few that I can find, most or all of the Diesel powered M4 chassis had disappeared.
Napier Deltic engines.Maybe a bit earlier, check out the USN's Nasty Class fast patrol boats, a Norge-boat powered by Napier mills, so much for N.I.H!
Did you check the site, weight was an important factor, speed in a planing hull particularly.Uhm, First, Boats Don't Count. Second, the Nastys were late '50s, Early 60s. Some showed up in the Gulf of Tonkin for Market Time.
Third - the German S-Boots (E-Boats if you read War Comics) were Diesel powered.
It was possible to do better than the twin 6-71. The Soviet V-2 diesel that powered most of their tanks had a weight of about 750 kg and made 500 hp in the T-34, versions used in heavy tanks made 600 hp.A big drawback to Diesels in Armored Vehicles was weight. A Ford GAA or a Meteor weighed in at around 500 KG. The Twin GM 6-71s on an M4A2 massed about 2300 kg.
It wasn't until the late 1950s that the Power-to-Weight of a Diesel got to the point where they made sense.
Can you support this with references to documents? The story of the B-2 began in the early 1930s (1931-1932). BMW VIa (as M-17) may have certain connection to the B-2 development, but very indirectly. Aluminum was used for different reasons, e.g. ease of casting complex parts, better cooling, etc.IIUIC the V-2 was originally developed from a Hispano-Suiza engine designed for airships, which explains weight-saving features like an aluminum crankcase which is perhaps an unnecessary luxury in a tank engine.