Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Don't forget that Wiemar Germany licensed the 2862 cubic inch BMW VI to the USSR, and they used that as a inspiration for most of their following V12 efforts, in the air, and on the ground in the form of the V-2 diesel. The USSR took the crank and connecting rod setup of the BMW, and the head and block design from the 2197 cubic inch Hispano 12YWhy was Germany designing and making diesel engines for aircraft and surface warships when the Wehrmacht could have better used diesels for its tanks, AFVs and trucks? It just seems an odd direction to focus on.
That all started to change in the late 1910s, when 'Straight Run' processing was superseded by more advanced processes besides just heating up crude with a distillation towerIn a given barrel of crude oil, considerably more gasoline will be produced than diesel, kerosene, Jet-A, etc. The reason the USAF went to JP-4, a mixture of gasoline and kerosene, instead of 100% kerosene JP-1 was because using just the kerosene would create a problem with what to do with the "left over" gasoline. Prior to around 1900, after the useful kerosene (heating, light, and cooking), tars, and petroleum distillates used in paints and lubricants had been extracted, the left over gasoline, which was too volitile and dangerous to be used for fuel, was usually just dumped into the nearest river.
The key here is normally. A low/medium speeds the diesel shows a significant advantage. For high speed it flips. When you need double the power to go just a few knots faster you have double the size of the engine rooms. Diesels do not scale well and they do (or did) not take to overloading well. A high power steam plant can be fairly compact, it will be inefficient in fuel burn (and smoky and may require more maintenance.)The greater weight of diesel engines will not usually have a particularly large effect on ship design - while the steam turbine/boilers/reduction gearing will generally weigh significantly less per HP than the diesel - the diesel engine arrangement will normally take up significantly less hull volume.
I can't help but wonder how the Tiger II or Panther might have improved its mobility if its Maybach HL230 (690 hp @ 3,000 rpm and 1364 lb⋅ft at 2,100 rpm) petrol engine was replaced by a diesel of greater power. Though, to be fair to Maybach and the Germans, IIRC the HL230 was the most powerful mass produced tank engine of the war, petrol or otherwise.Tanks have a lot of their own requirements. Weight of the engine/s is almost insignificant. A extra 100-200kg in the engine out of 10ton tank or more? What is significant is the size of the engine that you have to enclose in the armored envelope. Weight of the armor could be more than the weight of the larger diesel engine. While torque is important to tanks, the amount of torque transmitted in a given gear is also important.
Maybe, are you measuring HP or torque?alhough, to be fair to Maybach and the Germans, IIRC the HL230 was the most powerful mass produced tank engine of the war, petrol or otherwise.
I was thinking HP, but you're right to point out torque as it's the more useful measure for getting a stationary tank moving. I remember the first passenger vehicle I drove with stick shift was an Opel Zafira minivan in Germany in about 2013, and the torque from its diesel was forgiving when as a newbie I was lugging in a too high a gear.Maybe, are you measuring HP or torque?
The Israelis weren't changing the engines in their M4s until about 1959 (prototypes) and that required a fair amount of work. Sometimes involving buying scrap M4A3 hulls and sending the hulks to Israel where the new engines were fitted (the M4A3 had space for the radiators, the radial engine hulls did not) new suspensions were fitted, new/modified turrets and a lot of bits and pieces like interior fittings, control levers, and all the little stuff was taken out of the old radial engine tanks. Production of the conversions didn't start until 1960.The French didn't think much of their Panthers, but the Israelis might do better with their mods.
Standards would have helped, even if as minor as the Canadian Military Pattern for the GM and Fords in the Great White Northbut more costly trucks and fewer of them would have hurt the German supply effort in General
Dint forget the FrechStandards would have helped, even if as minor as the Canadian Military Pattern for the GM and Fords in the Great White North
German manufacturers making Trucks and cars for the Heer
Adler
AEG
Afa
Audi
Bergmann
Bergmann-Metallurgique
Bleichert
BMW
Borgward
Brennabor
Breuer
Büssing-NAG
Daimler-Benz
Demag
Deuliewag
Deutz
DKW
Esslingen
Famo
FAUN
Ford
Framo
Freund
Fuchs
Goliath
Hagedorn
Hamor
Hanomag
Hanno
Henschel
Horch
Kaelble
Klöckner-Deutz
Kramer
Kraus-Maffei
Krupp
Lanz
MAN
Manderbach
Maschinenbau Lüneburg
Mercedes-Benz
MIAG
Neander
Normag
NSU
O&K
Opel
Ostner
Phänomen
Primus
Renger
Sachsenberg
Saurer
Schlüter
Stoewer
Talbot
Tempo
Trippel
VW
Vögele
Vomag
Wanderer
Zettelmeyer
Ziel-Abegg
Zündapp
These Austrian
Austro-FIAT
Austro-Daimler
Fross-Büssing
Gräf & Stift
ÖAF
Perl
Saurer
Steyr-Puch
These Czechoslovakian trucks
Jawa
Praga
Skoda
Tatra
Walter
By 1942, they pretty much decided on two dozen types to focus on
I can't help but wonder how the Tiger II or Panther might have improved its mobility if its Maybach HL230 (690 hp @ 3,000 rpm and 1364 lb⋅ft at 2,100 rpm) petrol engine was replaced by a diesel of greater power. Though, to be fair to Maybach and the Germans, IIRC the HL230 was the most powerful mass produced tank engine of the war, petrol or otherwise.
Just for fun, let's stick in the postwar M60 tank's diesel Continental AV1790 with its 750 hp and stump-pulling 1,750 lb⋅ft.
View attachment 778923
The Kreigsmarine could have done with one of these then ? 25,480 litre diesel. Get yours today.