Busting Tank Myths: Engines
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июн 2024
- I've made videos talking about and busting tank myths in the past, but there wasn't an overall theme. I've recently decided to do more topical myth videos. For this one, we're going to be focusing on tank engines. You wouldn't think that there would be a ton of myths surrounding just one component, but you have to remember that the engine is essentially the heart of the tank.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
Department of Defense Appropriations for 1994: Procurement programs
T-34 In Action by Artem Drabkin, Oleg Sheremet
Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt
Data on World War II Tank Engagements Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions by Ballistics Research Laboratories
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Gunner HEAT PC Crew Voices Mod (Personal, go play the game: gunnerheatpc.com/ )
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory 
Игры
I've actually heard museum volunteers repeat the "German tanks used diesel" myth at a recent event. Had to explain the Maybach family on the Panzer IV, V, and VI, were in fact gasoline engines.
Absolutely, infact even the Russians made the same mistake trying to train dogs to be anti tank weapons, they'd train them on the smell of diesel engines from their tanks when the Germans used gasoline
If I remember corectly the Germans made their gasoline from coal
Blame the movie Patton for that. As good as it is, it does state in one of the first scenes that German tanks used diesel engines
@@Bready3000 If you truly belive what you just said - you're fucking insane lmao
@@Losingsince I have seen that. But even when I saw that scene I already knew it wasn't accurate, because my family had a thick book on tanks from the beginning to about 1975
U.S. Army - **makes diesel engine Sherman** "Well this is pointless, who would ever use this?"
Red Army - "Is for me, comrade?"
I thought they insisted that they be diesel equipped
@@wizard_of_poz4413 The M4A2 was powered by twin GM diesels. Also used by the USMC as their primary tank
In 1998/9, Turkey held the Tank-2000 trials for choosing the future tank, the M1A2 with diesel was proposed but later dismissed as the crew was not able to start it.
Edit: Lots of people thought that the crew was Turkish
Crews were not Turkish, not only for the M1A2 but for every tank that was competing
10/10 havent broken down a single time since ive started it
Bruh moment.
@DefinitelyNotBrandon well diesels can be a bit finicky at times. (As someone who spent a few days getting a diesel to start, along with other experiences)
I know the Turkish military is inept but I have a hard time believing that...
wasnt that the competition held because germany gave turkey a arms embargo where the k2 won but south korea still tries to rebuild a engine equil to the leopard 2 engine used in k2 tanks but still didnt succeded
Okay but the real question is when are they going to replace the Abrams turbine with a twin turbo junkyard LS1? Now that's some real horsepower.
The chad silverado engine with an turbo vs the virgin gas turbine
thorium nuclear engine
The gas turbine engine can actually use different fuels even diesel.
I'm just waiting for the Type 10 MBT 2JZ swap.
talking about different engines, i recall a sound mod for the R3 in WT that replaced the engine sound with a Ferrari V12, i cant exactly find it again tho
On the subject of engine complexity. Most modern MBTs have modular engine blocks. So you can just yoink out the engine regardless of its type and replace it quickly. Unless you're running out of replacement engines, the type of engine doesn't really influence repair times required to make the vehicle combat capable again.
All other things being equal, sure, but an engine with more parts means less of each at hand and as a result, eventually, longer lead times.
Could busting tank myths regarding armored cars/IFVs? Love your work!
Isnt busting myths but he already did one close to that, its recent.
I’d like to see him talk about the fuel tank doors on the BMP series. I highly doubt it’s as big a problem as some people make it out to be.
@@Shaun_Jones Those fuel tanks are the first to be used while the BMP is on the move. They are small , so when the vehicle enters the battlefield they are already empty
4:14 Gaijin moment
Volumetric be like....
just wanted to comment... basic moment
0:57 just was weird
Your last point is also part of why turbines are so highly regarded in aviation. The limited number of moving parts all turning in the same direction results in very little vibration, and most importantly a turbine will pretty much run as long as fuel is in it even in a wide range of malfunctions affecting other parts of the aircraft.
Just for some numbers for those of you not in aviation, a typical small piston engine has a recommended Time Between Overhaul (TBO) of
@@colinkennedy1718 a turbine overhaul is just checking for cracks and grinding out any you find and puting it back in service. given there are alot of blades so it takes a while but its not like replaceing parts and being super particular aobut oil clearences and junk that piston engines have to deal with.
No, aviation uses turbines simply because they're smaller and lighter for the same power, and weight is very important for planes. In a plane, getting somewhere faster is more important than fuel efficiency, and fuel efficiency per km of high-bypass turbines is actually much higher than radial engines.
@@laz272727 Trust us, reliability is also a major factor. Not knocking pistons because I'm a student and all I fly right now is pistons, but even with all the safety factors built into those engines they're not as reliable as turbines.
@@MidnightWyvern Reliability comes in multiple factors for engines. Turbines are more reliable in perfect conditions, but have issues the when conditions dip - especially with tiny turbines used in tanks. In comparison, piston engines have a lot of failure points, but they're much more robust when it comes to changing environment. Especially since conditions in flight, even barely above ground, are much closer to perfect for turbines when compared to tanks.
There's also the tiny issue where if a turbine chokes and dies, tank crews will *not* be able to repair a turbine. Hell, if they tried, it would probably just shake itself to pieces.
I think people mistook the "Diesel engined M1" for the K1-88,which is a similar (it was derived from the XM1 prototypes) tank to the Abrams (albeit smaller,diesel powered,and has hydropneumatic suspension.)
I disagree. The "diesel engine M1" myth - at least in Australian service - likely stems from the use of diesel fuel in these tanks. The Abrams' engine is a multifuel engine, it'll run on almost anything. The Australian Army leverages this feature to simplify their logistics and extend the range of their tanks, as diesel is more efficient than the JP-8 fuel used by the Americans. This does come at the cost of performance, but was deemed to be a worthwhile compromise.
Depending on how you look at it, the Abrams does have a diesel engine, just a turbine instead of a typical design. In the US JP8 and diesel are used almost interchangeably, not just in the Abrams, but in most ground vehicles. It also stands to reason that most MBT's that are "diesel" engined could also run JP8 like the Abrams.
fun fact: the K1 was nicknamed "baby abrams" by u.s. troops because of its small size and similarity to the m1.
The thing about diesel is that diesel engines use compression ignition rather than spark ignition, and you could assume that a tank shell would absolutely be able to deliver the amount of pressure and heat required to ignite diesel fuel
EDIT: This isn't necessarily me arguing against diesel (infact I love diesel engines and am aspiring to be a diesel technician), it's just that there are certain things that need to be said when it comes to this
Gassoline requires even less heat/pressure to ignite.
Tesla tanks when
@@caro7048 battery go boom
@@peepeepoopoo2535 your not going to find any modern threats to tanks that won't create such heat and pressure that it would ignite gasoline but not diesel
@@totaldefences Yeah that is True when it comes to anti tank weapons, but that is not the only reason why a tank might catch fire.
I think the myth about turbines being more complex probably stems from the fact that they are more complex/expensive (usually) to manufacture, but once you have the ability to replace parts and such, maintenance/operation is about on par with, or slightly better than, a diesel, all other things being held equal
and lockwire, lots and lots and lots of of fuckin lockwire.
German tanks in WW2 used gazoline, because it can be chemically created from coal, unlike diesel.
Nope, the Germans definitely used diesel. The big cats in particular needed a lot of the stuff to run, which is why German advances were so much slower, they needed to make sure the fuel tanks could catch up and do their thing as opposed to just stopping at a local gas station. It's also the reason they had began to run dry of fuel for their tanks as early as 1943.
@@no-legjohnny3691 bro wtf
@@no-legjohnny3691 If by "big cats" you mean u-boats and other ships, then yes.
@@no-legjohnny3691 you mean they ran dry when USA stopped supplying them?
@@no-legjohnny3691 The panther A (A big cat in my book but I will also include tiger 2 for reference) Used the Maybach 230 engine series which if you look it up is a gasoline engine
The tiger 2 Also used the Maybach 230 engine so its also gas
Tiger 1 was a Maybach
Jadgtiger was a maybach
Jadgpanther was a maybach
Heck even the smaller panzer 4's (The majority of tanks until the panther got under production) was using a Maybach (Not the exact same one but the whole line is gasoline)
Another thing is about some multi fuel engines. Many people assume you can run any fuel in a multi fuel engine with no adverse effects other than maybe less power (diesels running on gasoline, olive oil, etc.), but many multi fuel engines will only be able to limp home under very little engine load when using most other fuels it’s not designed for.
It depends on the specific engine, but multi fuel generally is not for allowing all vehicles to run on whatever fuel is most available/running all vehicles on one type of fuel, it’s meant to allow vehicles to run alternative fuel in emergency situations travelling slowly for
no need multifuel engine
Ukrainian farmer ready to help tow your tank
to their nearby garage,
such a considerate slavic citizen
And then there's the M1's engine, which will happily burn damn near any liquid fuel in existence, with the only real difference being fuel consumption rate.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Very true lol. Turbine engines aren’t subject to the same fueling and tuning limitations of piston engines.
I'd like to know how some of these myths started. Like some of them are so polar opposite from the truth it's like HOW did you come up with that?!
the usual way, someone pulled stuff out of their back sides and nobody challenged that for years
The movie Patton
Can we get a “historically accurate” video for the VT1-2? I know it’s a somewhat niche tank but there are a couple big things Gaijin got wrong.
Another fun fact, gasoline engines have a high pollutant from diesel. Gasoline emits almost 60% of its original use after combustion while Diesel engines emit around 40 to 30% of its original usage after combustion making diesel combustion itself more efficient. However, turbine engines have only around 10% of its original fuel emitted making turbine engines, strangely, environmentally friendly. On the other hand, a turbine will consume more fuel over time.
It would be intresting to calculate how much CO2 was emitted during WW2.
its cuz turbine engines use about the same amount of fuel at full throttle than they do at idle. at full chat the turbines fuel consumption is not that bad, even better than diesel but only at full chat. thats why the abrams has the little apu so it doesn't have to run the main engine when stopped.
Military JP-8 is closest to kerosene. It's also the equivalent of Jet-A.
Yes. Just kerosene with Corrosion Inhibitor/Lubricity Enhancer, Fuel System Icing Inhibitor, and the Static Dissipater Additive.
And another excellent video from the tank furry (lol), keep it up man, these are always a great part of my week!
bro its amazing how many times you have to debunk the m1's turbine stuff. great video as always man.
Nice video!
Yay, new Spintrunk upload
Hi Spookston, I just wanted to note that as someone who works with diesel powered trucks a lot, the Australian turbines do sound quite similar to a lot of simalirly sized diesel engines. That whine can be quite present on diesel engines too.
Anyway, good video! Keep it up!
Wonder when Gaijin will figure out the difference between gross and net horsepower..
Looking at Easy 8s Ford GAA missing 50hp..
Didn't gaijin removed 50hp because germany players were angry that M4A3 flanked then too much?, M4A3E2 have the same engine as the regular one but with +50hp
@@Blarghsauro
I don't think it was because of salty German mains, but it mightn't be too far off.
The Easy 8 lost 50hp about 2ish years ago supposedly due to some document stating that is has 450hp, but that's net horsepower, not gross, which essentially all other vehicles in game use.
They haven't fixed that issue ever since, even though the Jumbos and M4A3 use the exact same engine and have the correct 500hp.
Gaijin's blatantly nerfing the Easy 8 for no good reason. First being moved to 5.7 a good while ago (along with contemporary German tanks being moved down to 5.3), then the horsepower nerf, and more recently the turret traverse nerf.
another banger
I love that your sponsorship plug is literally just 5 seconds of saying “hey, use this code, anyways back to the video.”
Just got an Apex PC, freaking awesome, thanks for the sponsorship haha!
I would love if you did a video talking about Cannon sizes. Such as a time when 150-155mm guns seemed like the potential standard for vehicles going forward. Modern day talks of upgrading guns. I think I remember hearing there being talks for a 140mm gun for the Abrams or so. Then some guns like the British 170mm.
Wasn’t the diesel Sherman the M4A3? I was under the impression the A2 was a combination cast/welded hull with a more compact gasoline engine.
Edit: I got them mixed up. The A2 has the diesel and A3 has the improved V8 gasoline engine
The A2 and A4 had diesels, but the A3 upgraded the radial gas engine to the V8. really shows the progress of engine technology that between the first M4s and A1s to the A3s
The easiest way to remember is that the M4A2 was primarily for Soviet use and the A3 for American use.
@@trinalgalaxy5943 I think you might be mistaking the a4 with the a6 since the a4 had the Chrysler a57 multibank ( 5 inline 6 car engines put together). And the a6 had the Caterpillar radial multifuel diesel. But still a very impervious jump in technology.
@@gv4058 *facepalm my bad, I was thinking of the engine some of them were upgraded to post war... you know, when they became a hodgepodge of random bullshit go brrrrt.
@@trinalgalaxy5943 yeah the super Shermans that would have been a interesting ordeal to put them back together
Do a "if the strv 103 was historically accurate"
Some fun facts about JP8, while it is notably different than generic diesel, it's relatively close when compared to gasoline. In fact in the US army, JP8 is the go to fuel for most vehicles, not just the Abrams with diesel being used secondarily.
Hey spook! Love the Merkava footage :)
Any chance you'll be discussing GHPC again any time soon?
If you do a pt 2 to this could you cover the myth of dust glassing in the M1's during the Gulf War. I don't know if it's true or not, but it was a common rumor I'd hear when I was in the military.
Thats a new one that i havent herd about Australian M1s, The one i herd was after exercises with Singapore where the M1s had to be refueled daily the Lep2s were still good days into the exercise which led to M1 crews demanding exaust deflectors and Changer 1 style external tanks
Awesome 😎
I love my mom.
Good to hear Mr. Potato
Nice
Ok
I love your mom too
I love you too son
Spookston " if your vehicle doesn't have a good engine it's not gonna accomplish much at all"
Chieftain "chill bro don't @ me"
Diesel's main advantage comes from its power and fuel efficiency when compared to gas engines. The simplicity of such engines is also another advantage when compared to gas. these are more prounced earlier before the introduction of turbines
Usually in conjunction with certain engine myths is the idea that X fuel will catch fire simply due to the fact that it's "flammable". No liquid fuel is flammable. Only when it's reached a certain saturation in the air and there's enough energy to start the combustion reaction; this is why you can technically (very much a technicality, do not try it at home) put a fire out with sufficient amounts of gas/diesel/*insert fuel here*.
2:38 and Italy (with the exception of the very late M42 and M43 chassis)
Bro for 200,000 subs you should do a Q&A type of thing you seem like a nice person I wanna know more about you not in a creepy way
A Diesel engine was finally fitted to an m1a2 abrams under the abrams dieselisation program which saw the German MTU MT883 fitted to an M1a2. The vehicle was designed for the Turkish tank trials around 1999-2000 however failed to win the contract and the program ended there after the us army announced it wasn’t interested in replacing the turbine.
There is very little on the internet about the dieselisation program besides a short video and some photos of the abrams at a defence expo showcasing the engine.
I think maybe the Aussie M1 myth might be a porting of older tanks. We did modify the engines on our m1 Stuarts from the radial gasoline engine to Diesel engines in ww2, and I believe we replaced the multifuel engines in our Centurion MK-10. But I can confirm having seen the powerpack removed from an Abrams at 2 Cav they still use the turbine, although we do use diesel in ours as it's the most common fuel in use in the army, behind Jet-A1 for our helicopters
As far as I recall when we were getting the Abrams for the Aussie Army, there was never any serious consideration given to swapping the engine out. The decision was to use diesel because the other vehicles in the Australian military use diesel but the turbine engine would remain. As mentioned, it would have been unfeasible to change it to a typical diesel ICE
Ah JP8, everything takes it in the army. Makes refueling multiple vics/tracks at once simple too.
My cousin used to work on the Aussie Abrams MBT, definitely turbine engines. They can be pulled from the vehicle in the shop in about 20min between 2 mechanics.
2:43 Italy also used diesel engined tanks in ww2
Hi spookston great informative video but you missed a key fact that Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol but other than that you’re spot on
The Aussie Abrams being replaced with diesels where discussed as sand being sucked into the engine, especially sand from Australia that contains large rocks, can shred the crap out of the engines, we kept them anyway because of reasons I do not know about but still.
it wasn't changed because sand ingestion was fixed with better seals on the intakes
Honestly, I feel like the simplicity of a turbine engine can't be overstated, especially compared to a piston engine. Sure, neither is child's play to fix, but a turbine just has fewer moving parts to generate the same output as a diesel engine. Not to mention that a lot of the gearing and clutch can be a bit simpler because it's difficult to break a turbine just by trying to get more torque out of it quickly. Where a piston engine could get stuck and jammed, the turbine just slows down a bit and then spools back up to output the power needed.
JP-8 is essentially just regular Jet-A jet fuel with some mild cetane booster and anti-corrosion additives. Jet fuel itself is just ultra-refined diesel, all the heavy oils having been removed from it. I work with aircraft and I've made a process of taking our waste jet fuel, filtering it out, and "dirtying" it up with some diesel oil and marvel mystery oil to replace its lost lubricity in order to create free diesel fuel that I run in my 7.3 IDI. There's so much of it that I never need to pay for fuel at the pump. On long trips, I have a large tank that I put in the bed so I can just refuel out of that. 😁
Have to also account for ease and safety of storing and transporting fuel. Oh, and availability and sensitivity to temperature and other field conditions.
The Soviets preferred the M4A2 with the twin diesel engine, made it much more logistical sense since most of their armored fighting force used diesel engines. Also if I am not mistaken, the Marine Corps also preferred the M4 model with the diesel engine.
The US army all branches used the gasoline version of the Sherman the A2 radial engine /A3, the soviets received the diesel version as they used diesel already in their T-34, Kvs and IS.
Australian M-1s having their engines swapped is a cover story.
It was created to distract attention and keep people from noticing that each M-1 crew is now issued a kangaroo that deploys from the tank to act as a scout.
;-P
I will say the "best" engine type depends on many factors. Terrain and supply for said engine. Turbines are well known to not be great when you are getting sand sucked in. Though great otherwise for power to weight ratio. Though you need a massive supply chain of fuel to support it.
The problem with the diesel fuel is not that it can catch fire easily like gasoline, but that it rather easily catches fire when you compress it (lets say, by ramming a fuel tank, or hitting it with a large shell). Then it not only catches fire, but also explodes like gasoline do. However if you get just some hot spalls inside a T34, its unlikely to just catch fire. You have to hit the fuel tank. Too bad the fuel tanks are placed in the most hitable place of the tank.
Diesel fuel is more resistant to autoignition as a result of compression than gasoline. It has a higher octane rating than gasoline, which is why diesel engines may run at a compression ratio of 20:1 whereas a gasoline engine typically can't exceed 12:1 or so. We also have to remember that a fuel tank explosion is relatively unlikely. In order to achieve an explosion you need an air-fuel mixture close to the stoichiometric ideal. A fuel tank shouldn't contain enough oxygen for autoignition or an explosion. I think it would be unlikely for liquid diesel to explode in its tank, gasoline produces more volitile vapour which can mix with air admitted through a crack and poor seal, increasing the risk of autoignition. Given the lack of air in a well maintained fuel tank, as well as the high octane rating of diesel fuel explosions as a result of ramming are almost impossible. Also, I'm pretty sure that the British tested a form of composite armor postwar using diesel fuel to resist perforation of the inner steel wall. The shock waves produced by a HEAT warhead during testing ruptured the fuel tank but no fire or explosion resulted. I'm unsure if they used diesel fuel during testing, or substituted it for water.
@@procrastinatorbrad7606 Well, there was a specific example when two British trains collided, and the diesel tank on at least one of them exploded as a direct result of that collision, so it certainly can explode due to ramming.
that merkava looks so good in war thunder :o ..I need to grind Israel ground troups i guess.
turbines are WAY more simpler than regular piston engines. a lot less moving parts better performance and those things can burn on almost anything, from jet a1 to 100ll aircraft piston engine fuel. of course you will need to check it more regularly, but if that's what's available it will work.
hey you know what's one myth you should cover? "Rifled vs smoothbore guns" I've seen a lot of Tea-aboos claim the Challenger is superior to the M1 Abrams because "It has a rifled gun so it's shots are more accurate"
The "you can put a match out in a barrel of diesel" is true, but it's also true for gasoline. I knew a guy that'd put cigs out in gasoline.
If you've ever heard that German tanks in WWII were diesels or that gasoline was the reason that Shermans burned after being hit, blame the movie Patton for that. As good as it is, it does state in one of the first scenes that German tanks used diesel engines and that gasoline was why American tanks caught fire so easily. As well all know, this was actually because of how the ammunition was stored
Always hated that aussie m1 myth almost as much as both sides claiming the armour profile without any proof.
i always wonder why people think that a turbine engine is complex, it has way less moving part and is in most cases rather reliable
I think with with turbines, the idea of them being more complex is more in the tolerances and quality of manufacture than number of parts or the sophistication of them.
Diesel is flammable. It's just that it ignites at higher temperatures than Gasoline (We are talking about the temperature of the fuel itself, not the air around it). Gasoline can ignite at "room temperature" whereas Diesel ignites over 55 °C (131 °F) (Its "flash point").
Diesel is harder to burn in normal conditions because its temperature is simply too low to ignite in normal everyday conditions. However, it can AND WILL ignite if the heat source is able to heat up enough of the liquid with enough oxygen to burn. A match is very hot (it has a high temperature) but the amount of heat it generates is not enough to heat up the diesel to the temperature it needs.
Being struck by explosives, chemical rounds or incendiary can heat up a small amount of diesel projections from the impact and ignite it. Then the burning diesel can heat up the rest and start a huge fire.
There is a video you can find where someone put a match inside a dish with a little amount of diesel in it. It doesn't catch fire immediately but the moment the match heats up the fuel enough, it catch fire instantaneously. For drop and small leaks, it can be faster if the source is an intense fire.
Nice video but how is nobody talking about how gaijined you got at the ens against that T-72?
Damn. I was surprised to hear about the Aus M1's. I guess I was told wrong. I was told they were swapped out because of air filtration problems with sand, which seemed to happen a lot with American Abrams during Desert Storm. I don't know if they ever made a fix for it.
It probably just comes from us using diesel in the normal turbines. Those engines will run on basically anything so we just use the same fuel our trucks and shit need.
Can we have a video on tank noise level? Abrams gets a bad wrap
People seem to think "engines" on tanks are like engines on cars - they are paired with said vehicle.
Tank "engines" - called Power Packs by anyone in the know - are *constantly* swapped out.
Learning over the wing of your car to reach the FIP is an arse - reaching anything inside an armoured box is a nightmare; so you just swap the "pack" out and repair it while the tank driving around with another pack. People need to devoice their thinking the thing they drive for the sceptical that can over said car like it is tin foil.
A match may not ignite a barrel of diesel, but diesel that has been aerosolized, into a flammable mist by a kinetic round hitting a the tank, will easily burn. Even grain dust will explode if it is mixed sufficiently in the air and has an ignition source. No fuel is "safe" inside a tank.
the engine in the m1 is highly unlikely to be replaced by a traditional power pack because.... it can already run on diesel. It's a multi fuel engine.
It can run on almost anything.
@@viceralman8450 That's my point. The engine has very little reason to be replaced at this stage. I'd argue that by the time the engine has a "need" for a replacement, we'll be looking at hybrid technology.
@@YukarisGearReviews Beside fuel efficiency yes, but there's any way to make the turbine more efficient?
@@viceralman8450 oh I'm sure tech has gotten better in the last 50 years but the APU solved the problem of consuming fuel when stopped. Now we're talking about how to increase efficiency when running which.... can really be fixed for a lot less cost with auxiliary fuel tanks.
@@YukarisGearReviews But adding more fuel means more weight so it will end on the fuel paradox of more fuel lead to much weight and that weight in more consumption and that in less autonomy despite the extra fuel?
More importantly on the M4A2, the US Army never deployed M4A2s outside the continental US. They were predominantly used by the Red Army, and the USMC.
I used to fill my zippo with JP8 when I was in a mechanized unit. Worked like a charm but evaporated quickly unfortunately
Actually, the book you are referring to in the snippet also debunks the claim that "diesels were safer in the beginning stages of the war".
They were *not*. Why?
1) They burned as often as carburettor engines - no advantage here. (23 vs 19 % in favor of the carburettor engines, diesel-powered soviet tanks burned more than petrol-powered soviet tanks - but let's blame it on statistics.)
2) They were louder than German carburettor engines - a disadvantage here. (Early in the war, T-34 did not use mufflers at all, making it extremely loud.)
The only advantage was the PR of these engines making the crews more confident in a piece of equipment that was actually pretty crap.
Nowadays type of fuel used is less relevant than in WWII. Gasoline back then was much more available (please correct me if I am wrong). Polish army before WWII adopted 7TP with diesel engine due to reduced fire risk and higher chance of crew survival but also this was the cause of why many of those tanks were ditched during combat because of diesle shortage and unavailability to refill them with proper fuel from existing gas stations (also if I am spreading bullshit please correct me).
Yeah, I think the issue with diesel back then was that it wasn't typically inland and was more in the coastal ports for ships. Poland would've struggled to field that diesel not just because of the war but because it's difficult to transport enough diesel to fuel tank regiments with enough volume while also transporting all of their other shit. You throw the war into that and the constant bombardment from the blitzkrieg, I doubt Poland would've ever managed to transport enough since the convoys would be under attack constantly, the train lines would've been bombed, and that's assuming the Germans didn't just blow up alot of the fuel.
4:14 yeah
yeah, jp-8 is basically diesel. When it evaporates it leaves an oily residue similar to diesel.
what would you say is more important in tank maneuvers? Higher acceleration? Or higher top speed?
Why would higher acceleration matter at all?
@@taistelusammakko5088 what's the point of having a really high top speed if it takes forever to reach it?
Wow I didn't know Panzer 4 and tiger used petrol lmao. Thanks
JP8 is pretty interchangeable with Diesel but let me tell you how nigh of a nightmare it is to flush out a fuel system if you cross contaminate. The US army does not like to fuck around with that too much.
Another common point against the Abrams is that it’s gas turbine is less efficient than diesels. This may be the case, but it’s not the full story. The gas turbine is a flex-fuel engine, it can run on anything with hydrocarbons, and in war, where logistics might be strained, you may find yourself lacking diesel, but having spare petrol, or even if you have an ungodly amount of alcohol, you can fill the tank with it and keep fighting.
Yes, but that's not a problem for US logistics.
@@viceralman8450 US logistics incidentally have to supply the US air force, which is thirsty on a whole other order of magnitude
@@soloqueuepixy Did the US ended armor ended up dry in Desert Storm often, no, so why would happen in another scenario.
@@viceralman8450 back up bro, we're on the same team
@@soloqueuepixy I know; my point is under regular circumstances should be no problem in supplying both the air force and the army despite the Abrams tendency to devore fuel.
I might be wrong, but can't the M1's turbine burn basically any type of fuel? I know one of the reasons that germany looked into turbines back in WWII was the ability to burn low grade, or assorted types of fuel.
A multi-fuel engine can be made with regular piston engines or gasturbines. An engine just needs to be above a certain strength level to be multi-fuel. Most multi-fuel engines are infact desiel engines useing technology developed by M.A.N. in ww2.
Neither piston nor turbine engines are inherently multi-fuel. They have to be built in a certain way and to a certain strength.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I'm aware of this, but from my understanding, turbine engines require little to no extra effort to burn differing fuel types when it comes to desgin, and a lot of multi-fuel piston engines have been incredibly problematic.
2:37 anyone realized one of the Merkava wheel glitched when he turned left?
Diesel is less ignitable than gasoline, sure. But I think the friction heat from a tungsten rod moving through steel at 1800m/s is a touch hotter than a match lmao.
JP-8 IS jet fuel.... the only diffrence between the stuff you'd fillup with at the DIesel pump for your truck and JP-8 is since its for a jet engine. Jet fuel cannot have parrifin wax additives like road going diesel. because well Jet turbines use Fuel injectors too... but since aircraft also use the same fuel... you cannot afford it to gel up inside an aircrafts turbine during flight. same goes with Normal diesel engines. if you look at almost any heavy equipment modified and built for the military specifically bulldozers from John Deere, they added a Oiling system to the engine. to makeup for the lack of lubricity that JP-8 doesnt provide but normal road going diesel does due to wax being an additive for lubricity. the wax replaced the Sulfur in diesel fuel in the 80s IIRC. theres still some sulfur in diesel fuel but its Ultra low sulfur now. very very little.
Diesel will easily ignite when exposed to a hot surface such as an exhaust. But it has a higher calorific value than petrol meaning you need less for the same amount of power and logistically it is simpler to have all your vehicles, generators, heaters, etc running on one type of fuel.
0:24 welp good thing i used to be a car guy who loved building engines
1:15 that’s me you killed lol
Never heard any of that(not including diesel being safer in WWII because it isn't a myth).
Especially puzzling is the myth about german diesels which thankfully was opposite of truth thanks to Wa Pruef 6 tunnel vision on "diesels are too heavy"(yes, they said that at the same time as Germany was capturing soviet tanks with aluminum diesel engines and germans were developing 5000hp diesel monstrosity for transport aircraft). Why thankfully? Because there is a certain opinion flowing around in althistory circles - had germans diversified their fuel reserves on tanks more, they wouldn't have a problem with that(since they already were running 200+k captured diesel trucks in their logistics) and instead would be able to operate more vehicles and aircraft since they'd be able to dip their fingers into Kriegsmarine fuel supplies.
I find it hard to believe it would've turned the war around, but diversifying their fuel supply would (at least partially) ameliorate their constant fuel problems, since high-octane gasoline is expensive and hard to produce, while you get a pretty substantial amount of diesel out of oil refining.
In fact, the Germans could also obtain more diesel fuel more easily than gasoline from their synthetic fuel facilities. The German argument about specific power per weight and volume compared to gasoline is also interesting because they can partially offset that by reducing fuel capacity for the same range, and the diesels they used were actually sometimes similarly compact as the gasolines. The one thing that is unfortunate is that WWII belligerents didn't use supercharging on diesels more often, because the relative lack of air when naturally-aspirated is partially responsible for the poor performance of diesels compared to gasoline engines at the time.
Not sure suggesting aluminium blocks is the best idea for Germany when it was lacking this material.
@@williamnixon3994 no one said "turn the war around" except you. And I would have preferred that I don't now get 100500 messages from local Obvious Brigade explaining why not because they see your comment.
The only German tank I know that ran on diesel was the Porsche Tiger/Ferdinand
neat
No.1 myth : Due to Sherman petrol engine they will light up every time when hit
Would you be interested in doing an analysis of the vehicle designs from Harebrained Schemes' 2016 Battletech game? A lot of them are attempts to convert a janky mid-1980s FASA sketch into something that looks more believable.
0:57 no, normal petrol engines need spark plugs that ignite them while diesel engines need literal hot air and there you go the thing is in flames, it has ignited, it has spun the crankshaft and the pistons
Diesel needs to be heated up to reach flash point before ignition (and hot air is used for that purpose), it needs harder to reach mix of oxygen than you would get in environment outside the engine and it doesn't evaporate even close to how gasoline does creating less flammable fumes. It is also a coolant, for example a fuel tank filled with diesel can stop a HEAT round without ignition simply because it will cool the molten copper jet and won't ignite without enough oxygen mix.
aussie M1 my beloved
The Abrams is also switching to FP24, honestly don’t know the difference cause not even our fuelers know.
what i want to know is full efficiencies because my decal truck is way more full efficient than any gas truck under the same load. like i know the engines the army use are probably not to worried about it, but from a logistical stand point if your tanks can operate for longer periods of time with the same amount of full it lest costly both in the sense of money and time that people have to spend to refull
The gun is the heart of the tank. It's not a car. In a car, yes.
JP-8 might be as save as diesel but modern diesel engines use a diesel mixture which is harder to ignite and gets solved before injected into the engine
JP-8, not JPA, is actually more difficult to ignite than diesel (this statement goes for all kerosene-based fuels actually). Also, JP-8 is NOT gasoline so maybe know what you're talking about before you comment
@@jacobdewey2053 the diesel mixture used in most nato nations that use a multifuel diesel engine are almost not ignitable... the diesel has to be cleared from this stuff they put in because otherwise they could not explode in the cylinders! The best example for that is the mtu mb 873 engine! he used ww2 tanks running on diesel as an example for that but modern diesel mbt's dont use basic diesel and jp-8 can be as ignitable as diesel but not as this diesel mixture used by a lot of modern nato countries
@@jacobdewey2053 side fact the abrams turbine has longer replacement time then the leopard 2 engine and is burning less parts that have to be replaced regulary
Myth: Turbine Engines are completely inefficient at any setting below full speed. Thus they are gas guzzlers.
THE SWEDISH S-tank used both a turbine engine and a diesel . i think it might been the first massproduction tank to use a turbine engine