AHC: WW2 Tanks

from what i recall, his aircooled V10 engines were more the problem, and even with decent engines, there is still the problem of all the scarce copper needed for the electric drive section

Is there any alternative to Copper for motor windings. Though I imagine if there is it's still going to be in short supply.
 
Is there any alternative to Copper for motor windings. Though I imagine if there is it's still going to be in short supply.

Gold or silver works better than copper. So the nazis could put their stolen gold inside tank engines instead of switzerland. Aluminum can work, but the motors end up T H I C C or inefficient.
 
Gold or silver works better than copper. So the nazis could put their stolen gold inside tank engines instead of switzerland. Aluminum can work, but the motors end up T H I C C or inefficient.

Needed aluminum for aircraft as well. Aluminum wasn't so bad, after all Al is used for most all High Tension distribution lines. it was only with age did the real trouble with Al wiring cropped up in houses.
But then I'd sacrifice the whole lot of Me-210 production for Diesel-electric or Gas-electric drive for the few TDs that would be built
 
from what i recall, his aircooled V10 engines were more the problem, and even with decent engines, there is still the problem of all the scarce copper needed for the electric drive section

True... but Porsche did not seem to have any trouble with such a set up in WW I?

https://wingsofwrath.deviantart.com/art/Skoda-Heavy-Artillery-Plate-3-197993254

https://wingsofwrath.deviantart.com/art/Skoda-Heavy-Atillery-Plate-5-197995834

Is curious. I've seen mention that it was the electric componenets, supplied by/from another company that gave the trouble. Not the house built Otto engines.

Any historians about to throw light on the subject, perhaps? (Since a better engine will/should always produce a 'Better' tank. ;) )
 
True... but Porsche did not seem to have any trouble with such a set up in WW I?

https://wingsofwrath.deviantart.com/art/Skoda-Heavy-Artillery-Plate-3-197993254

https://wingsofwrath.deviantart.com/art/Skoda-Heavy-Atillery-Plate-5-197995834

Is curious. I've seen mention that it was the electric componenets, supplied by/from another company that gave the trouble. Not the house built Otto engines.

Any historians about to throw light on the subject, perhaps? (Since a better engine will/should always produce a 'Better' tank. ;) )

Electric speed control was spotty when you got into the high HP Diesel-Electric applications before WWII. US had it solved by Westinghouse and EMD for switching locomotives, and for mainline applications with the Alco RS and EMD FT and 'E' Passenger units up to 2000HP just before WWII got going
 
At work.

Sorry? There's nothing anywhere about of my stuff other than the spur of the moment blurb posted above.

I just mention the other thread to acknowledge the inspiration of the piece.
 
The quantity of copper for tank production could be easily met by appropriation of scrap copper from the occupied territories. We are talking of a few tens of tons. Small arms usage was eating it by the thousands of tons.

There are arguments for steam power for tanks. e.g. torque reducing gearing needs, easier multi fuelling and use of less refined fuels. After all steam engines had been run in aeroplanes. We are talking of sophistication way beyond a 19th century road traction engine but still within period technology.
 
There are arguments for steam power for tanks. e.g. torque reducing gearing needs, easier multi fuelling and use of less refined fuels. After all steam engines had been run in aeroplanes. We are talking of sophistication way beyond a 19th century road traction engine but still within period technology.

They needed Steam powered trucks to replace horses even more, like the British Sentinel. Very low tech, really
1916+Sentinel+6+ton+steam+wagon.JPG

Vertical firetube boiler, 230 psig with manual feed of lump coal or coke
 
Jerry's had wood burning trucks during the war and according to USSBS - 75,000 tons of fuel saved through wood generator army trucks in 1943 v 130,000 tons in 1944. My old man used to recall seeing his father driving truck in Poland and running over to a tree stand to hack down some tree branches when he ran out of fuel...talk about living off the land.


As far as the cooper and other resources used per tank etc- it covers ALL resources used to build the tank especially those needed to keep the tank factory going.
 
Jerry's had wood burning trucks during the war and according to USSBS - 75,000 tons of fuel saved through wood generator army trucks in 1943 v 130,000 tons in 1944. My old man used to recall seeing his father driving truck in Poland and running over to a tree stand to hack down some tree branches when he ran out of fuel...talk about living off the land.

Producer Gas, at best, lets a gasoline engine run with 40-60% power loss, and that's with the gas engine optimized for it-- running extra head gaskets to reduce compression and having a manual spark advance for timing, and that was with decent charcoal from postwar tests. It's better than having a vehicle with dry tanks, though.
 
With the extra weight of all the equipment needed I expect a performance of 40% of the original would have been optimistic.

x3.gif


A sidevalve engine would be the easiest to convert just stick in a thicker head gasket. Overhead valve or overhead cam would be awkward needing a lot more work.
 
Top