Diesel is more fuel efficient, something like an extra 80%. I have wondered what would be the effect if the Riechswehr, seeing Germany's dependence on imported oil, decided to make diesel their standard fuel. The same amount of fuel could fuel 80% more vehicles, or the same amount of vehicles could go 80% further, or some appropriate in-between.
ATL tank 1940
- Thread starter Redbeard
- Start date
Do you have any references for that figure of 80%? Yes diesel does have a higher calorific content than gasoline but not 80% higher unless there have been some advances in physics that have not been widely publicised.
We had an argument, sorry discussion on British tanks here....
http://p216.ezboard.com/Was-Comet-t...sionboardsfrm7.showMessage?topicID=1484.topic
http://p216.ezboard.com/Was-Comet-t...sionboardsfrm7.showMessage?topicID=1484.topic
Dean; I will never have references. I did ask a pertoleum engineer about it once, he told me that diesel doesn't go through as many refining stages as petrol, and that diesel engines are at their most efficient at part throttle whereas petrol engines are at full throttle. The gist was that for a petrol and diesel of the same power the diesle would go 80% further on the same amount of fuel.
It would be interesting to find out how much crude oil is used to refine both a gallon of diesel and petrol. I have a feeling if the difference was that great the it would be reflected in the price that the oil companies charge for the two commodities.
Both petrol and diesel engines have an optimum throttle setting and it will not be flat out pedal to the metal with either. However if you look at fuel consumption figures from independent, not manufactures, tests a identical diesel powered road vehicle, truck, bus or automobile will give approximately 15-20% better fuel consumption. This has to be offset against higher production and maintenance costs for diesel vehicles and greater pollution caused by the combustion products.
Stalker
Banned
Still, diesel is extracted (rectified) from mineral oil. By 1943 German land forces had been forced into using synthesised fuels but Luftwaffe and Navy still needed natural petrol and diesel. In fact, diesel engines appeared to be too capricious to work on sythetic fuels. So, however diesel could be, the problem of natural oil fields and Romanian oil from Ploesti, BTW, would still persist.
I've lost contact with the chick whose hubby was the petroleum engineer, so I can't do fresh questioning. But apparently you don't get more deisel than petrol per input of crude but with less stages it comes quicker and easier and you can use crappier crude oil, which probably ups total output compared to petrol. I think Germany used synthetic fuel for its high octane aircraft fuels and crude derived fuels for the rest, as much as possible, ish. But in the broadest scheme of things I think countiress could get a significant strategic advantage by using diesel instead of petrol for their armies in terms of better utilisation of total resources.
Redbeard
Banned
A lot of you keep asking what empire my ATL tanks belong to, so far none, but I guess that can't go on in an ATL universe, so if you have no Empire, you better invent one!
Here it is: The Royal Combined Council of Commerce (R3C), a Platdeutsch speaking global empire centered on the Baltic and North Sea, but including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Netherlands, NW Germany (Saxony), the Baltic coast from Holstein to Neva (Pommerania, Kurland, Livland), Finland, North Atlantic Islands, Canada (Vinland), a lot of Caribean islands (West India), Guyana (Sweatland), Gilbraltar, Malta, Canary Islands, Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, South Africa, India, Malaya, Singapore, East India, Australia, New Zealand and some Pacific paradises as well (If it is going to be wank, let it be wank
).
The attached image is of the K34 tank - the grandfather of the K40. The K34 was developed in the erly 30's after recieving intelligence on the Soviets introducing tanks with 45mm guns (T26 and BT2). The K34 has a 50mm medium velocity gun, a petrol engine (The Vrijheet engine (menaing Liberty in OTL English) originally an aero engine) and max 30mm armour.
The K34 initially had a lot of reliability problems, especially from engine and transmission, and the suspension was considered incapable of handling the speeds possible with the 400hp Vrijheet engine. The worst bugs were eventually sorted out, but the biggest disappointment probably was the 50mm gun, as more exact data by the mid 30s on the Soviet 45mm showed that the 50mm probably was slightly inferior in penetration.
The K34 was the main tank in the R3C inventory in the first R3C-Soviet war. In 1937 Stalin had been assasinated and Trotsky returned to become president, supported by a circle of Red Army generals with Tukhachevsky as the most prominent. After some very aggressive Soviet rethorics the R3C declared a blockade against the Soviet Union, which again had the Soviets launch a surprise attack against the provinces on the Baltic South coast in spring of 1938. Massive armoured columns penetrated deep and initially had great success vs. the dispersed R3C forces. The K34 performed adequadely, but there being no armoured unit larger than Brigade in the R3C army meant that the K34 usually fought heavily outnumbered and indeed proved vulnerable to the Soviet 45mm gun, but OTOH the Soviet tanks were very thin skinned themselves.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Here it is: The Royal Combined Council of Commerce (R3C), a Platdeutsch speaking global empire centered on the Baltic and North Sea, but including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Netherlands, NW Germany (Saxony), the Baltic coast from Holstein to Neva (Pommerania, Kurland, Livland), Finland, North Atlantic Islands, Canada (Vinland), a lot of Caribean islands (West India), Guyana (Sweatland), Gilbraltar, Malta, Canary Islands, Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, South Africa, India, Malaya, Singapore, East India, Australia, New Zealand and some Pacific paradises as well (If it is going to be wank, let it be wank
).The attached image is of the K34 tank - the grandfather of the K40. The K34 was developed in the erly 30's after recieving intelligence on the Soviets introducing tanks with 45mm guns (T26 and BT2). The K34 has a 50mm medium velocity gun, a petrol engine (The Vrijheet engine (menaing Liberty in OTL English) originally an aero engine) and max 30mm armour.
The K34 initially had a lot of reliability problems, especially from engine and transmission, and the suspension was considered incapable of handling the speeds possible with the 400hp Vrijheet engine. The worst bugs were eventually sorted out, but the biggest disappointment probably was the 50mm gun, as more exact data by the mid 30s on the Soviet 45mm showed that the 50mm probably was slightly inferior in penetration.
The K34 was the main tank in the R3C inventory in the first R3C-Soviet war. In 1937 Stalin had been assasinated and Trotsky returned to become president, supported by a circle of Red Army generals with Tukhachevsky as the most prominent. After some very aggressive Soviet rethorics the R3C declared a blockade against the Soviet Union, which again had the Soviets launch a surprise attack against the provinces on the Baltic South coast in spring of 1938. Massive armoured columns penetrated deep and initially had great success vs. the dispersed R3C forces. The K34 performed adequadely, but there being no armoured unit larger than Brigade in the R3C army meant that the K34 usually fought heavily outnumbered and indeed proved vulnerable to the Soviet 45mm gun, but OTOH the Soviet tanks were very thin skinned themselves.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Hi Steffen, your Sweatland almost made me fall off my chair.
Your ATL R3C empire looks somehow very familiar to me, wonder why???
I'll keep it in mind, but getting there will take forever...
Great work, keep it up. Have you had a look at paint.NET? Downloaded it myself, great for mapmaking etc.
Hmmm, your question - the OTL country to produce K40 would be somekind of NaziGermany, probably without Hitler and with a perception off what will be needed in the upcoming conflict. No flimsies Pzkfw I and II.
Your ATL R3C empire looks somehow very familiar to me, wonder why???
I'll keep it in mind, but getting there will take forever...
Great work, keep it up. Have you had a look at paint.NET? Downloaded it myself, great for mapmaking etc.
Hmmm, your question - the OTL country to produce K40 would be somekind of NaziGermany, probably without Hitler and with a perception off what will be needed in the upcoming conflict. No flimsies Pzkfw I and II.
Redbeard
Banned
The R3C airforce would defininately be a tactical airforce like the Luftwaffe or the WWII Soviet Airforce. When you have such long borders you simply can't afford the luxury of a strategic airforce. And if you really want to be a nuissance to your neighbors it will be much easier to just invade them than build up a costly strategic bomberforce. If heavy four engine planes are available they will probably be used as maritime patrol and strike aircraft.
I guess the 1938 experience of massive armoured collumns will lead to development of airborne tankbusters. I have an idea of a small twin engine plane with two 40mm automatics (Bofors?) in the lower hull and powered by say two 700hp radials, too weak for modern fighters by the 1940s, but existing production lines could be utilised. Not unlike the Hs129, but the inspiration just is some 4 years ahead of OTL. Could also be a single engine pusher with a twin boom tail.
In the meantime I have finished the design inbetween K34 and K40 - the K37. The design was initiated not long after the K34 got into service, and focussed on improving the troublespots of the K34, engine, transmission and suspension, and introduced a 400hp diesel, a simple but reliable transmission and torsion bar suspension. Plus of course a more potent 50mm gun and improved frontal armour (70mm on vertical front plate and mantlet) . The K37 was only in service in small numbers when the Soviets attacked in 1938, but three brigades (150 tanks each) just finsihing their training in various places on the Scandinavian peninsula were hurriedly deployed to Riga in car- and railway ferries. From here they struck the main Soviet trust in the flank just outside Riga and caused havoc, individual tanks scoring more than 30 kills in a few days not being unusual. For many units the main limit on kills actually was ammo supply, and some units let the hull mg gunner stay behind so his place could be stuffed with extra ammo.
Thus the Soviet attack forces literally dissolved and the scattered remnants withdrew to the border and an armistice was concluded, as the R3C leadership feared a US, French and/or Japanese intervention at this time. A crash rearmament programme was initiated however, the goal of which was inside 3 years to bring R3C in a postion where she could herself choose where and when to strike at her enemies.
Part of this programme was the K40. The K37 had been a great success, the world talked about not much else, but it had to be anticipated that the Soviets and other potential enemies now started developing designs to counter the K37, so a new tank, to counter the counter, had to be designed immediately. The K40 kept the successful transmission and supension of the K37, as well as the basic layout, but introduced a 500 hp engine, sloped and increased armour and a much more powerful 75mm main gun. Plus features like vision blocks and a heavy AA mg. The 50mm had done well, and it was considdered to just go to a longer barrel and improved ammo, but remembering the K34 gun scandal the General Inspector of the Tank Forces put it in his own outspoken way: "Nit meer swachpisseri!" (No more sissy pissing!). He even asked for the possibility of a 90 or 100mm gun, but was convinced that too few such rounds could be stowed inside a reasonably sized main battle tank (size = cost = numbers). The design of a 50+ tons breakthrough tank with such a gun was started however.
Meanwhile the production lines kept spitting out K37s, the chassis of which also was the base of many SP artillery, tank destroyer or engineer vehicles etc.
Both parts in the war realised that very close coordination between tanks and other services like infantry, artillery, engineers and airsupport was necessary. The Soviets thought their massed armour was the problem and distributed their still huge tank park among the infantry. The R3Cs had the opposite starting point and gathered their armoured Brigades in Armoured Divisions and the Divisions in Armoured Corps and those even in armoured Armies. At all levels above Battalion, infantry and armour was mixed, with the one always being at least a third of the total (i.e. two tank btn. to an infantry btn or vice versa).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Redbeard
Banned
Hi Steffen, your Sweatland almost made me fall off my chair.
Your ATL R3C empire looks somehow very familiar to me, wonder why???
I'll keep it in mind, but getting there will take forever...
Great work, keep it up. Have you had a look at paint.NET? Downloaded it myself, great for mapmaking etc.
Hmmm, your question - the OTL country to produce K40 would be somekind of NaziGermany, probably without Hitler and with a perception off what will be needed in the upcoming conflict. No flimsies Pzkfw I and II.
He-he, yeah kind of recycling an old obsession. I've always been fascianted by the concept of an empire growing up around one or more seas, as the seas will provide superb trade, logistics and military deployment options on par with railway. By the 20th century an empire like R3C will have the Baltic filled with railway and car ferries. That would give very interesting option for quickly deploying and supplying motorised forces across the Baltic. In this context I also guess major ports on the baltic south coast would be fortified to keep bridgeheads. Both to stop enemy advances and to strike the enemy in the flank (sort of how Fredericia was intended in OTL Danish military planning).
I will take a look at paint.net. MS Paint is starting to annoy me as my skills improve, and I really can't solve the distortion problem. The last images are not as distorted, but still not accurately to scale.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
True - but as you might recall the world minister Uffe Sprællemand Jensen had bridges build all over the place. The late 20. century way to link Copenhagen with Riga via Rønne and the tunnel from Ringkøbing to Harwich dug by the portuguese...
So in effect the sea lanes turned into railroads, at least in the Baltic and North Sea giving superb capabilities to shift forces in Northern Europe in almost zero time by highspeed Intercity 4. (well that might be strechting things a bit, but what the heck!)
So in effect the sea lanes turned into railroads, at least in the Baltic and North Sea giving superb capabilities to shift forces in Northern Europe in almost zero time by highspeed Intercity 4. (well that might be strechting things a bit, but what the heck!)
But its always been kind of out speciality, swift movement and redeployment by sea. Given a little luck and some wiser heads it could have paid off better. But that would have made for some quite different history. But then I'd like the keeping in some way of Norway after 1813 and having a double monarchy with a lot better resources and much better prepared for 1848 and indeed 1864(or whenever that would be). A Norway without the starvation of 1807-14 and being on par with Denmark in population. And then some broadminded politicians and a military ready to prepare for the future on basis of an assessment of the present and the possible political manouverings of our neighbors...
Best regards
Carsten
Or as transports.
I take it as GB is part of R3C they will not be averse to using British aircraft? If so the Hurricane entering service in 1935 could carry at least 1,000lb of bombs.
This was better than any of the light bombers of its time either single or twin engined. Once it had completed its bombing mission it would require no escort as it was capable of defending itself. The IIB was fitted with two 40mm Vickers S guns and knocked out nearly 150 Pkw's in the western desert in OTL.
This machine of course developed through the famous Typhoon and Tempest variants into the Fury in 1943.
This was probably the pinnacle of piston engined fighter development and in the Korean war of OTL its naval variant performed outstandingly in the ground attack role and even shot down and damaged Mig 15s.
For a heavier, longer ranged, twin engined machine the Bristol Blenheim, Beaufort and ultimately Beaufighter series would have been an excellent choice until the De-Havilland Mosquito became available after 1940.
Bristol Beaufighter This machine and its successor the Mosquito was armed with 4x20mm cannon the Beaufighter was also fitted with 6x.303 browning mg. Both could carry 8x6in rocket projectiles underwing and 2,000lb on a fuselage mounting.
The Mosquito
The Mosquito ground attack variants were normally equipped with 4x20mm cannon and 4x.303in brownings. However the Mk XVIII was fitted with a 57mm Molins AT gun. Called the "Tetse" because it had a bigger bite than a mosquito this model destroyed several U Boats and disabled a destroyer.
Last edited:
Redbeard
Banned
The Mossie would be an ideal plane for the R3CAF. Substituting heavy bombers a relatively small number of Mossie type planes with highly trained crews (Pathfinder like) would perform precision strikes deep inside enemy territory, and relying on speed rather than guns for defence. The PoD of someone earlier getting the idea of relying on speed rather than guns for defence in bombers is an intriguing PoD in itself.
I would prefer the Beaufort as a naval strike aircraft. A handful of squadrons based at Singapore would command the South China Sea (a potential battlefield in the expected conflict with the Soviet, US and French(Italian, Spanish) Anti-Kommerz Pact.
For tank busting I would prefer something slightly smaller and cheaper, I made a sketch (attached) of the "Panserknacker" tankbuster. It looks much like later planes like the Hs129 or the A10 Thunderbolt, but I guess that is the effect of functionality. Anyway only technology available by the mid 30s is used (Bofors is from 1930 and 700hp radials were alreday obsolete by late 30s).
The 2 40mm Bofors (each 438kg) and 5 HMGs (each 45kg) total 1100 kg, with ammo something like 1500kg. As extensive armour plating (1-2 tons) is needed too I have included a large wing giving extra lift. With two 700hp radials as the initial powerplant that will not give high speeds, well below 400 km/h, but army support planes will anyway be dependent on air superiority and accurate firing at ground targets would prohibit higher speeds.
The second crewmember is mainly included as loader of the 40mm guns, as an automatic loader soon will weigh as much and risk all sorts of reliability problems. But instead of the original 4 round clip I intend to replace the forth round with a simple spring, as gravity might not be the best feeder in a turbulence inflicted attack plane. Recoil will probably have to be lengthened compared to the ground mounting and with that a reduced RoF too. So instead of 120 rpm I count on 90 for each gun. That will have the two clips fired in two seconds, which ought to be fast enough to ensure a reasonably high hit rate in an attack run. The four forward firing HMG might be reduced to two or replaced with rifle calibre MGs, or deleted alltogether if weight is a serious problem, The 40mm canopeners are the raison d'etre of the plane, and with some clips of HE ammo they will be efficient against soft targets as well.
The Mossie with the 57mm Mollins gun would indeed be capable of opening up even the most heavy "cans" but I think the Mossie is too big and too expensive to have cricling the battlefield.
I prefer centreline guns to wing mounted, for loading, for sighting and for less vibration than in wing mounts. Rockets IMHO are overrated as airborne anti tank weapons, and would anyway be unlikley as available technology by late 1930s.
As for fighterbombers they certainly made a great impression on the OTL Germans, smashing up anything that moved behind the lines - that is apart from tanks, very few tanks are reported knocked out by fighterbombers. But I would be happy on behalf of the R3Cs if they can include a Hawker line from Hurricane over Tempest to Sea Fury. BTW Hawker flew a prototype of a Hurricane replacement in late 1938 (Tornado) but the project was abandoned together with the Vulture engine, but AFAIK with a Bristol Centaurus engine became the basis of the Tempest II.
The RR Merlin engine would of course be important luggage for the R3Cs to bring over from OTL GB, but imagine if some continental reliability could also be brought into the more or less failed British engines like the Peregrine, Vulture or Sabre. A plane like the Westland Wihlwind with reliable Peregrine engines would be a good long range fighter for the R3C air defence. I imagine small nimble interceptors being the first line and based in the southern provinces. The second line would be long range fighters based on the Scandinavian peninsula and intercepting over the Baltic sea (the main military industry being located on the Scandinavian peninsula). The Whirlwind would also prove a frightening fighterbomber.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I would prefer the Beaufort as a naval strike aircraft. A handful of squadrons based at Singapore would command the South China Sea (a potential battlefield in the expected conflict with the Soviet, US and French(Italian, Spanish) Anti-Kommerz Pact.
For tank busting I would prefer something slightly smaller and cheaper, I made a sketch (attached) of the "Panserknacker" tankbuster. It looks much like later planes like the Hs129 or the A10 Thunderbolt, but I guess that is the effect of functionality. Anyway only technology available by the mid 30s is used (Bofors is from 1930 and 700hp radials were alreday obsolete by late 30s).
The 2 40mm Bofors (each 438kg) and 5 HMGs (each 45kg) total 1100 kg, with ammo something like 1500kg. As extensive armour plating (1-2 tons) is needed too I have included a large wing giving extra lift. With two 700hp radials as the initial powerplant that will not give high speeds, well below 400 km/h, but army support planes will anyway be dependent on air superiority and accurate firing at ground targets would prohibit higher speeds.
The second crewmember is mainly included as loader of the 40mm guns, as an automatic loader soon will weigh as much and risk all sorts of reliability problems. But instead of the original 4 round clip I intend to replace the forth round with a simple spring, as gravity might not be the best feeder in a turbulence inflicted attack plane. Recoil will probably have to be lengthened compared to the ground mounting and with that a reduced RoF too. So instead of 120 rpm I count on 90 for each gun. That will have the two clips fired in two seconds, which ought to be fast enough to ensure a reasonably high hit rate in an attack run. The four forward firing HMG might be reduced to two or replaced with rifle calibre MGs, or deleted alltogether if weight is a serious problem, The 40mm canopeners are the raison d'etre of the plane, and with some clips of HE ammo they will be efficient against soft targets as well.
The Mossie with the 57mm Mollins gun would indeed be capable of opening up even the most heavy "cans" but I think the Mossie is too big and too expensive to have cricling the battlefield.
I prefer centreline guns to wing mounted, for loading, for sighting and for less vibration than in wing mounts. Rockets IMHO are overrated as airborne anti tank weapons, and would anyway be unlikley as available technology by late 1930s.
As for fighterbombers they certainly made a great impression on the OTL Germans, smashing up anything that moved behind the lines - that is apart from tanks, very few tanks are reported knocked out by fighterbombers. But I would be happy on behalf of the R3Cs if they can include a Hawker line from Hurricane over Tempest to Sea Fury. BTW Hawker flew a prototype of a Hurricane replacement in late 1938 (Tornado) but the project was abandoned together with the Vulture engine, but AFAIK with a Bristol Centaurus engine became the basis of the Tempest II.
The RR Merlin engine would of course be important luggage for the R3Cs to bring over from OTL GB, but imagine if some continental reliability could also be brought into the more or less failed British engines like the Peregrine, Vulture or Sabre. A plane like the Westland Wihlwind with reliable Peregrine engines would be a good long range fighter for the R3C air defence. I imagine small nimble interceptors being the first line and based in the southern provinces. The second line would be long range fighters based on the Scandinavian peninsula and intercepting over the Baltic sea (the main military industry being located on the Scandinavian peninsula). The Whirlwind would also prove a frightening fighterbomber.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
How about these planes from Fokker? The G1 entered service in 1937 and was the match of any twin of its day. With an engine and armament upgrade this would be a useful addition to the RC3AF.
I'm not too sure about the D XXIII but if that was given better engines and radiators put into the wing roots it could have been an outstanding machine.
Then there is a little creation of my own combining the previous two machines with two engines powering contra-rotating pusher props
I'm not too sure about the D XXIII but if that was given better engines and radiators put into the wing roots it could have been an outstanding machine.
Then there is a little creation of my own combining the previous two machines with two engines powering contra-rotating pusher props
Redbeard
Banned
The G1 would be a fine tactical plane with a useful range (needed in East India). Would be a fine plane for interdiction.
I really like your pusher with the contrarotating props - could be the basis for a fast single seater with a very powerful centreline armament. I couldn't resist trying to do one in MS Paint.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I really like your pusher with the contrarotating props - could be the basis for a fast single seater with a very powerful centreline armament. I couldn't resist trying to do one in MS Paint.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard