VK 4501 P instead of Pz.Kpfw. VI Tiger Ausf. H1

At work.



Well.... unsure as to the engined Dora.... but there's bound to be a few changes to time tables of things like the timing of the Kursk offensive. That's if the bulge forms and I doubt the introduction of the VK will change things that much for it not to.

So... more German tanks and less delay in attack at Kursk giving the attackers more of an advantage over the defenders?

More and heavier tanks (For a relative value of 'Heavier') should help the German side over the Russians generally any-who.

Not sure about Rommel's situation, though.....

Well with our friend 'wiking' clearing the Kursk thing up. (Which he did nicely) I do believe that it is safe to assume that, even with the battle of Kursk being a loss, with more tigers on the eastern front, the Russian's advance could be seriously slowed down. But in the end, I believe that the war would have still ended in a German defeat. (But it is possible that with the Russain advance being slowed down, that it might have been the Americans or British to be the first march into Berlin.)
Rommel is a different story, though.
The Africa campaign by 1942 was mostly being won by the number of men one had and it was sorta looking good for Rommel at the time:
Italian_empire_1942.PNG

Originally, Rommel had received 31 Tiger H1s for his campaign, but with there being more VK 4501 Ps being there, Rommel would have had an easier time. Proven by the article that I found on this subject:
"March 1941. Four of the pre-production Tiger (P)s are allocated to the Afrika Korps and unloaded at Benghazi in mid April 1941. It takes three weeks for them to reach Tobruk and be prepared for battle, by which time one of them breaks down beyond repair, and is cannibalised to keep the others running. Of the three Tiger (P)’s which begin the assault on 4 May 1941, one is immobilised by mines, and one has its track blown off by a 25 pounder artillery shell. But the last one breaks through all the enemy defences, followed by the Panzer IV’s and III’s and the lighter German tanks. The counterattacking British Cruiser IV’s and Matilda II’s can’t even dent the mighty Tiger (P) with their puny 40mm (two-pounder) guns, and one by one are blown into scrap. Tobruk falls in May 1941, and Rommel prepares to continue the advance into Egypt. "

Link to the source: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=121020

The only difference between the article from above and our discussion is that the scenario has the VK 4501 P available by 1941. But I think that our dear Rommel would have taken advantage of the newly acquired, say, 11 VK 4501 Ps. With such a large force of self-driven 88mm gun panzers, we can assume that Rommel would have shot Montgomery's tanks before they had even got close to the 4501s. In other words: Montgomery's hill defence strategy used in 1942 would not have worked as well as intended.

Please tell me if I may have gotten anything wrong.
 
Thank you for clearing that up and sorry about getting that info wrong.
Now with those two engines NOT being available for the fictionally early Dora, what if the Luftwaffe used instead one of the following bomber engines that were available by 1942:
Junkers Jumo 211
Junkers Jumo 222 (Although in short supply)
BMW VI

Please answer, because it is obvious that you know your stuff on this subject. (No sarcasm intended)

I'll post the answer in the recent LW thread, in order not to de-rail this anymore.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
First off, use of high output aero engines for tank use would be wasted, and in some measure impractical.

Aero engines generate significant amounts of heat waste, often requiring complex cooling systems and even with high speed near freezing air flow over large radiators, excessive heat was the primary limiting factor in the duration of high output settings such as the US WEP, and British/German emergency boost systems, save late war German and US systems involving water, water-methanol, or fuel injection systems which had secondary cooling effects.

Much better would be earlier lower output aero engines. Good candidates would be the DB 600 and later the 601, as well as the BMW 132. All having power output from the high hundreds to low thousands of horsepower, would be more than capable of snapping the drive shaft. Should the transmission not fail first.



Ancillary to the above, it should be noted that aero engines, in particular the BMW radials, had rather high rates of fuel consumption, and would thus compound the Tigers' primary problem of a lack of strategic mobility away from rail networks.
 
At work.

While the above are good points.

1) As already noted air cooled radials were fitted in other tanks (American, type escapes me atm)

2) Just because an engine is designated 'Airo' doesn't mean it can't be 'Detuned' to push a tank.

3) Jet turbines are considered, generally, to be plane and 'copter motors. They have and are fitted/installed to push tanks successfully.

Why.... yes indeed, I think a turbine powered VK would have been a Beast! :p
 
Last edited:
At work.

While the above are good points.

1) As already noted air cooled radials were fitted in other tanks (American, type escapes me atm)

2) Just because an engine is designated 'Airo' doesn't mean it can't be 'Detuned' to push a tank.

3) Jet turbines are considered, generally, to be plane and 'copter motors. They have and are fitted/installed to push tanks successfully.

Why.... yes indeed, I think a turbine powered VK would have been a Beast! :p

I was thinking something similar especially when you have been reading a book about American tanks and the M3 Stuart. So, we agree that the BMW engine would still work then?
 
First off, use of high output aero engines for tank use would be wasted, and in some measure impractical.

Aero engines generate significant amounts of heat waste, often requiring complex cooling systems and even with high speed near freezing air flow over large radiators, excessive heat was the primary limiting factor in the duration of high output settings such as the US WEP, and British/German emergency boost systems, save late war German and US systems involving water, water-methanol, or fuel injection systems which had secondary cooling effects.

The reason why aero engines generate so much waste heat is that they generaly generate much power overall. Talk 1600-1800 HP for Merlin in 1944, vs. 600 HP for the Meteor. Thus the cooling loads for the Meteor will be 30-35% from what is needed for the Merlin. Operation on +0 psi and 2400 rpm (=Meteor) will put far less strain on heads, pistons, crankshafts, reduction gearing and blocks than operating on +15 to +25 psi and 3000 rpm (=Merlin), again reducing the demand for excellent/excessive cooling capacity.

Much better would be earlier lower output aero engines. Good candidates would be the DB 600 and later the 601, as well as the BMW 132. All having power output from the high hundreds to low thousands of horsepower, would be more than capable of snapping the drive shaft. Should the transmission not fail first.

The V12 engine are indeed a much better choice for te tanks, than two-row radials. The fuel injected 'tankerized' DB 601 really sounds nice as the idea, and a big displacement engine will excell in torque, a factor that is often neglected when people are comparing the tank engines.


Ancillary to the above, it should be noted that aero engines, in particular the BMW radials, had rather high rates of fuel consumption, and would thus compound the Tigers' primary problem of a lack of strategic mobility away from rail networks.

Nothing prevents Germans to design diesel tank engine befor ww2, so the Soviets don't beat them for the punch.
BTW - I'm not sure that 230HL was any bit more frugal with fuel than the Meteor or other similar 'tankerized' aero engines. The aero engines were mostly pretty light.
 
At work.

I was thinking something similar especially when you have been reading a book about American tanks and the M3 Stuart. So, we agree that the BMW engine would still work then?

Am just a 'Layman' but I do agree.

Though the RLM might need some butterflies as well. This group's decisions have always struck me as 'Odd' in regards to some of their decrees. (Yes 'Long barrel Pz 3 is excessive/not needed/not necessary' I am looking at you.)

That it might get the Dora developed earlier is also a good thing. :)
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The reason why aero engines generate so much waste heat is that they generaly generate much power overall. Talk 1600-1800 HP for Merlin in 1944, vs. 600 HP for the Meteor. Thus the cooling loads for the Meteor will be 30-35% from what is needed for the Merlin. Operation on +0 psi and 2400 rpm (=Meteor) will put far less strain on heads, pistons, crankshafts, reduction gearing and blocks than operating on +15 to +25 psi and 3000 rpm (=Merlin), again reducing the demand for excellent/excessive cooling capacity.



The V12 engine are indeed a much better choice for te tanks, than two-row radials. The fuel injected 'tankerized' DB 601 really sounds nice as the idea, and a big displacement engine will excell in torque, a factor that is often neglected when people are comparing the tank engines.




Nothing prevents Germans to design diesel tank engine befor ww2, so the Soviets don't beat them for the punch.
BTW - I'm not sure that 230HL was any bit more frugal with fuel than the Meteor or other similar 'tankerized' aero engines. The aero engines were mostly pretty light.

True to an extent, but some tank engines of WWII also had cooling issues, though not nearly to the same extent as aero engines. The primary problem would arise from larger aero engines simply not leaving enough room, though not necessarily a systematic problem.

And the higher displacement of the 601 (nearly 10L greater) would be the main cause of its greater fuel consumption. A fuel injected and supercharged to 1.21atm DB601 consumes approximately 210 gallons of fuel in an hour while running at 2400rpm.

Where as the HL230 at atmospheric and 3000rpm consumes approximately thirty gallons per hour.

Granted supercharging accounted for approximately 20% of the increased fuel consumption, the 33L displacement was also a significant factor. Even detuned, an aero-engine-driven Tiger would see significantly decreased range.

The engine would only cripple the heavy tank brigades further late in the war, as fuel reserves ran dry.

Furthermore, the concept perpetuates the misconception that the Tiger was a cumbersome, underpowered tank. The HL230 was a perfectly adequate power system, and the Tiger was actually quite nimble for such a large vehicle. Power to weight ratio was actually superior to some versions of the Sherman.

The main disadvantage of the vehicle was, again, it's lack of strategic mobility. The Tigers were difficult to support as front line units in a protracted campaign, and were not intended to serve in such a manner, but rather as breakthrough vehicles, while the Panther was to serve as standard tank of the Panzerwaffe.
 
True to an extent, but some tank engines of WWII also had cooling issues, though not nearly to the same extent as aero engines. The primary problem would arise from larger aero engines simply not leaving enough room, though not necessarily a systematic problem.

The engines derived from aero engines were compact, Meteor and Libery were much more compact and lighter than many custom tank engines. Those engines were as compact as possible, the comparison with Bedford twin six is probably as loopsided as it is possible, with far greater power-to-weight ration, and (at least with Meteor) without reliabilty issues what so ever.
Granted, the Maybach tank engines were pretty compact and worked just fine.

And the higher displacement of the 601 (nearly 10L greater) would be the main cause of its greater fuel consumption. A fuel injected and supercharged to 1.21atm DB601 consumes approximately 210 gallons of fuel in an hour while running at 2400rpm.
Where as the HL230 at atmospheric and 3000rpm consumes approximately thirty gallons per hour.

Your numbers are wrong, at least for the DB 601. At 2400 rpm and 1.40 ata (= 1100 PS at sea level) the consumption was 375 L/h, or 99 US gals per hour. At 2300 rpm and 1.23 ata (=910 PS at sea level) consumption was 275 L/h. The respective specific consumptions were 250+20 g/PSh and 220+12 g/PSh for those respective power figures. (g= gram)
The Maybach 234, the experimental powerplant intended for the Tiger II, was with specific consumption of 235 g/PSh; max power 800 PS. Unfortunately I don't have any firm data on the HL210 or HL230 consumption.

Granted supercharging accounted for approximately 20% of the increased fuel consumption, the 33L displacement was also a significant factor. Even detuned, an aero-engine-driven Tiger would see significantly decreased range.
The engine would only cripple the heavy tank brigades further late in the war, as fuel reserves ran dry.

I'll beg to disagree. The low displacement unsuperchaged engine has a lower torque vs. a high dispalcement unsupercharged engine, hence the driver needs to remain in lower gear in order to have good acceleration with heavy tank around him. Lower gear = greater RPM = higer consumption.

Furthermore, the concept perpetuates the misconception that the Tiger was a cumbersome, underpowered tank. The HL230 was a perfectly adequate power system, and the Tiger was actually quite nimble for such a large vehicle. Power to weight ratio was actually superior to some versions of the Sherman.
The main disadvantage of the vehicle was, again, it's lack of strategic mobility. The Tigers were difficult to support as front line units in a protracted campaign, and were not intended to serve in such a manner, but rather as breakthrough vehicles, while the Panther was to serve as standard tank of the Panzerwaffe.

Agree pretty much. Germans went overboard with tank weight after the Pz-IV.
 
At work.

Just a veiw on 'Over board wi tank weight'.

From limited perusing of the intrwebz (Much of which is thanks to this fine forum and others like it) there are definite reasons for the Tigers and JS machines. Yes a better "Break through" tank was one of them.

One of which comes to mind and able to be typed quickly is the rapid devolpment/manifestation of the reported "Tiger phobia" .

I have read/seen contemporary items regarding the average Allied foot-slogger's over paranoid reactions to even reports of Tigers being about on the battle feild.

I doubt the Weirmarck's propogand dept was that good.

One can but wonder how the average German trooper responded to reports of JS 1's and 2's being reported on.

Yes, there's a lot of 'Smoke and mirrors' on the battle feild but usually the rumours grow around a kernel of truth.

Just listen to the tone of the American training video crested to 'Dispell the myth' of the MG42 that's about on YouTube as another example.

In all the 'Tiger myth' is one of the things which seems to have driven the innitial geststion of todays MBT's.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The engines derived from aero engines were compact, Meteor and Libery were much more compact and lighter than many custom tank engines. Those engines were as compact as possible, the comparison with Bedford twin six is probably as loopsided as it is possible, with far greater power-to-weight ration, and (at least with Meteor) without reliabilty issues what so ever.
Granted, the Maybach tank engines were pretty compact and worked just fine.
At work, but if memory serves, the meteor and liberty were upright V-engines, while German engines such as the DB600 and 601, the the Jumo 211 were inverted, complicating some aspects of instalation in a tank. Of particular note, the drive shaft would need to be geared up to the crank shaft, increasing installed size.

Thinking on it, this would also complicate maintainence quite a bit.

One must look at installation on a case by case basis. The 600 series was compact for aeroengines, especially as installed, but were still larger than an HL 230, and would be a more complicated installation. While aero engines are perfectly viable, not every engine is viable for every tank.

Your numbers are wrong, at least for the DB 601. At 2400 rpm and 1.40 ata (= 1100 PS at sea level) the consumption was 375 L/h, or 99 US gals per hour. At 2300 rpm and 1.23 ata (=910 PS at sea level) consumption was 275 L/h. The respective specific consumptions were 250+20 g/PSh and 220+12 g/PSh for those respective power figures. (g= gram)
The Maybach 234, the experimental powerplant intended for the Tiger II, was with specific consumption of 235 g/PSh; max power 800 PS. Unfortunately I don't have any firm data on the HL210 or HL230 consumption.

My mistake, for some reason I was figuring two liters per gallon.

And I had meant to say 230P45. Somehow that came out as 235.

And we can obtain a rough fuel consumption rate based on the fuel capacity, sustained road speed and range.

This works out to be 28.925 gal/hr for the HL230 P45. Still significantly more fuel efficient than the DB601, even with my conversion flub.


I'll beg to disagree. The low displacement unsuperchaged engine has a lower torque vs. a high dispalcement unsupercharged engine, hence the driver needs to remain in lower gear in order to have good acceleration with heavy tank around him. Lower gear = greater RPM = higer consumption.

It should be remembered that automotive performance was relatively unimportant in terms of combat, and relatively little time spent accelerating. In close quarters, movement speed was generally quite slow by intention, so as both not to outpace dismounted infantry support, and to not charge into an ambush.

And open combat was generally at long range, or relatively sporadic over the course of a day. Sustained pitched combat such as Kurse and Bagration were relatively rare.

The main area where automotive performance (in terms of power output, top speed, off road speed, reliability, maintainability, and fuel consumption) is again strategic mobility.

Any WWII tank is fast enough and reliable enough to fight one battle. It was not battle performance that was, in any real measure, lacking in the Tiger. But all issues were strategic in nature, and a DB 601 addresses none of them, while introducing several more. The same is true of all aero engines in this particular instance.
 
Last edited:

I will not try to persuade you further, that on the top of the pin there can be up to 120 angels, vs. what anyone else says :)
Once at 55+ tons, Tiger ceased to be a fighting machine that can out-maneuvre Soviets and others, just after it cracked their defenses, and continue to wreak havoc at their background. They should've tried to keep weight down by a good deal, at 40-45 tons, by opting for a simpler tank, that would've also be more 'producible' (and no, I do't mean the Panther).
Would not have changed the outcome at war, however.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, the Porsche weighs less and, supposedly, broke down a lot but was quicker to repair compared to the Tiger.
The weight difference is insignificant (0.56%). The two vehicles are both overweight for the available roads. The Tiger itself was prone to breakdown, but the 4501 P was a nightmare, as was demonstrated by the 500km life span of the Ferdinand's drive sprockets.
 
T
The weight difference is insignificant (0.56%). The two vehicles are both overweight for the available roads. The Tiger itself was prone to breakdown, but the 4501 P was a nightmare, as was demonstrated by the 500km life span of the Ferdinand's drive sprockets.
That's why most of us thought that germans engineers would try and replace the engine with, possibly, FW 190 BMW engine.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
T

That's why most of us thought that germans engineers would try and replace the engine with, possibly, FW 190 BMW engine.
Well, the drive sprockets are NOT part of the engine, not directly, they are the drive gear for the tread system. They were connected to the engine via an electrical motor set-up.
 
Well, the drive sprockets are NOT part of the engine, not directly, they are the drive gear for the tread system. They were connected to the engine via an electrical motor set-up.
Some adjustments here and there and you get a heavy M3 Stuart for the germans. I think that's how it works...
 
Top