(continued from below)...level ground, without accelleration, a certain HP is required. It has to overcome machine internal friction losses, rolling resistance, and air-dam resistance, which climbs exponentially, and is the biggest factor in some cases. That horsepower can be delivered any way you want, but customary methods and cost-effective limits dictate the means. The Diesel is today's choice. Any prime mover and gearbox combo would work, and they've had strange ones (continued.......
It's an inertia starter. Spin up the flywheel, then clutch it to the engine. Those Maybach V12s were incredibly compact. So much so, that the lack of clearance between the cylinders led to a lot of blown engines. Happened to the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK with Tiger 131. Got a rebuilt engine into their Tiger, drove it about 100 yards, and it blew sky-high. Somehow they managed to find a replacement block, and this time they downrated the engine.
Downrated just like in Sept 1943, they knew overheating was a serious problem (because they have to rev it close to 3000rpm to go faster than a horse), they set the rpm limiter to 2500, resulting in a 597hp max. power output.
Actually, though they did have starter engines, this was the preferred method of starting the tanks. The starters were only recommended in case a quick emergency start was needed.
Richardsen Not sure really... I don't think they took a toll on the engine since they did exactly the same thing you'd do with a handcrank, just faster. I'm guessing that the starter engines themselves were very quick to wear down, or something like that, and you wanted them to be "fresh" and ready if you needed them in an emergency.
zolikoff I think you are right, I mean you need two people to start it up so an starter engine would break down fast, and maybe the battery was too bad to bring enough power every time.
The ones who had the best tanks at the start of the second world war and amassed an underground rebel force to fight against the Nazi war machine even though their country had been overrun? I can think of no better people.
DoodooBean I agree that the French 'Char' tank was the best at the start of WWII, in fact the German's kept captured ones in inventory until the Normandy invasion. However, the French Underground was infested by Communists ( the natural enemy of National Socialists), most non-Communist French sat out the war until after the landings at Normandy.
The Germans hand started almost everything late in the war, even airplanes. No lead for batteries (all went to U-Boats) and no copper wasted for starter motor windings and cables.
hammeredinfire until one needs to compress air at minus 40 or lower . must start gen to start compressor that may be frozen from compressing air that has moisture in it which freezes in the lines to try starting an engine. use air starters on drilling rigs and it can be complicated.
My point is, why the French specifically? If it was used to attack France, at the start of the war, I understand. But it came later. Sure, it was used in France, but also other countries, and the eastern front. Most of the soldiers or tanks that would have faced this thing wouldn't have been French.
it was used specially against the troops fighting in Normandy after the D-Day , as well as the retreat to Germany , as in the battle of the Bulge , etc . So yes it saw plenty of action in the Hexagon !
The Germans used the weighted flywheel to start many tanks and air plains. No battery necessary. Magneto on, it's similar to rolling a car with a standard transmission down a hill and popping the clutch. Ingenuously simple. Diesel tanks have no spark plugs. Get it spinning turn on the fuel it will keep running till it runs out of fuel
that's a nice tiger tank but I can imagine how it would actually feel to hand crank that that german master piece and the adrenaline rush it would give me cranking it i also realy engine that ww2 Siren sound and finally that roar that it gives when all cylinders are fired up. thanks for the video
his little display was to record the sound of both the enertia starter and the electric starter for the Tamiya company of Japan. These sounds are faithfully reproduced in the computers of their 1/16 scale Tiger 1, King Tiger, Panther, and Jagdtiger, all 4 or which used the same Maybach V 12 and transmission, ergo the same enertia starter. Tamiya also makes the Pershing, Sherman, Panzer IV, Leo 1 and Leo 2, and KV 1 and KV 2. All sounds are recorded from operational tanks of the proper vintage.
I don´t have to brag-it´s just an offer to you-you look like the master of all languages.And no frear-knowing you are not a native speaker i won´t making fun of you. As you did. BTT: In which am i wrong? Stating that Panther does not mean Panzer? Sorry Master, this is my native language so i guess i may know it a little better then you do. and again: "Panther means Panther. Panzer is short for Panzerkampfwagen=Tank" That´s it.
It is an gasoline engine and a further developement of the HL 230 (as far as I know equipped with a much improved turbocharger), but I do not know the exactly notation of this improved machine. But it isn´t a diesel for sure.
i would like to see proof of that,because the first multi grade oil released was in the early 60s. Also the Germans were the first to pioneer the use of synthetic oils due to the problems in Russia with normal mineral oil.
MrTheorsa Because that is the economic version, for a few more Reichmarks you can buy the equipped version of the tiger .... with ignition inside and cup holders .. Just like you heard!, CUP HOLDERS WHAT A GOOD OFFER!.
I said it's nearly impossible to stabilize a gun *over* L55; I'm aware there are a couple of tanks out there with L55 guns. They all suffer from reduced accuracy; the increased muzzle velocity of the L55 over the L39 is like 12% which is a terrible tradeoff for a gun that's nearly 40% longer and 25% heavier. The ideal gun is probably close to the XM360 120mm/L48 which has the better combination of muzzle velocity and accuracy.
"german engineering" is putting an underpowered motor in a giant tank when you lost air superiority? I don't know what's the more stupid, your comment or this tank.
d sfcsz they probably did not have time to build an engine adapted to Tiger II, German engineers struts and are so develope that same engine panther could roll this monster 40km / h;)
I been runnin' on here about stuff, but it just just occurred to me what a fine example this inertial starter is to explain horsepower, torque, etc. Obviously a man can't deliver the kind of instantaneous force, or torque, necessary to crank that heavy engine long or fast enough. But to deliver the force over a long time, to store the force in a heavy weight spinning at a high speed, and then release it suddenly into a starting system will accomplish the trick. A lot of foot/pounds are there!
That is a real Tiger II. The French took it over after WWII and equipped it with a 1000 HP Maybach engine. This engine is a late german WWII-developement of the original 700 HP Maybach HL 230 P 30 of the Tiger II and was intended to replace the weaker engines in order to give the Tigers more acceleration and speed.
A Alemanha deveria produzir esse modelo de tanque com as tecnologias do nosso século 21. A Alemanha toda a vida foram geniais no que produzem, e o design sempre top. Imagine nesse século 21 a Alemanha com novas versões Tiger em 2016. ^_^
Wow, someone that actually understands the concept of HP and Torque and how they relate to time. Yes, accelleration requires more torque and the faster the speed to be maintained the higher the HP required. So what do you need more of if you want to move a 50 ton tank across soft ground at 24mph instead of 12mph? more torque? or more horsepower?
Firing a heavier shell with the same muzzle velocity you need more propellant. More propellant generally means (assuming same density grains) a larger cartridge case to accomodate more propellant grains. The 20mm shell on the 20mm x 110mm was a heavier shell than the German 20mm with a higher muzzle velocity. Both shells had the same diameter and similar ballistic co-efficients meaning that the higher muzzle velocity for the 110m is due to more propellant in the bigger case.
I love how you are comparing the Mk. II H-S rather than the much more widely used Mk. V Hispano Suiza 20mm. The 20mmx110mm was simply a larger shell with most explosive filler and higher muzzle velocity than the comparable German 20mm. No amount of manufacturing cleverness can overcome this fact. I'd say the M4 37mm handily outclassed the 30mm Mk 108. The M4 was so good it was used in ground variants and the Russians copied it for NS-37.
Sherman crews might see 4 or 5 of their shells bounce off of this thing before they were close enough to hurt it, but we have here a hint of why the Germans respected the Sherman: Superior mobility. It was very reliable (for its time) and had a (relatively) high road speed, which helped put a lot of them on the battlefield together.
For example the MT883, (much improved version of the old mt873 found in Leo2's) of the Challenger 2 and LeClerc can produce up to 2800hp, yet only produces ~1500 rated hp. . This is why an 800hp 600Kg F1 car struggles to pull away on level ground yet a 60hp 1200Kg Ford Focus can easily do a hill start despite having higher gearing!!. Comparing maximum horsepower with rated horsepower(torque) is idiotic, but typical of a mechanic like drdimmer
NO he is not. battle tanks, trucks or tractors are all pieces of machinery build for a specific purpose, with the common feature of all having an engine and gearbox. Power and torque are not mutually exclusive. Power (the rate of doing work) depends on torque and RPM ratio and is calculated like that. Torque and RPM are the measured quantities of engine output. yes 70 tons you´re right...
To run on at the mouth, can we talk science?! (like in physics) A basic fact is "a body in motion tends to stay in motion" WITH NO RESISTANCE OF ANY KIND no force is needed if there is no acceleration, or (bad word in physics) deceleration performed. On earth, when a giant truck is in motion, the ONLY HP needed if it is to stay at a constant speed, that necessary to overcome contact (tires) resistance, applied force of gravity (small here if level) internal friction, and, a big one, WIND DAM!
....what speed can be maintained with what horsepower. You just have to tailor the job with the engine speed AND THE GEARBOX! Up to the limit of the machine's horsepower capability at the governed speed in the highest notch in the gearing. HP requirements up to that vary like crazy!!!! In all Doctorbimmer, it seems like you do indeed understand hp, torque, and the formulas, so hope I didn't preach to the choir here!!
Only gearing can increase it. This is why transportation vehicles are hard to use to explain torque and horsepower. All the variables! All put simply, it's not an argument of torque vs horsepower, because HP is the factor of torque and speed. The right argument is torque vs overcoming breakaway speed, or speed of acceleration, or huge weight on soft ground, or climbing a grade. All these things add huge HP requirements to the job at the moment that's different than just...(continued)...
....DC electric motor can experience an UNLIMITED increase in HP (in formula, NOT in reality of course.!) simply by continually increasing the voltage, which is the sole way to increase the speed. If you increase one number in the formula while the other remains constant, HP increases. (the motor would blow up eventually.) In combustion engines you cannot increase the torque, since that instantaneous number is governed by length of offset of the crank. (stroke) ......continued)...
......matches the horsepower requirements. The numbers in the formula have changed, but the math has not. You deliver the higher torque, at a lower GROUND speed. (the engine speed is irrevelent in the formula). Foot/pounds, a composite number, times an arbitrary distance figure. Example: if the gearbox cut the ratio from 1 to 1 into 2 to 1, your torque is doubled, and your distance over TIME is cut in half. Same horsepower delivered to the ground! Interesting thing, a ...(continued).....
Now your example below of soft ground at 24 MPH vs 12, to do that, the correct answer is more HP! If the engine begins to stall, it needs more horsepower. But a problem is that at it's governed top speed, that's all she's got. If you had a way of overcoming the governor, and abuse the engine, you will increase the horsepower. No other way. (right then anyway!). The torque can be increased. Just by gearing down. AT THE COST OF ground speed. If you can move, your horsepower now ..(continued)...
...., a turbine makes incredible RPM, and low torque, but by the commutative principle of multiplication the numbers still add up to a certain horsepower. It doesn't matter in the end, IN THEORY! A dentist's drill can be 1 HP, but I've seen electric motors of 1 HP that weighed a ton. (line shaft motor, ultra slow, high torque). The dentists drill could do the job of the big motor with gearing, but why? That's customary design limits. Gearing implies internal power losses. (continued).........
(This is hard in 500 characters max!) Transportation is tough to use for example due to so many variables. For openers there would be no low HP/very high torque specs engines-low RPM range maybe. Here we go...To move a heavy vehicle, breakaway force is high, so a high torque/low RPM range is the COMMON requirement. (exotic possibilities aside).Gearing as in a truck transmission, 13 to 1 multiplies that torque tremendously. Once up to speed, to maintain it on level ground, (continue>>>
You CAN multiply torque with a gearbox, at the cost of speed. The formula is weight over distance over time. It's hard to visualize with moving vehicles, but the basics is that if time remains equal, one horsepower will move 33,000 lbs on foot per minute, or one pound 33,000 feet per minute. A tiny winch could do the latter with high speed but a gearbox would enable it to lift 33,000 lbs, at the great cost of distance traveled. It's STILL one unit of work, one horsepower. Numbers equal out.
Horsepower is a unit of work. It can raise 33,000 lbs one foot in one minute (with high torque). It can raise one pound 33,000 feet in one minute (with high speed). It's still one horsepower, achieving the same amount of work, 2 different ways! Arguing over semi engines versus gas car engines of the same horsepower is pointless, they do the same work different ways. Watts is unit of work. You could have 110 volts at 10 amps for 1100 watts, or 1100 volts at one amp. 2 very different applications.
1 HP is the work that 1 horse (real horse) can do in 1 hour. Torque is the amount turning force an engine can apply, the flywheel also called BHP. A petrol motor is rated in HP because it is a low torque motor and hp is higher so it looks better to buyers to rate it in HP. Diesel produce more torque for less HP, so diesels are rated in torque as that's the higher rating. If you want to do 300mph then you want petrol but if you want to pull 10tons of weight you'll want a diesel.
You are wrong, about torque. you can't crate more torque with a gearbox, more horse power will give you a higher speed, torque is what you need to get going as in turn the wheels petrol cars don't need much torque because they only weight 2 tons overall. if you have a 1000hp engine with 500Nm of torque it wouldn't move this tank 1 inch, as it weights 45 tons, the diesel engine in this tank weights 1.2 tons itself, it's only 700hp but it'll shift this 45ton tank at 17 KPH off road 38 KPH on road
(Cont.) is like gearing torque (real power as measured in ft/lb or Nm) to produce HP. You can do anything with it - lift little blocks or big blocks. On the other hand, you can't gear up HP. The child would never move the 50lb block. That is the difference. For example, if you put a 700HP engine in a Tiger II from a sports car with say 450 ft/lb of power, it wouldn't be able to move the tank. HP is how fast an engine can produce small amounts of power, not its power capacity.
OK, let me start with an example that should be easy for your to understand. An HP is a unit of measurement - specifically how many times a very small amount of work can be done in a given period of time. So say you have a child real quick with his hand and can stack more 1-ounce blocks on top of each other than a Gold medal weightlifter. However, the child can't even budge a 50lb block but the body-builder can stack them handily. If you count how many ounces in each 50lb block, that (cont.)
Our knowledge of WWII has advanced dramatically in recent years because of access to Russian and East German archives. Also, a lot of technical data has been declassified. Since many WWII aircraft and technologies were used in Korea and even beyond a lot of data was never made publicly available or had to wait until people retired from active service or industry. Some British files on WWII are still embargoed until the 2040's!
And the Soviet BT-series tank was the fastest, best armed and had the best mobility of any tank in the world when it was introduced; that didn't stop it from being totally ineffective in combat. The P-38/P-63 accounted for vastly more bombers and attack aircraft than the 262 and unlike the 262 their M4 37mm was used in several successful post-war designs. The 262 was a dead-end failure. Praising it all you want won't change that.
One of the best sounding engines ever. I bet it spent most of it's life over-strained and at emergency war power and has lost most of it's original horsepower. Listen to the roar of all those 250 horses lol.
Well high displacement low redline v12 engines have a very special sound we all love But losing 500 hp is a bit much just form wear and tear it is like you chopped of 2/3 of the engine a realistic number would be ~650hp ±20hp
And the Allies quad mounted the 20mm; i'll take the higher muzzle velocity, greater range and higher rate of fire 4x20mm arrangement over the slower firing, lower muzzle velocity, shorter ranged 4x30mm with its broken ammo linkages. The 37mm was used in the MiG-15 and MiG-17. It's low rate of fire was a handicap against fighters but not against its primary target, heavy bombers. The USN F4U pilots preferred the 6x.50 cal to the 4x20mm for the same reasons; higher rate of fire against fighters.
Sure. The Allies were well aware of the 262's development and countered it several ways: designing their own jet fighters, improving their piston aircraft (XP-72, P-51H, P-47M etc) and new ammunition like the M23. The 262 had no impact. The USAAF accounted for at least 200 262's in Air-to-Air with more accounted for by ground fire. The Allies had *thousands* of planes to spare in rat chases because the Luftwaffe was so weak and there were so few ground targets left.
The Me-262 only attained speeds above 600mph in a non-combat i.e. *useless* configuration. But because the 262's engines were so poorly made it could rarely hit more than 490 MPH in combat (confirmed by captured German pilots and US radar). During the war, P-80 and Meteor were plenty fast and both had better high altitude performance than the 262. High altitude performance was a war winner in the ETO.
The M4 37mm could and did destroy bombers with a *single* shot. The 262 needed a burst at very close range (because of the low muzzle velocity of the Mk. 108). Unlike the Me-262, the P-39/63 could fire outside of the range of the bombers' defensive fire. The Russians kept the 37mm for the MiG-15 where a few shots could and did destroy B-29s. The Mk. V/M3 cannon both had a higher rate of fire than the Mk. 108. The 20mm x 110 had higher velocity and better range than the 30mm x 90 round.
The Super-Hornet (a late 90's design) has straight wings combined with LEXs. its engines are afterburning turbo-fans rather than the Me-262's non-afterburing turbojets. No modern jet fighter design has swept wings or turbojets. The P-80 and Meteor saw action but no air-to-air combat. The "600 enemy aircraft claim" has not been confirmed by modern scholarship. At least 200 Me-262s were lost to the USAAF in air-to-air with more accounted for by AAA and accidents. The 262 had zero impact.
The Me-262 protoype had truly swept wings but because the engines were quite heavy and the fact they were stupidly mounted in nacelles under the wing, the production model had essentially straight wings. Swept wings are not used by any modern fighter; lamba, straight, diamond and delta wings are all that's used in modern fighters along with Chines, LEX & canards. The Me-262 entered service first because the Germans were desperate. A lot of pilots died because of its immaturity and poor design.
That wasn't in level flight or with a combat load so it was a useless accomplishment. All wing mounted guns have issues with icing which is why the trend was towards nose mounted guns (P-38, P-61, XP-72, F7F, P39). Unlike the Mk 108, The 37mm had high muzzle velocity and could be fired well outside the range of the German bomber's defensive armament. Why else did the Russians use it extensively during and after WWII? Because it was highly effective against bombers and heavy attack aircraft
How is a *failed*, delta-winged, four-engine heavy bomber design at all a validation of the Me-262's design? The B-58 had an appalling accident rate, limited payload and terrible range. It was the shortest lived postwar bomber design. The XB-70/Concorde/Tu-144/B-1/Tu-160 are the right designs (nacelles flush mounted at the rear of the fuselage). The Me-262 had the same problems and killed may pilots. The P-80 was used for recon in Europe. How is a low velocity, high ROF cannon system advanced?
No one emulated the 262 even during the war. The Meteor and the P-80 were quite different designs. I'll take the Meteor or P-80's armament and better maneuverability and high altitude performance over the 262 any day of the week. The problem of reliably destroying heavy bombers was not solved until the advent of SAMs and air-to-air missiles. Even so, the B-1B/Tu-160 & B-2 would still pose a major challenge for modern air defense systems.
No post-war aircraft followed the layout or armament of the Me-262. Engine nacelles under the wing is a terrible design; it hurts roll rates and results in drag. The 262 was useless over 35,000 ft. Not so with the P-80. the 4x30mm low velocity/high rate-of-fire armament was copied by no one. It influenced no post-war design. The Russians stuck with a 37mm + 2x23mm and the US stuck with high velocity .50 cal or 20mm cannon. The P-80 with its single internal engine and side inlets is still flying
I guess you are bored by "evidence" and "data" and "sources." You prefer unsubstantiated, qualitative statements and insults. Where did I say "without exception"? You are presenting a straw man argument. The Germans were clearly far ahead in ballistic missile technology but were behind in enough places to make a decisive difference in the war. The fact that the Luftwaffe fighter arm was outclassed by late 1943/early 1944 and its bombers were useless in the west meant game over.
80 ft. per sec? where did you pull that from?? It needed a high rate of fire to compensate for the fact that it fired a very low muzzle velocity shell that had poor range. Also, it needed quad mounted 30mm because the Mk. 108 was prone to jamming due to ammunition linkage failure. Thats the price you pay for a high rate of fire weapon. How many post-war designs had quad mounted, low-velocity, high rate-of-fire 30mm cannon? I can't think of one! The 262 was a dead end.
You are joking! Higher muzzle velocity results in flatter trajectories/less bullet drop which makes aiming much easier. Higher muzzle velocity also results in longer range. All of these are desirable properties when engaging fighters. With bombers, range is important but rate-of-fire much less so. Please explain how the Mk. V fired a heavier shell with more explosive filling at higher muzzle velocities and at a higher rate of fire than any German 20mm.
They rejected the P-39 because it didn't have the high altitude performance required for operations on the Western Front. They also weren't facing a bomber threat that justified such a heavy weapon which used special ammunition not found on almost any other British or American fighter. How was the M4 inferior? Higher muzzle velocity, greater range and bigger bang than the Mk 108. And it's linkages didn't snap. The Mk. 108 was a dead end no one copied it. The 37mm went on in the MiG-15 & MiG-17.
You can't get away from the fact that the 20mm x 110 had a larger/longer case than the 20mm x 89. This allowed the 20mm x 110 carry more propellant which resulted in a heavier shell with higher muzzle velocity and more explosive charge than any German 20mm. And despite the heavier total projectile weight, the Mk. V and its relatives all had higher rates of fire than the German 20mm cannons. What more do you want?
I said "shell" didn't I? No one rates the German 20mm's over the Mk. V 20mm. The US and RAF didn't want the M4 because they weren't intercepting bombers; the German bomber threat was almost non-existent on the Western front but the Russians had to deal with them (and heavily armored attack aircraft) in the East. The M4 was no more prone to jamming than the MK 108 whose ammo linkages tended to break. Note, the YP-72 was going to be M4 armed but their was no threat to justify it.
I can't find any data to the contrary. The Allies' Hispano-Suiza 20mm round was 20mm x 110mm; the German 20mm round was 20mm x 82mm round; so the Allied 20mm round being 34% longer could carry more propellant for higher muzzle velocity/range and/or more bursting charge. The MG151 was inferior to both the Mk. II in terms of muzzle velocity and Mk. V Hispano 20mm in terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Please cite data if you are inclined to make claims.
20mm cannon rounds don't carry enough explosive charge to be dangerous to infantry (another reason autocannons are tending towards 30mm - 50mm designs these days) and don't have the velocity or rate of fire to penetrate armored vehicles. 20mm rounds are overkill for lightly armored vehicles and you end up with reduced ammo capacity. There's a good reason the US elected for a 25mm cannon on the F-35; a 25% increase in shell diameter provides nearly a 95% increase in explosive charge capacity.
Take a good, long look at the presentation or remain arrogant & uniformed (a dangerous combination especially to oneself). ATK, arguably one of the the top ammunition/gun systems companies in the world also tested the Rheinmetall/GD KEW-A2 APFDS round on the Danish L44 and Dutch L55 gunned Leopard 2s; the accuracy (and precision) of Rheinmetall's own advanced round on its own L55 gun was so *awful* that ATK had to change the aiming point to get meaningful test results.
Wrong again! ATK did comprehensive tests (in 2008) of 120mm AP and HE rounds fired from both the L44 and L55 guns on the Danish Leopard 2A5 and Dutch Leopard 2A6; It was clear from the test firings that the same round fired from the L55 was considerably (over 40%!) less accurate than the same round fired from the L44 gun. Look at "Firing US 120mm Tank Ammunition in the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank" by Huls presented at NDIA 2008.
"Diesels were undesirable" Really? Have you ever been outside of your country? Asia perhaps? Central or South America? If you're talking about military hardware you should know that even 2 versions of the Sherman used diesel motors. M48 Patton is diesel. t54/55 were diesel. T-62 and T-64 were diesel. Leo1 could run diesel in it's multi-fuel engine. The list goes on and most of them used different model diesel tank engines. Diesels were not only superior at the time, but preferable.
You are *completely* wrong. Watch the famous "Pershing vs. Panther Cologne 1945" video with the Pershing gunner narrating; he says "I fired the first shell on the run; hit him." He hit a moving target with a 90mm/L53 while moving! The gyro-stabilization on the Pershing was far ahead of anything else in the world at the time. Why do you need range control with a high velocity, flat trajectory gun? A tank as heavy as the Pershing doesn't really need azimuth stabilization.
While I'd agree that the terms of the Versailles treaty were excessively harsh (the Brits & French both violated the terms by seizing German territory) I'd put the blame more on the USSR. Of course, neither the UK nor the USSR forced Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia, or Poland. I think pre-Nazi Germany could have successfully re-negotiated the Versailles treaty; the US (because of its large number of anti-British Irish and German immigrants) was very sympathetic to Germany.
The Allied TD's spent most of their time shelling german positions because German tanks were rarely encountered; anytime their were artillery fire or fire bombers would generally compel them to retreat. When German tanks did attack en mass in the west (battle of the bulge being a good example), TDs slaughtered them. The 90mm with or without HVAP could destroy any German tank (except maybe the Maus) at battlefield range. The 76mm HVAP could destroy the Panther and Tiger at most ranges.
Wrong round; I was referring to the T30E16 which was issued to all M-36 crews as well 90mm gun batteries. There are many properly attributed photos of King Tiger II's and Jadgpanthers knocked out by 90mm HVAP rounds fired by TD crews. I don't know of any post-war tank that used the 88mm gun aside from WWII surplus. The 88/L56 was obsolete by the end of WWII; L71 was too heavy to be stabilized. The US stayed with their WWII vintage 90mm and the Russians with their 100mm well into the 1960's.
There were no accuracy issues with the 90mm HVAP round; it could and did regularly destroy Tiger IIs, Jagdpanthers and other heavy German "animals" at combat ranges. The performance difference to the 88mm L/71 was negligible. The 90mm M3 was destroying main battle tanks well into the 70's. What's the 88mm L/71 been doing since 1945? Did it influence any postwar tank gun design or copied by any other nation? The answer is no.
![Tiger H1 - The World's Most Legendary Tank? [War Thunder]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QS_yDS8Nnjk/mqdefault.jpg)
That is one of the best engine start videos on TH-cam.
Didn't expect you here
(continued from below)...level ground, without accelleration, a certain HP is required. It has to overcome machine internal friction losses, rolling resistance, and air-dam resistance, which climbs exponentially, and is the biggest factor in some cases. That horsepower can be delivered any way you want, but customary methods and cost-effective limits dictate the means. The Diesel is today's choice. Any prime mover and gearbox combo would work, and they've had strange ones (continued.......
that sound! oh my, I think I just nerdgasmed
That would make a young man peeter out...
It's an inertia starter. Spin up the flywheel, then clutch it to the engine. Those Maybach V12s were incredibly compact. So much so, that the lack of clearance between the cylinders led to a lot of blown engines. Happened to the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK with Tiger 131. Got a rebuilt engine into their Tiger, drove it about 100 yards, and it blew sky-high. Somehow they managed to find a replacement block, and this time they downrated the engine.
It blew ?
because of what ?
60 years of metal fatigue, and almost no thickness of metal between the cylinder bores.
Downrated just like in Sept 1943, they knew overheating was a serious problem (because they have to rev it close to 3000rpm to go faster than a horse), they set the rpm limiter to 2500, resulting in a 597hp max. power output.
@@Tibb91 well it is kinda har to move a 59 to 71 ton tank in mud with a pushed to the limit low octane fuel
Think they pulled one out a king tiger
I'll bet energizing that inertia starter on the steeps of Mother Russia at 20-below zero was a real bitch!!!
No Tiger IIs on eastern front i think .
ex59neo53
The Tiger 2 debuted on the Eastern Front.
Probably would warm you up though.
フライホイールの重厚感のある音が良いですね。
私はティーガーIIよりもティーガーIの初期型が好きです。
It seems that a lot of people don't understand that this was just another method of starting it.
Actually, though they did have starter engines, this was the preferred method of starting the tanks. The starters were only recommended in case a quick emergency start was needed.
zolikoff couldnt they also start it with an VW kübelwagen?
zolikoff Why weren´t the starters more widely used? They took a toll on the engine?
Richardsen Not sure really... I don't think they took a toll on the engine since they did exactly the same thing you'd do with a handcrank, just faster.
I'm guessing that the starter engines themselves were very quick to wear down, or something like that, and you wanted them to be "fresh" and ready if you needed them in an emergency.
zolikoff I think you are right, I mean you need two people to start it up so an starter engine would break down fast, and maybe the battery was too bad to bring enough power every time.
tiger got the shits when the French men trying to start it up haha
Such a disgrace for The Mighty Tiger to be started by ... the french !
The ones who had the best tanks at the start of the second world war and amassed an underground rebel force to fight against the Nazi war machine even though their country had been overrun? I can think of no better people.
DoodooBean I agree that the French 'Char' tank was the best at the start of WWII, in fact the German's kept captured ones in inventory until the Normandy invasion. However, the French Underground was infested by Communists ( the natural enemy of National Socialists), most non-Communist French sat out the war until after the landings at Normandy.
French tanks was the best tanks of II world war. They had best reverse gear :)
Hahahaha, the truth has been spoken through your words mate! :)))
stuky80 you mean " They had best rewerse gear " ..... lol ;)
エンジン始動ってけっこう大変なのね
車内からかけれる場合と掛けれない場合があって今回は車内から掛けれなくて外からやってるようですね。とても大変そうです
The Germans hand started almost everything late in the war, even airplanes. No lead for batteries (all went to U-Boats) and no copper wasted for starter motor windings and cables.
Russians used compressed air!
Roy Hemion Cool! Never knew that. Sounds like a much better solution than flywheels and hand cranks.
hammeredinfire
until one needs to compress air at minus 40 or lower . must start gen to start compressor that may be frozen from compressing air that has moisture in it which freezes in the lines to try starting an engine. use air starters on drilling rigs and it can be complicated.
+Strike Raid worked in the diesel engine because of how they work compared to gasoline ones
Would've saved them a lot of trouble, in combat batteries or compressed air would make a better start up than hand crank.
watch from 4:50
you re welcome
Alex Brown I
At 4:51 several surrounding villages evacuated. The Beast is back.
@@tomgauntlestrange / 😅
The French are still afraid when such a beast comes to life !!!!
+joako2706 Why? This tank wasn't developed when France was conquered.
Maelarion This tank was developed during 43-43 so yeah France was occupied by the German Wehrmacht !
My point is, why the French specifically? If it was used to attack France, at the start of the war, I understand. But it came later. Sure, it was used in France, but also other countries, and the eastern front. Most of the soldiers or tanks that would have faced this thing wouldn't have been French.
it was used specially against the troops fighting in Normandy after the D-Day , as well as the retreat to Germany , as in the battle of the Bulge , etc . So yes it saw plenty of action in the Hexagon !
+joako2706 by French troops?
Hahaha 4:17 klingt wie ne leise Stuka Sirene :D
Aber hauptsache erstmal 7:06 die ASU machen dann gibts auch die TÜV plakette :)
Batner112
😂🤣😂👍🏻
Fantastic german engineering !
Why is it a disgras to be started by French ? Do you know that only French Army has preserved such a Tank in starting conditions ?
Swiss is now restoring one of them to starting conditions !
www.koenigstiger.ch/index.html Maybe you can find something on their website !
Lucky !
I love the alarm sound it creates when their cranking turning over the tank with their hands god bless German technology.
The Germans used the weighted flywheel to start many tanks and air plains. No battery necessary. Magneto on, it's similar to rolling a car with a standard transmission down a hill and popping the clutch. Ingenuously simple. Diesel tanks have no spark plugs. Get it spinning turn on the fuel it will keep running till it runs out of fuel
that's a nice tiger tank but I can imagine how it would actually feel to hand crank that that german master piece and the adrenaline rush it would give me cranking it i also realy engine that ww2 Siren sound and finally that roar that it gives when all cylinders are fired up. thanks for the video
his little display was to record the sound of both the enertia starter and the electric starter for the Tamiya company of Japan. These sounds are faithfully reproduced in the computers of their 1/16 scale Tiger 1, King Tiger, Panther, and Jagdtiger, all 4 or which used the same Maybach V 12 and transmission, ergo the same enertia starter. Tamiya also makes the Pershing, Sherman, Panzer IV, Leo 1 and Leo 2, and KV 1 and KV 2. All sounds are recorded from operational tanks of the proper vintage.
How did they ever lose?
Now thats a lot of work. 12 cylinder i guess?
+Garry Thomas 23L Maybach V12
Stuka87
stunning
Get some REAL MEN to turn the crank
First day of boot camp.
I don´t have to brag-it´s just an offer to you-you look like the master of all languages.And no frear-knowing you are not a native speaker i won´t making fun of you. As you did.
BTT: In which am i wrong?
Stating that Panther does not mean Panzer? Sorry Master, this is my native language so i guess i may know it a little better then you do.
and again: "Panther means Panther.
Panzer is short for Panzerkampfwagen=Tank"
That´s it.
It is an gasoline engine and a further developement of the HL 230 (as far as I know equipped with a much improved turbocharger), but I do not know the exactly notation of this improved machine. But it isn´t a diesel for sure.
i would like to see proof of that,because the first multi grade oil released was in the early 60s.
Also the Germans were the first to pioneer the use of synthetic oils due to the problems in Russia with normal mineral oil.
Its the looong wait version!
MrTheorsa Because that is the economic version, for a few more Reichmarks you can buy the equipped version of the tiger .... with ignition inside and cup holders ..
Just like you heard!, CUP HOLDERS WHAT A GOOD OFFER!.
A young "start/button generation" commentary. You are very smart, but I bet you will not achieve even half of a crank turn.
I said it's nearly impossible to stabilize a gun *over* L55; I'm aware there are a couple of tanks out there with L55 guns. They all suffer from reduced accuracy; the increased muzzle velocity of the L55 over the L39 is like 12% which is a terrible tradeoff for a gun that's nearly 40% longer and 25% heavier. The ideal gun is probably close to the XM360 120mm/L48 which has the better combination of muzzle velocity and accuracy.
Leave it to the French! Trying to figure out German engineering. Look at the Citroen.
hhahaha true :p
"german engineering" is putting an underpowered motor in a giant tank when you lost air superiority? I don't know what's the more stupid, your comment or this tank.
d sfcsz they probably did not have time to build an engine adapted to Tiger II, German engineers struts and are so develope that same engine panther could roll this monster 40km / h;)
Bob pew exactly
d sfcsz
more were lost to break down than from losses to aircraft
He is right. Panzerkampfwagen means "exactly" armored-fight-verhicle, which IS a tank.
Panzer /ˈpænzər/ is a German language word that means either tank or armour.
love peoples who are saying bullshits but never tried to start an old engine or a new engine after a swap
Funny isn't?! - the froggies did have the largest tanks back in '40
"The standing around speaking French version"
I been runnin' on here about stuff, but it just just occurred to me what a fine example this inertial starter is to explain horsepower, torque, etc.
Obviously a man can't deliver the kind of instantaneous force, or torque, necessary to crank that heavy engine long or fast enough. But to deliver the force over a long time, to store the force in a heavy weight spinning at a high speed, and then release it suddenly into a starting system will accomplish the trick. A lot of foot/pounds are there!
l'officier et l'ingénieur qui se tripotent en donnant des consignes au lieu de mettre la main à la patte :o
it's always the same ...
ahhh yes, it is always a good thing to have a huge engine running indoors for a couple minutes!
That is a real Tiger II. The French took it over after WWII and equipped it with a 1000 HP Maybach engine. This engine is a late german WWII-developement of the original 700 HP Maybach HL 230 P 30 of the Tiger II and was intended to replace the weaker engines in order to give the Tigers more acceleration and speed.
A Alemanha deveria produzir esse modelo de tanque com as tecnologias do nosso século 21.
A Alemanha toda a vida foram geniais no que produzem, e o design sempre top.
Imagine nesse século 21 a Alemanha com novas versões Tiger em 2016. ^_^
my 2 favorit songs
se sound of stuka and the roar of the tiger's engine 😍😍
The big cat ate too many tommies and is now really hard to wake up.
Wow, someone that actually understands the concept of HP and Torque and how they relate to time.
Yes, accelleration requires more torque and the faster the speed to be maintained the higher the HP required.
So what do you need more of if you want to move a 50 ton tank
across soft ground at 24mph instead of 12mph? more torque? or more horsepower?
Firing a heavier shell with the same muzzle velocity you need more propellant. More propellant generally means (assuming same density grains) a larger cartridge case to accomodate more propellant grains. The 20mm shell on the 20mm x 110mm was a heavier shell than the German 20mm with a higher muzzle velocity. Both shells had the same diameter and similar ballistic co-efficients meaning that the higher muzzle velocity for the 110m is due to more propellant in the bigger case.
I love how you are comparing the Mk. II H-S rather than the much more widely used Mk. V Hispano Suiza 20mm. The 20mmx110mm was simply a larger shell with most explosive filler and higher muzzle velocity than the comparable German 20mm. No amount of manufacturing cleverness can overcome this fact. I'd say the M4 37mm handily outclassed the 30mm Mk 108. The M4 was so good it was used in ground variants and the Russians copied it for NS-37.
This beast was Science fiction at the time……..
not really...
What other tank could hover and shot lasers at the time?
This is like a Monte Python skit. Totally kills the image of this most dangerous tank.
Hand start is always a bitch. Also there is no telling how long that engine stood there unused. :P
The roar is impressive though.
tasman_devil
imagine how this would look like in stalingrad that winter... Hanz start the engine :D
tasman_devil
they use it for a few minutes every week. After 3-4 hours of use, engine requires a complete overhaul again. Its a piece of junk
Y10Q only the engine ;D
TheCarbonEffect chill out spaz
The beast live again
Sherman crews might see 4 or 5 of their shells bounce off of this thing before they were close enough to hurt it, but we have here a hint of why the Germans respected the Sherman: Superior mobility. It was very reliable (for its time) and had a (relatively) high road speed, which helped put a lot of them on the battlefield together.
It's not the only working King Tiger in the world. Tiger II 182 was restored and now works.
the starts remember me "terror" im my soul i can hear...... :(
スゲーいい音する
For example the MT883, (much improved version of the old mt873 found in Leo2's) of the Challenger 2 and LeClerc can produce up to 2800hp, yet only produces ~1500 rated hp. . This is why an 800hp 600Kg F1 car struggles to pull away on level ground yet a 60hp 1200Kg Ford Focus can easily do a hill start despite having higher gearing!!. Comparing maximum horsepower with rated horsepower(torque) is idiotic, but typical of a mechanic like drdimmer
Good for the French engineers for bringing this back for posterity. 👍👍
NO he is not. battle tanks, trucks or tractors are all pieces of machinery build for a specific purpose, with the common feature of all having an engine and gearbox. Power and torque are not mutually exclusive.
Power (the rate of doing work) depends on torque and RPM ratio and is calculated like that.
Torque and RPM are the measured quantities of engine output.
yes 70 tons you´re right...
To run on at the mouth, can we talk science?! (like in physics)
A basic fact is "a body in motion tends to stay in motion" WITH NO RESISTANCE OF ANY KIND no force is needed if there is no acceleration, or (bad word in physics) deceleration performed.
On earth, when a giant truck is in motion, the ONLY HP needed if it is to stay at a constant speed, that necessary to overcome contact (tires) resistance, applied force of gravity (small here if level) internal friction, and, a big one, WIND DAM!
....what speed can be maintained with what horsepower. You just have to tailor the job with the engine speed AND THE GEARBOX! Up to the limit of the machine's horsepower capability at the governed speed in the highest notch in the gearing. HP requirements up to that vary like crazy!!!!
In all Doctorbimmer, it seems like you do indeed understand hp, torque, and the formulas, so hope I didn't preach to the choir here!!
Only gearing can increase it. This is why transportation vehicles are hard to use to explain torque and horsepower. All the variables!
All put simply, it's not an argument of torque vs horsepower, because HP is the factor of torque and speed. The right argument is torque vs overcoming breakaway speed, or speed of acceleration, or huge weight on soft ground, or climbing a grade. All these things add huge HP requirements to the job at the moment that's different than just...(continued)...
....DC electric motor can experience an UNLIMITED increase in HP (in formula, NOT in reality of course.!) simply by continually increasing the voltage, which is the sole way to increase the speed. If you increase one number in the formula while the other remains constant, HP increases. (the motor would blow up eventually.)
In combustion engines you cannot increase the torque, since that instantaneous number is governed by length of offset of the crank. (stroke) ......continued)...
......matches the horsepower requirements. The numbers in the formula have changed, but the math has not. You deliver the higher torque, at a lower GROUND speed. (the engine speed is irrevelent in the formula). Foot/pounds, a composite number, times an arbitrary distance figure. Example: if the gearbox cut the ratio from 1 to 1 into 2 to 1, your torque is doubled, and your distance over TIME is cut in half. Same horsepower delivered to the ground!
Interesting thing, a ...(continued).....
Now your example below of soft ground at 24 MPH vs 12, to do that, the correct answer is more HP! If the engine begins to stall, it needs more horsepower. But a problem is that at it's governed top speed, that's all she's got. If you had a way of overcoming the governor, and abuse the engine, you will increase the horsepower. No other way. (right then anyway!).
The torque can be increased. Just by gearing down. AT THE COST OF ground speed. If you can move, your horsepower now ..(continued)...
...., a turbine makes incredible RPM, and low torque, but by the commutative principle of multiplication the numbers still add up to a certain horsepower. It doesn't matter in the end, IN THEORY! A dentist's drill can be 1 HP, but I've seen electric motors of 1 HP that weighed a ton. (line shaft motor, ultra slow, high torque).
The dentists drill could do the job of the big motor with gearing, but why? That's customary design limits. Gearing implies internal power losses. (continued).........
(This is hard in 500 characters max!)
Transportation is tough to use for example due to so many variables.
For openers there would be no low HP/very high torque specs engines-low RPM range maybe.
Here we go...To move a heavy vehicle, breakaway force is high, so a high torque/low RPM range is the COMMON requirement. (exotic possibilities aside).Gearing as in a truck transmission, 13 to 1 multiplies that torque tremendously. Once up to speed, to maintain it on level ground, (continue>>>
You CAN multiply torque with a gearbox, at the cost of speed. The formula is weight over distance over time. It's hard to visualize with moving vehicles, but the basics is that if time remains equal, one horsepower will move 33,000 lbs on foot per minute, or one pound 33,000 feet per minute. A tiny winch could do the latter with high speed but a gearbox would enable it to lift 33,000 lbs, at the great cost of distance traveled. It's STILL one unit of work, one horsepower. Numbers equal out.
Horsepower is a unit of work. It can raise 33,000 lbs one foot in one minute (with high torque). It can raise one pound 33,000 feet in one minute (with high speed). It's still one horsepower, achieving the same amount of work, 2 different ways! Arguing over semi engines versus gas car engines of the same horsepower is pointless, they do the same work different ways.
Watts is unit of work. You could have 110 volts at 10 amps for 1100 watts, or 1100 volts at one amp. 2 very different applications.
1 HP is the work that 1 horse (real horse) can do in 1 hour.
Torque is the amount turning force an engine can apply, the flywheel also called BHP.
A petrol motor is rated in HP because it is a low torque motor and hp is higher so it looks better to buyers to rate it in HP.
Diesel produce more torque for less HP, so diesels are rated in torque as that's the higher rating.
If you want to do 300mph then you want petrol but if you want to pull 10tons of weight you'll want a diesel.
You are wrong, about torque. you can't crate more torque with a gearbox, more horse power will give you a higher speed, torque is what you need to get going as in turn the wheels petrol cars don't need much torque because they only weight 2 tons overall.
if you have a 1000hp engine with 500Nm of torque it wouldn't move this tank 1 inch, as it weights 45 tons, the diesel engine in this tank weights 1.2 tons itself, it's only 700hp but it'll shift this 45ton tank at 17 KPH off road 38 KPH on road
(Cont.) is like gearing torque (real power as measured in ft/lb or Nm) to produce HP. You can do anything with it - lift little blocks or big blocks. On the other hand, you can't gear up HP. The child would never move the 50lb block. That is the difference. For example, if you put a 700HP engine in a Tiger II from a sports car with say 450 ft/lb of power, it wouldn't be able to move the tank. HP is how fast an engine can produce small amounts of power, not its power capacity.
OK, let me start with an example that should be easy for your to understand. An HP is a unit of measurement - specifically how many times a very small amount of work can be done in a given period of time. So say you have a child real quick with his hand and can stack more 1-ounce blocks on top of each other than a Gold medal weightlifter. However, the child can't even budge a 50lb block but the body-builder can stack them handily. If you count how many ounces in each 50lb block, that (cont.)
Our knowledge of WWII has advanced dramatically in recent years because of access to Russian and East German archives. Also, a lot of technical data has been declassified. Since many WWII aircraft and technologies were used in Korea and even beyond a lot of data was never made publicly available or had to wait until people retired from active service or industry. Some British files on WWII are still embargoed until the 2040's!
And the Soviet BT-series tank was the fastest, best armed and had the best mobility of any tank in the world when it was introduced; that didn't stop it from being totally ineffective in combat. The P-38/P-63 accounted for vastly more bombers and attack aircraft than the 262 and unlike the 262 their M4 37mm was used in several successful post-war designs. The 262 was a dead-end failure. Praising it all you want won't change that.
One of the best sounding engines ever. I bet it spent most of it's life over-strained and at emergency war power and has lost most of it's original horsepower. Listen to the roar of all those 250 horses lol.
Absolutely,as a petrolhead i have ever never heard better one than this
Well high displacement low redline v12 engines have a very special sound we all love
But losing 500 hp is a bit much just form wear and tear it is like you chopped of 2/3 of the engine a realistic number would be ~650hp ±20hp
And the Allies quad mounted the 20mm; i'll take the higher muzzle velocity, greater range and higher rate of fire 4x20mm arrangement over the slower firing, lower muzzle velocity, shorter ranged 4x30mm with its broken ammo linkages.
The 37mm was used in the MiG-15 and MiG-17. It's low rate of fire was a handicap against fighters but not against its primary target, heavy bombers. The USN F4U pilots preferred the 6x.50 cal to the 4x20mm for the same reasons; higher rate of fire against fighters.
Sure. The Allies were well aware of the 262's development and countered it several ways: designing their own jet fighters, improving their piston aircraft (XP-72, P-51H, P-47M etc) and new ammunition like the M23.
The 262 had no impact. The USAAF accounted for at least 200 262's in Air-to-Air with more accounted for by ground fire. The Allies had *thousands* of planes to spare in rat chases because the Luftwaffe was so weak and there were so few ground targets left.
The Me-262 only attained speeds above 600mph in a non-combat i.e. *useless* configuration. But because the 262's engines were so poorly made it could rarely hit more than 490 MPH in combat (confirmed by captured German pilots and US radar).
During the war, P-80 and Meteor were plenty fast and both had better high altitude performance than the 262. High altitude performance was a war winner in the ETO.
The M4 37mm could and did destroy bombers with a *single* shot. The 262 needed a burst at very close range (because of the low muzzle velocity of the Mk. 108). Unlike the Me-262, the P-39/63 could fire outside of the range of the bombers' defensive fire. The Russians kept the 37mm for the MiG-15 where a few shots could and did destroy B-29s.
The Mk. V/M3 cannon both had a higher rate of fire than the Mk. 108. The 20mm x 110 had higher velocity and better range than the 30mm x 90 round.
The Super-Hornet (a late 90's design) has straight wings combined with LEXs. its engines are afterburning turbo-fans rather than the Me-262's non-afterburing turbojets. No modern jet fighter design has swept wings or turbojets.
The P-80 and Meteor saw action but no air-to-air combat. The "600 enemy aircraft claim" has not been confirmed by modern scholarship. At least 200 Me-262s were lost to the USAAF in air-to-air with more accounted for by AAA and accidents.
The 262 had zero impact.
The Me-262 protoype had truly swept wings but because the engines were quite heavy and the fact they were stupidly mounted in nacelles under the wing, the production model had essentially straight wings. Swept wings are not used by any modern fighter; lamba, straight, diamond and delta wings are all that's used in modern fighters along with Chines, LEX & canards.
The Me-262 entered service first because the Germans were desperate. A lot of pilots died because of its immaturity and poor design.
That wasn't in level flight or with a combat load so it was a useless accomplishment.
All wing mounted guns have issues with icing which is why the trend was towards nose mounted guns (P-38, P-61, XP-72, F7F, P39).
Unlike the Mk 108, The 37mm had high muzzle velocity and could be fired well outside the range of the German bomber's defensive armament. Why else did the Russians use it extensively during and after WWII? Because it was highly effective against bombers and heavy attack aircraft
How is a *failed*, delta-winged, four-engine heavy bomber design at all a validation of the Me-262's design? The B-58 had an appalling accident rate, limited payload and terrible range. It was the shortest lived postwar bomber design. The XB-70/Concorde/Tu-144/B-1/Tu-160 are the right designs (nacelles flush mounted at the rear of the fuselage).
The Me-262 had the same problems and killed may pilots. The P-80 was used for recon in Europe. How is a low velocity, high ROF cannon system advanced?
No one emulated the 262 even during the war. The Meteor and the P-80 were quite different designs. I'll take the Meteor or P-80's armament and better maneuverability and high altitude performance over the 262 any day of the week.
The problem of reliably destroying heavy bombers was not solved until the advent of SAMs and air-to-air missiles. Even so, the B-1B/Tu-160 & B-2 would still pose a major challenge for modern air defense systems.
No post-war aircraft followed the layout or armament of the Me-262. Engine nacelles under the wing is a terrible design; it hurts roll rates and results in drag. The 262 was useless over 35,000 ft. Not so with the P-80. the 4x30mm low velocity/high rate-of-fire armament was copied by no one. It influenced no post-war design. The Russians stuck with a 37mm + 2x23mm and the US stuck with high velocity .50 cal or 20mm cannon. The P-80 with its single internal engine and side inlets is still flying
I guess you are bored by "evidence" and "data" and "sources." You prefer unsubstantiated, qualitative statements and insults. Where did I say "without exception"? You are presenting a straw man argument. The Germans were clearly far ahead in ballistic missile technology but were behind in enough places to make a decisive difference in the war. The fact that the Luftwaffe fighter arm was outclassed by late 1943/early 1944 and its bombers were useless in the west meant game over.
80 ft. per sec? where did you pull that from??
It needed a high rate of fire to compensate for the fact that it fired a very low muzzle velocity shell that had poor range. Also, it needed quad mounted 30mm because the Mk. 108 was prone to jamming due to ammunition linkage failure. Thats the price you pay for a high rate of fire weapon. How many post-war designs had quad mounted, low-velocity, high rate-of-fire 30mm cannon? I can't think of one! The 262 was a dead end.
You are joking! Higher muzzle velocity results in flatter trajectories/less bullet drop which makes aiming much easier. Higher muzzle velocity also results in longer range. All of these are desirable properties when engaging fighters. With bombers, range is important but rate-of-fire much less so. Please explain how the Mk. V fired a heavier shell with more explosive filling at higher muzzle velocities and at a higher rate of fire than any German 20mm.
They rejected the P-39 because it didn't have the high altitude performance required for operations on the Western Front. They also weren't facing a bomber threat that justified such a heavy weapon which used special ammunition not found on almost any other British or American fighter. How was the M4 inferior? Higher muzzle velocity, greater range and bigger bang than the Mk 108. And it's linkages didn't snap. The Mk. 108 was a dead end no one copied it. The 37mm went on in the MiG-15 & MiG-17.
You can't get away from the fact that the 20mm x 110 had a larger/longer case than the 20mm x 89. This allowed the 20mm x 110 carry more propellant which resulted in a heavier shell with higher muzzle velocity and more explosive charge than any German 20mm. And despite the heavier total projectile weight, the Mk. V and its relatives all had higher rates of fire than the German 20mm cannons. What more do you want?
I said "shell" didn't I? No one rates the German 20mm's over the Mk. V 20mm. The US and RAF didn't want the M4 because they weren't intercepting bombers; the German bomber threat was almost non-existent on the Western front but the Russians had to deal with them (and heavily armored attack aircraft) in the East. The M4 was no more prone to jamming than the MK 108 whose ammo linkages tended to break. Note, the YP-72 was going to be M4 armed but their was no threat to justify it.
I can't find any data to the contrary. The Allies' Hispano-Suiza 20mm round was 20mm x 110mm; the German 20mm round was 20mm x 82mm round; so the Allied 20mm round being 34% longer could carry more propellant for higher muzzle velocity/range and/or more bursting charge. The MG151 was inferior to both the Mk. II in terms of muzzle velocity and Mk. V Hispano 20mm in terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Please cite data if you are inclined to make claims.
20mm cannon rounds don't carry enough explosive charge to be dangerous to infantry (another reason autocannons are tending towards 30mm - 50mm designs these days) and don't have the velocity or rate of fire to penetrate armored vehicles. 20mm rounds are overkill for lightly armored vehicles and you end up with reduced ammo capacity. There's a good reason the US elected for a 25mm cannon on the F-35; a 25% increase in shell diameter provides nearly a 95% increase in explosive charge capacity.
Take a good, long look at the presentation or remain arrogant & uniformed (a dangerous combination especially to oneself).
ATK, arguably one of the the top ammunition/gun systems companies in the world also tested the Rheinmetall/GD KEW-A2 APFDS round on the Danish L44 and Dutch L55 gunned Leopard 2s; the accuracy (and precision) of Rheinmetall's own advanced round on its own L55 gun was so *awful* that ATK had to change the aiming point to get meaningful test results.
Wrong again! ATK did comprehensive tests (in 2008) of 120mm AP and HE rounds fired from both the L44 and L55 guns on the Danish Leopard 2A5 and Dutch Leopard 2A6; It was clear from the test firings that the same round fired from the L55 was considerably (over 40%!) less accurate than the same round fired from the L44 gun. Look at "Firing US 120mm Tank Ammunition in the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank" by Huls presented at NDIA 2008.
"Diesels were undesirable" Really? Have you ever been outside of your country? Asia perhaps? Central or South America? If you're talking about military hardware you should know that even 2 versions of the Sherman used diesel motors. M48 Patton is diesel. t54/55 were diesel. T-62 and T-64 were diesel. Leo1 could run diesel in it's multi-fuel engine. The list goes on and most of them used different model diesel tank engines. Diesels were not only superior at the time, but preferable.
You are *completely* wrong. Watch the famous "Pershing vs. Panther Cologne 1945" video with the Pershing gunner narrating; he says "I fired the first shell on the run; hit him." He hit a moving target with a 90mm/L53 while moving! The gyro-stabilization on the Pershing was far ahead of anything else in the world at the time. Why do you need range control with a high velocity, flat trajectory gun? A tank as heavy as the Pershing doesn't really need azimuth stabilization.
While I'd agree that the terms of the Versailles treaty were excessively harsh (the Brits & French both violated the terms by seizing German territory) I'd put the blame more on the USSR. Of course, neither the UK nor the USSR forced Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia, or Poland. I think pre-Nazi Germany could have successfully re-negotiated the Versailles treaty; the US (because of its large number of anti-British Irish and German immigrants) was very sympathetic to Germany.
The Allied TD's spent most of their time shelling german positions because German tanks were rarely encountered; anytime their were artillery fire or fire bombers would generally compel them to retreat. When German tanks did attack en mass in the west (battle of the bulge being a good example), TDs slaughtered them. The 90mm with or without HVAP could destroy any German tank (except maybe the Maus) at battlefield range. The 76mm HVAP could destroy the Panther and Tiger at most ranges.
Wrong round; I was referring to the T30E16 which was issued to all M-36 crews as well 90mm gun batteries. There are many properly attributed photos of King Tiger II's and Jadgpanthers knocked out by 90mm HVAP rounds fired by TD crews.
I don't know of any post-war tank that used the 88mm gun aside from WWII surplus. The 88/L56 was obsolete by the end of WWII; L71 was too heavy to be stabilized. The US stayed with their WWII vintage 90mm and the Russians with their 100mm well into the 1960's.
There were no accuracy issues with the 90mm HVAP round; it could and did regularly destroy Tiger IIs, Jagdpanthers and other heavy German "animals" at combat ranges. The performance difference to the 88mm L/71 was negligible. The 90mm M3 was destroying main battle tanks well into the 70's. What's the 88mm L/71 been doing since 1945? Did it influence any postwar tank gun design or copied by any other nation? The answer is no.