Driving impressions of a T-34 tank in the snow. I want one. Only uses 280 liters diesel fuel per hour. Don’t know if you could use WVO, R Leo? Hatty—How does this fuel consumption compare with a nice trawler?


http://guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank1.html

__________________
Anders

1995 E300
2015 VW TDI Sportwagen 15K
1977 240D (197K)
2002 Subaru Legacy L Wagon (115k) (Wife's)
Gone but not forgotten:
2005 Buick LeSabre
1998 C230
1984 300D
1983 240D
1981 300SD
1974 240D
1974 Fiat 124 Spider
1968 Triumph TR250

Dunno about a T-34 but, an M1A1 Abrams will run on WVO (or 12 year old, single malt whiskey if you are so inclined)!

__________________
Never a dull moment at Berry Hill Farm.

My Hatteras 41(also a tank) burns 32gph at 26 knots, so that tank is inefficient. Actually, I believe that's the naturally aspirated tank and it's a little slow. The T-34SD is larger, has the turbo and is better for highway and long trips.

Yes but if you're "enemy" is downwind....the'll smell the french fries from miles away.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

How many gallons is 250 liters per hour? A 12 cylinder diesel in a 50ft-60ft sport fish will burn about 100gph. But they are turbo and intercooled engines I think the T34 is a na. Cool though, it would be fun during rush hour when an H2 is riding your tail!

SHARK1007 the old 41 is one of my favorite boats! Classic looks and probably one of the best ridding boats around. What is powering yours? I want to restore a 53, their was a needy looking one at the Norwalk boat show last fall.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

60something gal/hr

__________________
Never a dull moment at Berry Hill Farm.

Hatterasguy.. Mine's a '68 that I redid completely, the only thing old is the hull and water tank. It has 3126Mechanical Cat's, 420hp, teak transom, aft bulkhead, fighting lady yellow and a nosebleed tower.

I think one of the movie appearances of a tank is Goldeneye and Bond is in pursuit of the Tatra...Zil? in the T-72...T-80? through St. Petersburg. Oh the possibilities are endless here in Los Angeles

250 liters per hour = 66.04 gph (according to the web)

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

That was one of my favorite Bond chase's. Nothing like using a tank to chase down a little car.

I can just see myself now on I-95. "hmm that was a big pothole, oops no it was an F250 that cut me off."

SHARK1007 nice boat, very nice. I know someone who has 3126's in a Mainship, 800 trouble free hours and counting.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

What kind of engine lube oil and additives would you recommend?

Just curious.....

Bot

How did its German engine counterpart compare, in regards to horsepower per liter?

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

Did you mean to compare a T-34 engine against a Panzer or Tiger tank engine of WWII?

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

The Panzer and Tiger 2's were a better tank, but the Russians had like 10+ T-34's for every German tank. The Sherman was the worst, the Germans comparred them to a lighter, they would light the first time everytime. An 88 round would slice through one side and out the other before the Sherman was even close to being in range.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

I enjoy the irony about the adoption of German made guns. In WWII they put portholes in our MBT's or at least turned one angry Telly Savalas' Sherman tank into a convertible in "Battle of the Bulge" but then generations later appeared in the Leopard II with the smoothbore 120mm and then was adopted by the US in the M1 Abrams.....hmm

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

Comparing T-34 to Tiger and especially to Tiger II is not very fruitful, as they were very different tanks. T-34 was a medium, all-purpose tank, while Tiger I/II were heavy tanks, and should be compared to something like Soviet KV-85 or IS-2. In any event, the original Tiger had 650hp engine, which proved to be underpowered, and was later replaced with a 700hp one; Tiger II and Panther used the same engine I believe. 2.75 gallon/mile fuel consumption was quoted for Tiger I (cross-country), 4.5 for Tiger II (whopping 50 miles on one 860L tank!), and 1.75 for Panther A/G. Don't know cross-country fuel economy numbers for T-34, but the spec road range is about 290mi for T-34/76 (compared to 125 for Panther, 87 for Tiger I and 70 for Tiger II).

Panther tank was designed as a heavy-medium tank midway through the war, to incorporate the best of the T-34 design features, and there's much argument over how good a tank Panther really was. It did have stronger armoment and better armor than the original T-34, although T-34/85 closed the gap some, but it was also heavier and far less reliable/servicable. Like many other tanks, it proved to be more effective in defensive warfare, and the timing of its introduction (early '43) only allowed for one last great German offensive, where Panther didn't exactly lived up to Hitler's high expecations, partly due to early-production manufacturing problems. It was quite successful in subsequent defensive operations though.

Many people like debating the benefits of various tank models based on their technical data. For example, some admire Tiger II as a super-tank, and regard Tiger as the "best" tank of the war, and it's a valid argument. However, a tank that's good on paper is not necessarily an effective tank on the battlefield. Tiger had a great gun and very strong armor, but it was very heavy, wide, slow, espensive to manufacture, hard to maintain and needed too much fuel. T-34 was the opposite of this: light, fast, rangy, compact but with wide tracks, low to the ground, simple and cheap to mass-produce, realiable, easy to fix, and this suited the Eastern Front warfare so much better. Soviets had heavy tanks of their own, and they had their uses (e.g. assault of heavily fortified compounds) but those were never deployed in large numbers largely for the reasons cited above. Soviet commanders viewed a mainstream tank as a vehicle for infantry combat support, a role that T-34 played extremely well, and preferred using specialized anti-tank units and ground combat aircraft for destroying German tanks. The issue of replacing the original T-34 tank with something else was raised repeatedly throughout the war, but the original design was so good, all newer designs got eventually dumped in favor of tweaking the original one.

What is ironic (and not widely appreciated) is that all of the great Blitzkrieg victories of 1939-1942 that German Panzer corps are famous for were won primarily with PzKpfw I-III tanks which were light, fast, and had small guns, and yet German heavy tanks are most known and renowned. French and Polish armies had heavier tanks, but that didn't help them all that much. T-34 was superior to all German tanks as of mid-1941, and heavy KV-1 and KV-2 tanks were very hard for German tanks to disable due to their thick armor. Still, Germans panzers were quite successful in 1941 despite this, although in part because T-34 and KV tanks weren't very numerous at this point. Tiger was only introduced in numbers in late 1942, and Tiger II was never produced in big enough numbers to have a big effect on the war.