Is this the most retarded tank engine in history?

So picrel is the V-2 engine from the BT-7, T-34, T-55, KV, IS, SU and ISU series, the "developments" of which are powering the motherfricking T-72 and 90.

Apart from the russians clinging to this engine like its their emotional support genocide victim, is there any actual merit to it past WW2 (if even?)? Just to remind you all, this fricking abomination has a longer stroke length on one side than on the other (someone can explain the logic for that shit to me?).

>yes, picrel is stolen from wikipedia. I'm lazy

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whenever they put in a different engine it doesn't work so what cab you do?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >(someone can explain the logic for that shit to me?)
    It's because the conrods are built like this. It's uncommon but not unheard of. It gives you more main bearing support, which is a big deal for an aluminum-block diesel. It also makes the engine shorter since the cylinder banks don't have to be offset.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >this fricking abomination has a longer stroke length on one side than on the other

      the engine does not use blade and fork connectingn rods, uses master slave rods instead. This is required because, i suspect, the cylinders are not offset to one another to give room for regular connecting rods to attach to the crank shaft. The prositive of this design is that the engine can be slightly smaller.

      Okay, so how do they time it? The powerstroke is alternating between the two cylinders that are on the same conrod pair? I'm guessing firing at (almost) the same time would run some issues?

      https://i.imgur.com/IXi8QUG.jpg

      >clinging to this engine like its their emotional support genocide victim
      they do the same shit with the AK, the Soyuz rocket that's horrendously obsolete, and probably countless others that other people can detail

      I think it's less about pride and shit, and more the fact they literally lack the money and brainpower to create anything new

      That is self evident at this point. The ukies of all people came uo with some pretty good opposed piston diesels (6TD and 5TD), and after seeing the teething issues the russians were like "nyet, V-2 is fine". Which is ironic since afaik the 5TD-equiped T-80's are doing better in general than the T-72's and 90's...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It uses a normal V12 firing order, the only difference is that one bank has a marginally shorter stroke due to the shorter rod. It doesn't affect the timing of TDC or BDC.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Very similar to the way radials work, only less visually impressive.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >this fricking abomination has a longer stroke length on one side than on the other

    the engine does not use blade and fork connectingn rods, uses master slave rods instead. This is required because, i suspect, the cylinders are not offset to one another to give room for regular connecting rods to attach to the crank shaft. The prositive of this design is that the engine can be slightly smaller.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Blade-and-fork designs also don't offset the cylinders. A "normal" offset V engine has two rods side-by-side on the same crank journal. A blade-and-fork design has a normal rod in the middle of the journal for one cylinder, and a split rod with half the width on either side for the other cylinder. The advantage here is that it makes the engine shorter, but the disadvantage is that it requires just as much rod journal area as the offset design. The master/slave design only needs half of the rod journal area of designs with separate connecting rods, which means that it can potentially be even shorter than the blade-and-fork design (although you're more likely limited by cylinder bore than by rod journal length) but more importantly your main bearing journals can be spaced twice as close together. With the extreme crank loading of a high compression and high torque diesel engine in an aluminum block (even for passenger car diesel engines, aluminum blocks are barely a decade old and they're practically unheard of in heavy machinery engines), the size and spacing of the main journals is extremely important. It also allows a shorter crank, which is stiffer for a given amount of material.

      The drawback I've mainly seen quoted in regards to master/slave rod designs is an increase in vibration since the stroke lengths are different between banks, but this shouldn't affect a V12 since each bank is fully balanced on its own without needing to interact with the other bank at all.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >clinging to this engine like its their emotional support genocide victim
    they do the same shit with the AK, the Soyuz rocket that's horrendously obsolete, and probably countless others that other people can detail

    I think it's less about pride and shit, and more the fact they literally lack the money and brainpower to create anything new

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's literally nothing wrong with using an AK in 2024

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is literally nothing wrong with using guns with shit 3+ MOA in 2024
        Ok
        Good luck with anything over 100yds.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >3 MOA
          >bad at 100 yards
          Anon the acceptable moa of an M4 in us use is 4 MOA you can easily hit targets out to 300 with irons with these and it’s basically cheating with an acog. You can criticize the ak for many things but not this

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          3MOA can hit a man sized target at 600m

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >3+ MOA in 2024
          AK has MOA around 10, 3+ MOA is SVD, fricking sniper rifle

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            atchually, it's a dmr

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the fact they literally lack the money and brainpower to create anything new
      They can develop new stuff, but it will be either too expensive and too shitty, or not work at all, or take too much time, often all of the above. One of the major reasons the soviet designs are still used because they can rely on them. The semi-joke is that most good things were designed in USSR by the late-czarist generation and when the soviet system got entrenched it produced mostly subpar engineers, hence once the old guard started dying off it all started to go to shit more and more.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most of the USSR's MIC research and development was done in what is now modern day Ukraine. When the USSR split apart, the brains of the USSR either fled the newly born Russian republic or found themselves living in newly independent countries with zero desire to "return" to Mother Russia

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ukraine was a power house in the USSR but a lot of non-mouthbreather Russias fled the frick out of the dying corpse of Russia post collapse of the USSR. They did it once again with their conscription drive which deleted something like a million or so men from their demographics that had potential. Then they fricking had the balls to do the Uranus division to try to convert any remaining intelligent enough men into fodder. Russia will always try to stamp out anyone with intelligence, competence and critical thinking power to ensure the shitty regime whether it be the Tsar, communists or the glowcommietsar remains in power.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They can develop new stuff, but it will be either too expensive and too shitty, or not work at all, or take too much time, often all of the above.
        That basically means they cannot develop new shit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If it's a reliable well known platform that works, why would you change it? Because some defense contractor wants to shill their new meme product that doesn't work as good as the old stuff?
      >North American diesel technology peaked in the early 2000's and most of the "improvements" in the past 15 years have been to meet emissions requirements at the expense of reliability
      >t heavy diesel mechanic

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        North American diesel technology peaked with the 6.9 IDI, prove me wrong.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Indirect injection is not as good/reliable as direct injection mechanical and low pressure common rail fuel injection.

          The cat 3412 is really the master race of mid sized diesels. Tiny diesel master race is the pre-emissions Kubota D1105

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Mint.

          Non-mechanics are hilarious. Peak mechanical diesel was reached in the 1930s. Systems don't continuously make massive leaps once refined. Firearms are canonical examples.

          The Commie engines are like classic US Detroit diesels, good enough.

          The next step forward is efficient turbines the vatniks cannot build though Western firms have done so for years.
          BTW turbines are simpler than piston diesels and can be made non-thirsty (for example Capstone power generation turbines also used in hybrid vehicles).

          >Peak mechanical diesel was reached in the 1930s.
          Wrong. The Roosa Master pump wasn't invented until 1947. Then they became perfect.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What’s wrong with it? Old diesel engines aren’t my strong suit but wasn’t it decent enough for the time and given Soviet manufacturing limitations? Also I didn’t know this before but it’s actually Ukrainian, from the Kharkhiv Locomotive Factory which is still around today.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was absurdly good for Soviet, and the world at the time. The manufacturing was pretty shitty but the design was really quite good.

      Not Ford GAA levels of "good" but it worked and was durable enough for the commies.

      It uses a normal V12 firing order, the only difference is that one bank has a marginally shorter stroke due to the shorter rod. It doesn't affect the timing of TDC or BDC.

      How dare you introduce a semblance of technical understanding into a /k/ shitflinging post.
      Next you'll claim the V1710 Allison was actually good!

      (Image Semi Related)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        disgusting.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Have some more filth. Hiding in the mirror.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Next you'll claim the V1710 Allison was actually good!
        Was it not? All I know about it is that it was hugely popular with hot rodders after the war and now it's impossible to buy them because the handful of people who still have a few working ones refuse to sell them unless you show them your P-38 in person and swear on your mother's life you won't put it in a car.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Was it not?

          That's the joke. The 1710 Allison would suck up boost levels that'd blow the heads off of Merlins and Griffons.

          North American diesel technology peaked with the 6.9 IDI, prove me wrong.

          B series Cummins you pleb! Barring that, the 71 and 53 lines of GM's.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Cummins
            >Turns up boost
            >Shits cam out the hood

            >Barring that, the 71 and 53 lines of GM's.
            Well shit, you got me there.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You best be nice to the B series Cummins, unless you like dealing with constant and innumerable breakdowns from the garbage being stuffed into equipment.
              The B/BT series are almost worshipped for their reliability, and having dealt with their "replacements" I can see why.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The 12 valve Cummins is overrated slop worshipped by mopar fanboys. The IH/Navistar V8 was always superior.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The V1710 was a really good engine. It gets a bad rep from idiots who only have a pop history understanding of WW2 engine development.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Even accepting that it was good for its time, I find it pretty pathetic that they jist keep trying to upgrade/modify it in order to make it work in their newer tanks.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    monke drink 2 many vodka now monke brain no work gud... make new enjine very hard so monke us ww2 engine that used to kil against hidler... VDV gone to forever sleep no VDV gone monke cry sad want VDV no sleep

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Non-mechanics are hilarious. Peak mechanical diesel was reached in the 1930s. Systems don't continuously make massive leaps once refined. Firearms are canonical examples.

    The Commie engines are like classic US Detroit diesels, good enough.

    The next step forward is efficient turbines the vatniks cannot build though Western firms have done so for years.
    BTW turbines are simpler than piston diesels and can be made non-thirsty (for example Capstone power generation turbines also used in hybrid vehicles).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >BTW turbines are simpler than piston diesels
      Manufacturing turbines is not easier than making a piston engine. Some jeets in a dirt floor sweat shop can manufacture a good enough clone of a diesel engine that will run for a long time. You can't do that with turbines that spin at 6 million RPM. You need very high precision machine tools and quality control or that shit will just explode the first time you fire it up.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the russians clinging to this engine
    is the reason why russia actually can revive and use all these rustbuckets

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not seeing enough love for Detroit 2-strokes in this thread.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >most moronic tank engine in history
    hello why hasn't this been posted yet?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Chrysler Multibank worked and was reliable. It also wasn't continually pressed back into service for over a half century.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw its somehow the most reliable Sherman engine

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's the only big engine they know how to make. Armata tried to buck the trend and that's what killed the project (well that, and getting sanctioned off the parts it needed, but details.)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *