Jim Gordon Posted 17 December , 2004 Share Posted 17 December , 2004 From all that I have read regarding the design of WW1 Tanks (which admittedley is not much) it would appear that most were powered by Daimler Engines which used petrol as a fuel. On being hit by some type of projectile surely this highly volatile fuel would present a greater risk to the vehicle from catching fire than if Diesel Engines had been used. Diesel is ignited by compression to a high temperature. Were Diesel Engines ever considered or , as it was patented in Germany, were they just not available ? Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 17 December , 2004 Share Posted 17 December , 2004 Hi Jim, The early engine designs made the petrol engine far more powerful for its size than a comparative diesel. There were also some logistical advantages in that most machines were petrol so only one supply chain was necessary. Petrol was easier to make in quantity from the light "Persian" oils which produce less heavier fuels but high levels of kerosene and petrol as is still the case today with Middle Eastern crudes. If hit by a projectile both fuels will burn equally well once ignited, so i think it is of little difference in that respect. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 17 December , 2004 Share Posted 17 December , 2004 The early engine designs made the petrol engine far more powerful for its size than a comparative diesel. Given that it took until the 1950s for diesel-engined vehicles to take a firm hold in the places we take them for granted now (ie agriculture - previous favorite fuel paraffin - and road haulage - petrol), I don't think the technology allowed it until the 1950s. I belive that the Germans were using diesel engines in some things during WW2 but I think the Allied forces were largely petrol powered at the time. So the technology took a long time to catch up The "German" nature of diesel engines is a misconception - Ruston-Hornsby, for one, were making compression-ignition "gas" engines for a number of years prior to Diesel patenting anything. IIRC Diesel's disappearance, assumed to be suicide, was believed at the time to be due to impending lawsuits from companies who reckoned he'd infringed their patents. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 17 December , 2004 Share Posted 17 December , 2004 The risk of fire was exceedingly high in the early tanks. Moving the fuel tank to the rear improved this. Even so, there are some pretty nasty pictures of tank crews burned alive while trying to evacuate Mk IVs for example. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gordon Posted 18 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 18 December , 2004 To all Thanks for your informative replies. I suppose the momentary local temperature induced by an exploding shell could induce diesel fuel to ignite and I do agree that once ignited this fuel will burn as well as petrol. I was really concerned with the event of a hit causing a petrol fuel spillage where any old spark would have been catastrophic. As to the undeveloped state of the technology (it is more than possible that my memory is failing me) but I encountered a fair amount of ships in WWII which were powered with diesel engines. The Royal Navy certainly had almost totally converted to oil-burning by 1939 but as the actual power unit was a steam turbine I suppose this doesn't count. Anway thanks for indulging me in one my odd thoughts ! Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 18 December , 2004 Share Posted 18 December , 2004 From the D-Class onwards, WW1 British submarines were powered by diesel engines. This reduced the risk of fire and asphyxiation when submerged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 18 December , 2004 Share Posted 18 December , 2004 Jim,Dick, Diesels were suited to use in marine applications as the weight and necessary size could be better accomodated in a floating structure. Steam powered sships would be burning HFO orMFO (bunker) which is different to diesel as you most probably know. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gordon Posted 18 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 18 December , 2004 Dirty Dick At the risk of being pedantic don't forget the ill-fated "K" Class Submarine. Thanks to all again. Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob H Posted 23 December , 2004 Share Posted 23 December , 2004 ‘K’ Class submarines were steam powered because Diesel engines at that time were not powerful enough to achieve the required surface speed for the submarine to stay with the fleet. It’s ironic that in WW1 the majority of ships had steam engines, while most subs used diesels. Now most surface ships have diesel engines while the majority of subs use steam turbines. Regards Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now