Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's right - Russian engines are indestructible - (they don't freeze) and so are the Russians.
Alert, alert read before speaking: "Russians too" and to a lesser extent because they were more suited to winter (but they suffered as well).
And sure Russian engines suffered as well but to a lesser extent as well since they used a different octane-type of fuel (that's why they rarely used American fuel for airplanes).
In the articles I have read, Hitler had doubts about Germany's might but each step he took ( and found little resistance ) made him bolder and bolder.
Hitler never believed Germany could take on Russia.........until............he heard how much difficulty Russia had defeating the army of Finland.
It was after Finland put up a scrappy fight with Russia that Hitler was quoted as saying............." I over estimated Russia. They are a paper tiger "
Hitler was an idiot. First off he did not want to have a war with Great Britain, actually wanted to have an alliance or some sort of peace with Great Britain which maintains an overseas Empire. He should have just kept ethnic German areas of Central Europe and left it as that. Instead Nazi Germany along with Soviet Union wanted to carve Europe in half, creating a Nazi German sphere and a Soviet Sphere of influence an example of this is with the invasion of Poland. I saw some promise with the Ribbenthorp/Molotov treaty, the non agreession pact between Nazis and Soviets did not last long. Germans biggest mistake was invading the Soviet Union, not because of military objections but because of economic. German could have utilized Soviet trade to fuel it's war effort especially since Nazis lack a blue Navy to protect trade routes. Soviets could have provide grain and oil for the nazis. Invading of Soviet union sealed the fate of Hitler and Germany.
Last edited by Bronxguyanese; 12-29-2013 at 05:13 PM..
True, but you should also mention that cold froze engines and killed German soldiers (Russians too, but to a lesser extent).
What I am saying is that the degree to which the above is true is often grossly overstated and listed as a "decisive" element of the war, in particular the winter of 41/42. This article written for the US Army after the war by German officers greatly details the issues with the cold. It also highlights how the most damage to mobility, vehicles and weapons happens during the fall and spring rains. Winter presents its own challenges, but these can be overcome. Only around 17% of German casualties in the winter of 41/42 were related to the cold weather.
Engines "freezing" was an issue, in that self-starters didn't work anymore, but not an insumountable one. The Germans simply built fires under the engines of tow vehicles to "pre-warm" them to allow the starters to work. The tow vehicles would then pull the other vehicles to start them. In areas where vehicles may be needed on short notice, they simply weren't shut off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
That's right - Russian engines are indestructible - (they don't freeze) and so are the Russians.
The Russians were ingenious in that they used a relatively low quality diesel mix in their engines. With all of the sulfur content and liberal addition of kerosene, it was rare for Russian diesel to gel and if it did, they just warmed it up. They overcame the need for heating a diesel engine (glow plugs) to start combustion by using compressed air to achieve cylinder compression which would ignite the fuel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I mentioned diesel freezing.
As I just said above, it was rare for Russian diesel to freeze owing to its content (high sulfur, kerosene). The Germans did not use diesel, they used gasoline. Gasoline does not start to "freeze" until it gets under -50 degrees Celsius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII
Alert, alert read before speaking: "Russians too" and to a lesser extent because they were more suited to winter (but they suffered as well).
And sure Russian engines suffered as well but to a lesser extent as well since they used a different octane-type of fuel (that's why they rarely used American fuel for airplanes).
The rest is covered above, e.g. Russian engines, impact of cold. To the bold, the complete opposite is true. The Russians had a hard time refining high quality aviation fuel. Older Russian domestic airplane engine designs could use the lower octane fuel, but the new, modern Russian planes (MiG, Il-2, ***, etc.) needed high octane fuel. The American aviation fuel was one of the most critical things sent over. They generally used the high quality American fuel mixed with the lower quality Soviet fuel to achieve an acceptable mix for the plane engines. So, contrary to what you said, they generally ALWAYS used American fuel, in whole or in part, for their aircraft.
The rest is covered above, e.g. Russian engines, impact of cold. To the bold, the complete opposite is true. The Russians had a hard time refining high quality aviation fuel. Older Russian domestic airplane engine designs could use the lower octane fuel, but the new, modern Russian planes (MiG, Il-2, ***, etc.) needed high octane fuel. The American aviation fuel was one of the most critical things sent over. They generally used the high quality American fuel mixed with the lower quality Soviet fuel to achieve an acceptable mix for the plane engines. So, contrary to what you said, they generally ALWAYS used American fuel, in whole or in part, for their aircraft.
May I ask some things?
"In 1941, an overwhelming amount (75%) of the aviation gasoline produced had octane numbers from 70 to 74, the ones needed by obsolete types of domestically-produced aircraft."
What does happen by using 100-octanes fuel on engines though for 70-75-octanes engines?
I mean:
a) The engine works, performance will improve
b) The engine will overheat, it will wear out, the risk of over-revving increases and chances of binding as well
c) I have no idea what effects it may have on the whole airplane, from lubricants (awful, like the russian fuel) to the remnant of the airplane (LAGG 1 and 3 will get enflamed with russian fuel, with american one I don't know)
Yet, using Russian avio-fuel on Allied plane wasn't that different, Hurricane's Merlins, for instance, yielded far less, they had to fly lower because carburetors couldn't handle the fuel which used to thickening itself under 0 degrees and they blocked themselves quite often, so much that pilots had to avoid as much as possible any kind of manoeuver during decelaration, as a matter of fact, the risk that everything simply broke down was high.
Now, by using indiscriminately both kinds of avio fuel what did it happen?
Airplanes broke down in flight, engines frayed much faster than they could be either replaced or repaired, hence they had better keep them on the ground if the proper fuel lacked.
So, fixed logistic lines, importation airplanes flew only with importation fuel and problems were solved.
Obviously this is a generalization depending on each airplane, the I-16 could use everything.
Basically, what I know is that avio fuel in two varieties (70-74 octanes [overly] produced by Russian refinieriesand 90-100 octanes sent with Lend-Lease) was a problem as soon as they didn't fix the logistic.
Obviously, in the situation USSR was in during 1941-1942, every kind of help was vital: they used whatever they had at disposal, on whatever kind of airplanes (they used Tomahawk at Ladoga Lake but disastrous effects).
100-octanes fuel was perfect for Allied airplanes (obviously) and for later Russian airplanes.
What I am saying is that the degree to which the above is true is often grossly overstated and listed as a "decisive" element of the war, in particular the winter of 41/42. This article written for the US Army after the war by German officers greatly details the issues with the cold. It also highlights how the most damage to mobility, vehicles and weapons happens during the fall and spring rains. Winter presents its own challenges, but these can be overcome. Only around 17% of German casualties in the winter of 41/42 were related to the cold weather.
Engines "freezing" was an issue, in that self-starters didn't work anymore, but not an insumountable one. The Germans simply built fires under the engines of tow vehicles to "pre-warm" them to allow the starters to work. The tow vehicles would then pull the other vehicles to start them. In areas where vehicles may be needed on short notice, they simply weren't shut off.
The Russians were ingenious in that they used a relatively low quality diesel mix in their engines. With all of the sulfur content and liberal addition of kerosene, it was rare for Russian diesel to gel and if it did, they just warmed it up. They overcame the need for heating a diesel engine (glow plugs) to start combustion by using compressed air to achieve cylinder compression which would ignite the fuel.
I wasn't serious there, but...
Russians often ( if not always) have to be ingenious and to come up with solutions, otherwise they won't make it.
Which makes me think ( particularly when you've mentioned the history behind the creation of Kalashnikov's rilfle in details German-Russian cooperation on a big scale in history would have been scariest of them all; the ingenuity of Russian inventions and German precision and attention to details. Who could of withstand the results of such cooperation?
Certain things are not happening for a reason.
May I ask some things?
"In 1941, an overwhelming amount (75%) of the aviation gasoline produced had octane numbers from 70 to 74, the ones needed by obsolete types of domestically-produced aircraft."
What does happen by using 100-octanes fuel on engines though for 70-75-octanes engines?
I mean:
a) The engine works, performance will improve
b) The engine will overheat, it will wear out, the risk of over-revving increases and chances of binding as well
c) I have no idea what effects it may have on the whole airplane, from lubricants (awful, like the russian fuel) to the remnant of the airplane (LAGG 1 and 3 will get enflamed with russian fuel, with american one I don't know)
Yet, using Russian avio-fuel on Allied plane wasn't that different, Hurricane's Merlins, for instance, yielded far less, they had to fly lower because carburetors couldn't handle the fuel which used to thickening itself under 0 degrees and they blocked themselves quite often, so much that pilots had to avoid as much as possible any kind of manoeuver during decelaration, as a matter of fact, the risk that everything simply broke down was high.
Now, by using indiscriminately both kinds of avio fuel what did it happen?
Airplanes broke down in flight, engines frayed much faster than they could be either replaced or repaired, hence they had better keep them on the ground if the proper fuel lacked.
So, fixed logistic lines, importation airplanes flew only with importation fuel and problems were solved. Obviously this is a generalization depending on each airplane, the I-16 could use everything.
Basically, what I know is that avio fuel in two varieties (70-74 octanes [overly] produced by Russian refinieriesand 90-100 octanes sent with Lend-Lease) was a problem as soon as they didn't fix the logistic.
Obviously, in the situation USSR was in during 1941-1942, every kind of help was vital: they used whatever they had at disposal, on whatever kind of airplanes (they used Tomahawk at Ladoga Lake but disastrous effects).
100-octanes fuel was perfect for Allied airplanes (obviously) and for later Russian airplanes.
Yes, it's a generalization, but a much more accurate statement then the one you originally made about them "never using American fuel in airplanes".
Hitler wrote a book about what he wanted to do and then went out and did it—or at least tried to do it. Mein Kampf makes it clear that it was always about “the East,” i.e., extending greater Germany into the Baltic States, the Ukraine, Belorussia, etc.
Unlike the Japanese who knew that attacking the U.S. was a stupendously risky gamble with a very low likelihood of success in the long-term, Hitler thought he could knock out the Soviets quickly and decisively. Had he taken Moscow and forced vast territorial concessions from the Soviets, he could have continued the isolation of the British for years (much as Napoleon did). With the war over in the East, he could have replenished his air power and focused on defending the Channel—making an amphibious landing much more risky if not impossible. However successful Wellington was in Spain, Napoleon lost because of the debacle in Russia. Hitler made the same mistake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't serious there, but...
German-Russian cooperation on a big scale in history would have been scariest of them all; the ingenuity of Russian inventions and German precision and attention to details. Who could of withstand the results of such cooperation?
