Diesel engines in WWII

Why didn't the U.S. use Diesel engines in their trucks and tanks? The Russians used them in the T-34s.
Seems they would have been much more efferent and less likely to catch fire.

 

Tanks caught fire because almost any penetration resulted in hot shrapnel coming into contact with ammunition. When the Sherman switched to "wet" ammunition storage, fires were drastically reduced. Had nothing to do with diesel vs. gasoline...T-34s burned just as well as Shermans did.

 

The US did use diesel engines in some of the tanks they produced. The Marines and the Soviets got the diesel versions. The army decided that sticking with a single fuel was worth it. Much the same reason the Marines went with diesel I believe.

 

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?313704-diesel-vs.-non-diesel-tanks-in-WWII+

A good thread discussing the effective differences between diesel and gasoline engines in ww2 tanks.


A quick summation.


Diesel Pro's

A well made diesel engine will outlast a gasoline engine and require less maintenance.

More efficient fuel economy. Very important in Russia.



Gasoline Pro's specifically for the US

The US was able to convert spare gasoline powered aircraft engines quickly

Gasoline engines are more efficient in terms of space and weight per Hp. Both being at a premium in any tank. As Up From Marseille calculated a 33 ton Sherman with a ungoverned Ford GAA engine could run at 3800 rpm allowing it to drive 37mph.

Gasoline engines require much less precision machine work and fitting to get to work properly. A gasoline engine runs at much lower pressures and temperatures than a diesel engine, and thus can be made with inferior metal alloys and less attention to details and specifications.

Gasoline is better in cold climates.

Using only 1 type of fuel for the Western front allowed less logistical problems. Note that the US did make diesel tanks for the marines in the Pacific for precisely this reason.

 

Thank you, all. All good points.

 

There was one place we used a lot of diesel: Submarines. Diesel motors had the better range than steam turbine engines. I don't know, but I suspect that between the subs and big trucks, they took up most of the available diesel.

 

IIRC, were not the "big trucks", like the GMC CCKW duece-and-a-half gasoline powered.

I believe that it would be between the submarines and small ships & vessels(landing craft, LSTs, PCs, DEs, etc.) for diesel consumption.

 

The US approach was very much towards standardisation, and the single fuel approach fit well into it, the diesel engine Sherman variants were restricted to Marines, Lend Lease and possibly training but IIRC the M10 tank destroyers were diesel powered which makes the "ruthless standardisation" argument a bit suspect.
A diesel engine for the heavy trucks would also make a lot of sense, fuel economy is of paramount importance there and as they usually operate from the main supply hubs maintenance is less of an issue.
Modern tank engines will burn almost anything but prefer diesel, the M1 being the notable exception.

 

Gasoline.

 

I don't think diesel trucks became standard until 1950-51 with the M35A2 Deuce-and-a-half.

 

I thought it was more of an "Octane rating" issue than diesel v. gasoline or Army v. Marines, both had the same logistics tail especially in the PTO.

All of the US vehicles I have been able to locate have been gasoline powered with the exception of some Dodges in the CBI being used as prime movers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willys_Go_Devil_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#U.S._production_history

The only diesel powered Sherman I find is the M4A6 with a very limited production number.

 

That's right. Almost of the US trucks were gas powered. Some of the Diamond T 980s built for the British were diesel, but most were powered by a Hall Scott six cylinder gas engine.The same 1090 ci engine was used in the M26 Dragon Wagon. I think some Mack NMs had diesel engines but most were gas, as were all the Mack NOs, Kenworths, Autocars, etc.

As Takao said, the DUKWs were gas since they used the same 270 ci six as the CCKW, on which it was based.

 

The M4A6 was the one with the radial diesel made by Caterpillar, which was a modified Wright 1820 airplane engine. Very cool and very limited numbers.

There were a lot of M4A2s though that used the twin GMC diesel power pack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adEy5j4XiJk

 

The Marine Corps was primarily equipped with the diesel powered M4A2. The first combat employment of M4's by the Marine Corps was 2d Tank Battalion M4A2's at Tarawa. The 1st Tank Bn's initial Sherman variant was the M4A1 and used them at Hollandia, Talasea and Munda. I'm sure this was because at the time they upgraded to medium tanks, the 1st Marine Division and 1st Tank Bn were being held hostage by MacArthur, and they drew from US Army stocks in the SWPAC. By the time of Peleilu they were back to using M4A2's. The M4A3 began to see service alongside the M4A2 by Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Marine Corps tanks early war were the M2A4, M3, and M3A1, primarily gasoline powered light tanks (there were a few with Guiberson Radial Diesels). The tanks from the Marine Corps Defense Battalions were chopped from their units and heavily used to support US Army troops in the Solomons. After Tarawa, standard light tanks were gradually phased out, and transitioned to the flame "Satan" version. The M5 light tank did see action in the Marshall's and at Cape Gloucester (late December-early 1944), but by the time of Saipan and the Mariana's, the M5's were very limited and those retained were to support and protect the "Satan's".
I've heard the diesel/fuel commonality statement many times, but am not really sure I buy it. All other vehicles, jeeps, trucks, amtracs, the majority of light tanks (there were some with Guiberson Radial Diesels), etc. were primarily gasoline. I think the reason the Marine Corps ended up with the M4A2 was because the Army didn't want it (except for training) due to the additional logistical burden (diesel). The Marine Corps had a lesser priority for receiving medium tanks than the Army, so unless they took the M4A2 they would have to stand in a looong line. They had access to the diesel through US Navy stores so they took what they could get.

Here's a good link to Marine Corps Vietnam Tankers Historical Foundation:

http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_of_Marine_Tanks.html

In his chart on tanks used by operation he has listed the dates for Talasea, Hollandia and Munda incorrectly, but otherwise a very good informative page. I'll e-mail him about the dates, I'm sure it's an inadvertant typo.

 

Did you see the size (length) of the tubes on those M103A2 heavy tanks, now that's a gun!

 

As the great Ralph Kramden would say, "Ohhhhhh .......a wisenheimer!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-1820