RE: [MV] Diesel vs Gas

Frank Robertson (Tankdriv@gte.net)
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:28:57 -0600

They produced Shermans in diesel but the army wanting to standardize as
much as possible sent most of these out lend lease. Remember the Sherman
mainly use a aircraft radial engine. In the US army they were referred to
as "the Ronson" after the lighter. Some Shermans had a 30 cyl. "multi-bank"
engine made by Chrysler. Most of these went to the UK.

_______
_/_______\_
_/|___|_|___|\_
/ [___] [___] \ FRANK ROBERTSON
/\_ [o] [o] _/\ Memphis, Tn USA
|w||_________||w|
|w|\u u/|w|
|w| \_______/ |w|
[w] [w]

Tankdriv@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/tankdriv/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf S. Ask [SMTP:mud-snow@online.no]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 11:08 AM
To: A.Mehlhorn; Colin Brookes
Cc: mil-veh@skylee.com
Subject: Re: [MV] Diesel vs Gas

I am not sure about this, but I do recal something about the patent of the
diesel engine beeing German,
and therefore the allies had to use gas. Seems stupid in a war.
Can anyone tell anymore abouth this?

Of course the transport was a important issue. One sort of fuel means one
fueltanker.
This is the policy for most of the armys today, but spessially for the US.
Take a windshieldfram and it will fit more than one type of vehcile and
more than one years production.
Of course the question is (during WW II) would it mean less transport if
they used both type of fuel, since the diesel has a lower consumption (A
fuelbowser or two may be free for something else)

Just some 'brainstorming' before I travel away to buld another oilplattform
for the Northsea.

Rolf S. Ask
Western Norway

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.