RoughDoc@aol.com <mailto:RoughDoc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hey folks.....let's put the T-34 in perspective.
> Diesel fueled engines added to crew survivability. That was the major
> concern, not the availability of diesel fuel. Gas engine armored vehicles
> killed so many from after impact explosions.
Disagree again. When the Soviets requested armour through "Lendlease"
(we lent, they never leased), they demanded diesel vehicles because of
their supply trains,
+++ They were using gasoline powered truck (many Studebakers and REO's) that
+++ burned gasoline just like the US Army. Having only one fuel make more
+++ sense.
not because of a preference for a "better fuel".
Diesel is indeed much cheaper to produce, and can be handled much more
roughly,
+++ Agreed
and the engines designed to run diesel don't have to be nearly
as sophisticated as those designed for gas.
+++ Total disagrement. Look at the cost differential in purchase. Higher
+++ pressures etc. Look at the 'GM' experience in making a gasoline engine
into
+++ a diesel.
===
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>.