Comments on: SU-85I Engine Underpowered?

By: Alexander Carlsson

Alexander Carlsson — Thu, 01 May 2014 20:26:09 +0000

What about T-54′s engine? 700 hp when in reality it had ~580hp.

By: nononononono

nononononono — Thu, 01 May 2014 06:34:46 +0000

Does anybody know at what RPM these petrol engines were designed to operate at? I know from experience that long stroke diesel engines are designed to operate at their peak torque output, which in a diesel is linear and will coincide with close to max rpm. In heavy machinery with a long stroke engine, such as a bulldozer or tractor, operating at less than max torque while under load causes undue stress on the engine. Tanks, being as heavy as they are, are always under load.

By: CaptianNemo

CaptianNemo — Thu, 01 May 2014 05:07:01 +0000

Only the fuel formulation is of any importance. And even then it is not a big deal most engines will run on crappy fuel, they might run poorly but they will run. On top of that your not revving the engine to 3k rpms all the time anyways and likely not doing much over 2000-2100 rpms unless you really need the speed. As far as spare parts the Russians had a lot of tanks to pull parts from if they needed any. Esp for the engine as it was in used by a crapload of tanks.

And an engine is an engine is an engine. Yes it might be a little different from what a Russian mechanic would be used to but given a decent amount of time and a large supply of engines I am sure they would have it down quickly. Plus the original German manuals can be translated into Russian and reprinted. And some manuals were reprinted.

By: Fischer

Fischer — Thu, 01 May 2014 05:00:44 +0000

Just supplementing your point.

By: nononononono

nononononono — Thu, 01 May 2014 02:42:09 +0000

German tanks were petrol fuelled. German supply lines carried petrol for vehicles. Russian tanks were Diesel fuelled. Russian supply lines carried diesel for vehicles. Was the correct formulation of petrol fed to the captured engines? Were the correct replacement parts readily available in Russia. Were Russian mechanics as adept at working with the engine as German mechanics? Were the design lengths for intake and exhaust tracts maintained during the conversion process?

I think there may have been a disparity in performance any way.

By: nononononono

nononononono — Thu, 01 May 2014 02:33:15 +0000

He doesn’t have to; Ganjin has done it for him :) LuL

By: Radium_Angel

Radium_Angel — Thu, 01 May 2014 01:14:48 +0000

I have expected this for some time, the Pz III, as much fun as it has been, is wildly inaccurate. It’s been fun running around at near 70kph, but not very historical.
On the flip side, the Pz IV seems more fragile than it should be…

By: radlizempicku

radlizempicku — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:35:07 +0000

Yeah, that stupid nerf was unnecessary..

By: ArmoredColossus

ArmoredColossus — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:45:10 +0000

First they nerf the gun mantlet on the Pz III and now the engine?

By: Cartman

Cartman — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:22:27 +0000

Not only German tanks drive around with far stronger engines ingame than real.
The Super Pershing or example has the correct 500 HP engine while a stock Pershing has a stronger engine (560 HP) and top engine is insane with over 700 HP.

But the main problem with the Panzer III is that it is much too fast ingame.
They should have very similar characteristics, a Panzer III J weights even more than a Panzer IV D.
Historically both have the same engine and the same top speed.
As they slowed down the Panzer IV I expect the same to happen with the Panzer III.