Talk:Kharkiv model V-2

V-2 variant?
I read an article on dieselpunks.org about the MAZ-541; the article mentioned that the MAZ-541's engine (the D-12A) was a variant of the V-2; is this true? Meltdown627 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

V-2 engine: another marvel of russian copycat engineering.
Article fails to mention this T-34's diesel engine was originally designed before WW2 by the Hispano-Suiza company to propel rigid airships (zeppelins). That is why this engine's block is cast of aluminium, not iron, even though such little weight saving at huge cost does not make sense in a battle tank that weights dozens of tons. The russians simply copied the HS design wich the french "popular front" lefist government sent them and claimed it to be their own idea.

Ample proof is that russians have never been able to step out of the V-2 engine's shadow after WW2, just kept updating it as the type V-44, adding tubro, etc. all the way to the T-72 tank. They developed anoher and domestic "boxer" type diesel engine for the T-64/T-80 tanks, but that bloc was unreliable and they also adopted a helicopter jet engine based propulsion for the T-80U that guzzled enough gas to bring shame to the similarly propelled US Abrams.

Meanwhile the germans (Leopard 2 with MTU) and the french (Leclerc with Pielstick) have designed and are now building new, from the ground up diesel engines for modern tanks. 91.82.38.204 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Diesel model V-2 the correct name for this article?
The title "Diesel model V-2" implies that it is made by Diesel and is designated model V-2. I do not believe there was a Soviet engine design bureau named "Diesel". I submit that the engine is a Model V-2 and is called "Diesel" because it is a diesel engine. Based on this, I believe this article should be moved to Model V-2 or to Model V-2 engine, or possibly to Kharkiv Model V-2, since it was designed at the Engineering Design Bureau at the Kharkiv Locomotive Factory. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

V-92 being a V-2 variant?
How is the V-92 a V-2 variant when the only thing it has in common with the original V-2 engine being the bank angles, number of pistons and displacement? This would be equivalent to saying that the CV-12 engine is a condor engine variant or derivative, as stated by Perkins themselves:

https://docs.tuyap.online/FDOCS/22431.pdf

In truth the V-92S2F is an engine that's completely normal with it's 1130 horsepower, about 130 horsepower more than the V-92S2, previous variant, and the V92 produces anywhere from which is no small feat. (courtesy of Argun Kazakhstan, parts manufacturer and assembler of said engines)

https://argun-kazakhstan.com/tpost/l4innapzo1-what-engine-is-used-in-the-t-90ms-tank

Doubling the horsepower of an engine over it's lifespan is no small feat, and implying that the current V-92S2F is a V-2 or V-84 or V-46 or whatever is disingenuous at best. This either implies that the Chelyabinsk tractor manufacturing plant was so forward-thinking and advanced that they made provisions for their engine to produce 2-3 times more horsepower in 60 years from then on, or alternatively that technology marched on and that the engine kept up pace. 90.145.155.138 (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)