Best tank engines of WWII
- Thread starter z42
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Turned out to be surprisingly reliable, MTBF of 240 hours, with the GAA V8 of 255. the Radial was 218
But was a beast
That's a lot of torque at low rpms, and high rpms up top. That weight was as a complete units, Engine,radiator and fan, an early 'Power Egg' as the was no way to work on it in the hull
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Ford GAF. End of story. All it needed was an equally tough transmission behind it and the Pershing would've been unstoppable.
- Thread starter
- #244
My grandfather had a Nuffield tractor. He might have acquired it in the late 1950'ies or 1960'ies, I don't really know. But it was in regular use until the late 1980'ies. From what I understand he generally liked it, it was reliable and easy to work on, and did what it was supposed to. I think it's still standing in a shed on my aunt's property, I'm sure it'd still be perfectly usable after some maintenance.
- Thread starter
- #245
I guess in retrospect for tanks the lesson is to design the engine and transmission as an easily replaceable power pack, anything beyond some basic routine maintenance and you lift out the engine + transmission with a crane, slot in a new power pack and the tank is ready to go while the maintenance crews have time and plenty of space for accessing the engine for maintenance.Bad head gasket, You have to pull the engine out of the car to have enough room to pull a cylinder head
Shortround6
Major General
well, they have been doing that since the 60s and were working on the basic idea in 50s.
In the late 30s most countries were lucky the army got actual tanks that bigger than 5 tons and the idea even buying trucks with cranes that would lift even one ton would be seen as laughable. See photos aircraft engine swaps with tripods made of long wooden poles and block and tackles.
They may have had crane trucks, they just didn't have many. Recovery vehicles (jib booms and winches) didn't show up for the first few years.
From pre-war days British Army units were provided with REME Light Aid Detachments. Amongst the vehicles they had were these
This photo was of a New Zealand LAD in the desert in 1941. A variety of 6x4 chassis were used with this body type. Model showing the interior.
A description of these vehicles below.
"3 TON 6 X 4 BREAKDOWN GANTRY LORRIES
The standard WD Breakdown Gantry Body was designed to fit the WD 6 X 4 3ton lorries from several manufacturers. The body floor was flat at the front and this level floor continued along each side. There was a well in the centre to allow the gantry to be used for high lifts. A steel superstructure supported an I girder, the gantry, with a travelling block for lifting. When travelling the gantry was slid forward so that it projected over the lorry cab but not to the rear. For a 2½ ton lift, for towing or for lifting engines or other heavy components, the gantry projected three foot to the rear of the body. The gantry could be extended to project six foot to the rear when it had a lift of only one ton. The front end of the gantry could also be dropped so that it was seated at the front end of the body well. The raised rear end of the gantry then gave a much higher lift but with a capacity of fifteen hundredweight.
Lorries were fitted with a five ton winch and power take off. There were winch rollers at the rear for recovery work, but the cable could be led to the front nearside for self recovery.
In 21 Army Group Breakdown Gantry Lorries were either Leyland Retriever or Austin K6. The Leyland Retriever had been used in this role since 1939 but production continued until the end of the war. The Austin K6 only became available in 1944. Both had a shortened rear chassis to fit the short Breakdown Gantry Body. Bodies and equipment were identical. The Austin K6 carried counterweights on a frame at the front of the chassis.
The Breakdown Gantry Body was well equipped for the recovery of wheeled vehicles and light tracked vehicles. They could also be used for a variety of light repair tasks and could assist workshops with heavier repairs."
There is a thread here on the organisation and equipment of REME LAD in WW2.
LIGHT AID DETACHMENTS PLUS RECOVERY VEHICLES and METHODS
LIGHT AID DETACHMENTS PLUS RECOVERY VEHICLES and METHODS Light Aid Detachments were attached to all battalion sized units. They were integrated into...
ww2talk.com
The Scammell Pioneer was used in various forms from the mid-1930 as a heavy artillery tractor, a heavy duty recovery vehicle and as a tank transporter.
Scammell Pioneer - Wikipedia
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
The 3M-2500 was not related to the Liberty. It was substantially larger and would be more difficult to fit into a tank. Note the Packard weight includes the reversing gearbox.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you but vehicles such as these would be very scarce in 1938-40. Things better quickly and the British were using some these
by mid war. There were a few Covenanter versions for training.
The rapid escalation from 15-16 ton tanks (and 6 ton light tanks) to 21-30 ton tanks left several nations scrambling for recovery and repair vehicles.
Lifting out power units (engines, transmissions, final drives) as complete units took awhile to figure out and required more equipment than taking the units out in pieces (engine only, transmission only, etc) although taking much less time to accomplish. Modern (1970s and on?) armies often had two different ARVs. One for the MBTs and one for the personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles with the appropriate booms/cranes to handle the different sized components.
Tanks often managed to breakdown in places that even 4 X 6 and 6 X 6 wheeled vehicles had trouble getting to.
In WW II both the US and the Germans usually separated the engine and transmission and put them at opposite ends of the tank making the Power Pack idea rather moot. removing the engine a cooling system was possible. British and Soviets kept the engines and transmissions together although that is somewhat debatable.
Not the most compact arrangement although have room to work on things without needing heavy machinery might have been seen as a plus at the time.
Making a combined package does limit the number of lifting devices that will work.
What people thought were good ideas in 1939 may not have been thought good ideas in 1946
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
We also had a tracked tank "tow truck" that looked very much like what Shortround showed in his picture.
Last edited:
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Good point about the multi-bank engine.
I will agree that the big Ford V8 came late in the war, so if I had to choose something else that may have been more widely used during the war, I'd vote for the GMC Twin-Six.
Two Detroit 6-71's mated to a common transmission.
330 HP and 1200 ft./lbs. of torque.
Powerful, economical and as reliable as the sunrise.
At a time before the 12V existed, it was a way to get 12 cylinder power from 6 cylinder engines.
Shot of the A57 being lowered in
on the M4A4
But just how many vehicles do you think the British Army had in 1939?
I have a figure of 85,000 vehicles of all types which included 26,000 impressed civilian vehicles & 21,500 motorcycles leaving 37,500 military vehicles. Another source says 40,000. Most of that was lost in France in 1940. The British motor industry churned out some 528,000 military trucks and tractors in WW2 (so excluding cars, motorcycles etc). Then add in Canadian production & Lend Lease procurement. By the end of WW2 there was something like 1.5 million vehicles in British military service.
So of course the number of recovery & repair vehicles had to grow substantially.
And from very early on the British Purchasing Commission looked to purchase heavy duty trucks from the USA under Cash & Carry rules to augment what could be produced in Britain. Vehicles like the Mack EXBX 18 tonner, White-Ruxtall 922 18 tonner, Mack NR4 11 tonner which were all used in the Western Desert campaigns from 1941 to transport & recover the lighter tanks then in service. And the Diamond T tractor unit followed, which appears in the background of the photo you posted below.
The need for the Armoured Recovery Vehicle arose out of the discovery of a need from the Western Desert campaigns to recover tanks from the battlefield while under fire. From the later part of the REME article I posted before:-Things better quickly and the British were using some these View attachment 783363
by mid war. There were a few Covenanter versions for training.
The rapid escalation from 15-16 ton tanks (and 6 ton light tanks) to 21-30 ton tanks left several nations scrambling for recovery and repair vehicles.
Lifting out power units (engines, transmissions, final drives) as complete units took awhile to figure out and required more equipment than taking the units out in pieces (engine only, transmission only, etc) although taking much less time to accomplish. Modern (1970s and on?) armies often had two different ARVs. One for the MBTs and one for the personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles with the appropriate booms/cranes to handle the different sized components.
Tanks often managed to breakdown in places that even 4 X 6 and 6 X 6 wheeled vehicles had trouble getting to.
In WW II both the US and the Germans usually separated the engine and transmission and put them at opposite ends of the tank making the Power Pack idea rather moot. removing the engine a cooling system was possible. British and Soviets kept the engines and transmissions together although that is somewhat debatable.
View attachment 783364
Not the most compact arrangement although have room to work on things without needing heavy machinery might have been seen as a plus at the time.
Making a combined package does limit the number of lifting devices that will work.
What people thought were good ideas in 1939 may not have been thought good ideas in 1946
"The need for Armoured Recovery Vehicles became apparent in North Africa. The fighting moved backwards and forwards and casualties were often left behind or destroyed although they may only have stalled or thrown a track. If it appeared that a tank might be captured then it was destroyed by the crew or by Royal Engineers. At the same time it would be a sitting target and likely to be destroyed by the enemy. What was required was a vehicle that could operate in the same environment as the tanks and give the casualty a tow to safety. The answer was another tank, usually without a turret and with some recovery equipment, but not initially a winch."
The vehicles themselves emerged from the deliberations of a "War Office Recovery Committee" during summer 1942, with the Churchill ARV Mk.I becoming the first production vehicle. Single prototype ARV versions of the Covenanter & Crusader (as in the photo) were produced then the designs were discarded, as was the ARV version of the Cavalier. That information comes from David Fletcher, former historian at the Bovington Tank Museum in the various books he has written. When the armoured units went into NWE the ARVs were based on the Sherman, Cromwell & Churchill depending on the equipment of the unit to which they were attached.
Admiral Beez
Major
I always thought this was a dumb move. Put the drive sprocket, engine and transmission at the rear. Design your track, wheels and CG to discourage the track coming off. Or, put everything at the front like the postwar Merkava.
Shortround6
Major General
The 'transmission' (includes steering, brakes, final drives and associated clutches) often was heavier than the engine. Helped balance the tank out vs all the weight on one end. even out the track loading and evened out the bogie wear. See problems with German MK IV tanks and tank destroyers using MK IV chassis. different reason but the heavier armor and larger guns in 1944-45 tore up the front bogies wheels so bad they stopped using rubber tires on the first pair of wheels, or they used wheels with steel tires on rubber spacers on steel hubs.
A lot depends on what you have to work with. British put everything in one end. But they used (mostly) large engines with few gears but good steering systems and there were a number of steering systems.
Putting every thing in the front may work if you can actually see over the engine.
With only a 90hp engine there was room for the driver next to the engine.
Periscopes were very expensive and rare.
This tank used front engine and rear dive but the engineers of WW II had seen a number of early layouts.
And rejected some of them for good reason at the time.
A front drive sprocket is better for keeping the tracks on when the tension slacks, such as going over rough ground or when turning.
It's also easier to make and control the Steering Clutch/Brakes and the transmission clutches and gears when it's all manual and being done with pushrods. Long linkages are a pain to keep adjusted, and the long rods will flex.
For the Israelis, with their experience of using tanks in various ME conflicts, putting the engine & transmission at the front was about increasing the protection and survivability for the crew. With the crew compartment at the rear, a large door could be fitted easing escape of the crew or allowing the compartment to be used for other purposes with little modification e.g. carriage of troops or stretchers.
- Thread starter
- #258
With the transmission in the front, the driver can be equipped with a hammer to give the transmission a whack if it's misbehaving!
- Thread starter
- #259
Indeed, this is often explained as the reason for the Merkava series layout. But there must be some significant downsides to this arrangement considering that nobody else has adopted it? (Except for IFV's where something like that is common)
- Thread starter
- #260
Yes, balance is certainly important. But at the front you also have much heavier armor, so it seems you run the risk of making the tank front heavy if you have both armor and the transmission at the front?
Exactly. Then again, I think one can argue these issues with the later Pzkpfw IV variants were due to adding much more weight than the chassis was really designed to handle, rather than some inherent issue with the transmission in the front or back.
The Soviet also put everything at the back (as you mention upthread), and managed to build a fair number of quite successful tanks with that approach.
