Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's interesting to note that Western tanks generally kept the longitudinal engine. Based on some quick web search at least Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, M48/M60, M1, Leopard 1 & 2 all have a layout with longitudinal engine and the transmission in the rear. Leclerc might have a transverse mounted engine though based on a picture of the transmission from a brochure.The radical difference of the latter was the transverse arrangement of the engine and transmission along with the new low-height armored hull. These measures - and only these! - made it possible to move back the turret, to increase the radius of the turret ring, as well as the volume of the combat compartment and the armor without overloading the front wheel pairs, to remove the weakened zone in the top detail of the hull frontal armor due to the driver's hatch.
Western tanks were on average larger, and what is more important, higher than Soviet tanks. This allowed the engine to be placed along the axis. I can't say anything about the size of the engines without studying the drawings, but at least some of the western engines were more compact than the V-2.Not to unduly disturb your lovefest here withWARSPITER , but it's interesting to note that Western tanks generally kept the longitudinal engine. Based on some quick web search at least Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, M48/M60, M1, Leopard 1 & 2 all have a layout with longitudinal engine and the transmission in the rear. Leclerc might have a transverse mounted engine though based on a picture of the transmission from a brochure.
US tanks of the WW2 era were generally higher due to the use of radial engines from the aviation sector as the engine that they were initially designed around.Western tanks were on average larger, and what is more important, higher than Soviet tanks. This allowed the engine to be placed along the axis. I can't say anything about the size of the engines without studying the drawings, but at least some of the western engines were more compact than the V-2.
In the post-war USSR, however - thanks mainly to Morozov - the paradigm of reducing armored volume and minimizing tank size, especially height, prevailed. Its crowning achievement was the T-64, which had a very compact flat engine. Under this approach, only the transverse positioning of the available (!) engine made it possible to increase the armor and power of the gun. The concept as a whole turned out to be a dead end.
The engine of the T-44 differed from the previous V-2 versions in the placement of the aggregates - it was slightly optimized in order to reduce the height of the engine compartment.
missed opportunity, as radials can be designed to run in pancake or tilt mode,US tanks of the WW2 era were generally higher due to the use of radial engines from the aviation sector as the engine that they were initially designed around.
missed opportunity, as radials can be designed to run in pancake or tilt mode,
to reduce the 'too tall' problem for a tank hull.
But the real US problem was not having a driveshaft running along the floor, like the Germans and later M18 Hellcat did.
That high driveshaft meant the turret had to be mounted high for clearance
If you look at how the Radial was mounted in the M3 and M4, the engine and driveshaft were angled to maximize the torque to the transmission.Would having the engine lying down help that much? Wiki mentions the R-975 having diameter of 114 cm and a length of 109 cm. Add in the fan required to keep it cool, and some kind of 90 degree bevel gearing to move the power from the crankshaft to the transmission shaft, and looks like you end up at an even higher installation?
Radials were just not a good option for tanks. Of course, you gotta work with what you have available, so.. Well, the US could have gone with the Liberty engine just like the British.
It saved on parts from not using an intermediate gearbox to drop the driveline.If you look at how the Radial was mounted in the M3 and M4, the engine and driveshaft were angled to maximize the torque to the transmission.
The M3 and M4 were designed to be mass produced and easy to maintain, and they were.
The M26 Pershing was about the same height as a PzKfw V "Panther" or PzKfw VI "Tiger", btw.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not the same.
One was larger than it needed to be.One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not the same.
You-tube = expertHowever, as someone on YouTube pointed out, the Sherman and its boxy shape, made stuffing them in ships easier.
Virtually all tanks are "boxy"...However, as someone on YouTube pointed out, the Sherman and its boxy shape, made stuffing them in ships easier.
That must be where Volvo got the idea.Virtually all tanks are "boxy"...
Or...did the tank manufacturers copy Volvo?That must be where Volvo got the idea.
No. You can tell because the tanks didn't have the boxy headlights.Or...did the tank manufacturers copy Volvo?
Good point!No. You can tell because the tanks didn't have the boxy headlights.
I did provide the warning!You-tube = expert