Best tank engines of WWII (5 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

One can perhaps also compare with warships. Americans, in particular, had an early love affair with electrical drives, as seen e.g. in the Lexington class battlecruisers (later converted to carriers). But once the Washington naval treaty with its displacement limits came into effect, this line of development seems to have died out in favor of the lighter and more compact mechanical reduction gearing for the turbines (there were some destroyer escorts and other minor combatants being built with electric drives, IIRC more due to gear-cutting for large reduction gearings being a bottleneck item rather than any inherent superiority).
The USN trialled turbo-electric drive in BB40 New Mexico, constructed 1915-18 (her two sisters received geared turbines) and then incorporated it into Tennessee class (2 ships) and Colorado class (3 ships), all of which were laid down prior to the Washington Treaty being signed.

New Mexico was converted to geared turbines during her 1931-33 modernisation with weight and space occupied being cited as problems. The later five all kept the turbo-electric machinery until they met the scrapman's axe post WW2. That because by the time these ships became due for modernisation inter-war, the USN preferred to spend what money was available on new Treaty limited battleships.

In WW2 most of the destroyer escorts built were either diesel or turbo electric. Only the Edsall (85 built) and John C Butler class (the last class, 83 built) used geared diesels and turbines respectively. That was from a total of over 550 including those completed as APD. But you are correct, it took a while for US industry to scale up its gear cutting industry.
 
Just a few numbers re different types of power plant and their thermal (or equivalent) efficiencies. These are some 'classic' numbers for the period of the late-1930s thru the end of WWII, and there were some engines that were more efficient than this, but not (I think) at the size and power output we are discussing here (tanks, airplanes, ships).

Locomotive_____steam______5% (reciprocating piston)
Marine_________ steam_____20% (turbine)
Automotive_____ petrol_____20% (piston)
_______________ petrol_____25% (piston with supercharging)
_______________ diesel_____30% (piston)
________dieslel-electric_____35%
Electric Motor__battery_____90%

To provide a couple of reference numbers for comparison with today's systems:

Automotive_____ petrol_____26%
_______________ diesel_____45% (supercharged)
________ petrol-electric_____42% (peak for Honda hybrid system)
__________________________41% (average for Toyota hybrid system)
________ diesel-electric_____43% (upper end? for Volkswagen hybrid system)
Electric Motor__battery_____95% (typical automotive electric motor)
Nuclear________ steam_____35% (upper end? for nuclear-steam turbine ship's plants)

Please let me know if you see any errors in the above data. :study:

There are of course, other factors to take into account as to what powerplant is most suitable for what vehicle. Reliability, maintainability, durability, and what duty cycle(s) are desired - plus cost, weight, volume, convenience of layout, etc. Basically the question becomes what iis the end user - a ship, a submarine, a train, a tank, a truck, etc?
 
I wonder if anyone looked at the Tatra 103 from the Sd.Kfz. 234 and considered upsizing.

That could have been an option. A slightly improved(?) version, the V910 was the powerplant of the 111 heavy truck, which was good enough to remain in production for several decades after the war. And to this day, Tatra produces air cooled V8/V10/V12 diesels for their trucks, though to which extent one can claim their lineage stretches back to the wartime V910 I'm not sure.

Timeline might be a problem though. The 103 started production in 1942 or thereabouts and entered service in 1943. When is the upscaled version ready? A new tank engine in mid 44, to be somewhat optimistic, isn't going to to help much.
 
Allison did quite well after the second world war as they were contracted to make GE turbojet engines. They then developed turboprop units (C130 Hercules)
and turboshaft engines for helicopters.

GM owned Allison and the sale to Rolls Royce came about as GM wanted to get back market share in automobiles.

Aircraft engines being the basis for tank engines is an interesting subject. Engines used on the allied side of things included
the Ford GAA - a cut down of the original V12 aircraft engine developed by Ford which was not taken up, the other being
the Meteor V12. Both were solid designs and gave good service.

The Meteor was a problem solver for British tanks as it gave more power and torque without too much weight (835 kg). As
noted in other posts the extra grunt meant it was not a problem to add more armour and larger guns as the speed of the
tank could be kept up (Cromwell and Comet).
At the beginning of the War, Brit Cruiser Tanks (The fast-ish ones) were powered by Liberty aircraft engines license built by Nuffield.
The last deployment of Liberty-powered tanks were the Meteors (Comet precursors) used for Fire Support for the British beaches.
The M6 Heavy Tank (Standardized, but not a lot built, and never deployed) used an R1820.
 
Would the HL 230 have been fine for the 70 ton Tiger II if mated to a better transmission and drive train? Was improved cooling possible? What was the primary point of failure?

It would have been interesting to see what the Israelis would have done with a fleet of Panthers or Tiger I/II. Scrap the lot is most likely, but what engine and transmission would have been available in the 1950s to make the German cats run better?
You'd actually have to be able to make a better transmission and final drives. Given the poor state of German manufacturing from 1943 on -
Dimensional tolerance for parts was never good, there was very little interchangeability, and a lot of hand fitting, an metal quality and Heat Treatment was all over the map. It was taking everything they had just to maintain production numbers, and quality wasn't in the cards.
For example, German Tank Armor resistance varied by more than 30% - and the only way to find out if you were riding a lemon was when you got hit.
 
Scott Paine/BPB (British Power Boat) felt the Power Merlin (sometimes referred to as 'Sea Merlin') was a viable boat engine in their modified form - both reliable and durable. I have never been able to find a detailed spec covering all the differences between the Power Merlin and the regular aircraft versions, but they were getting a reliable rating of 1000 HP continuous with 1100 HP for sprint. The engine used a supercharger almost identical to the pre-war aircraft engine type, with the same 6.313:1 S/C ratio of the Merlin VIII, but with a relocated carburettor and thus without the restriction of the designed for aircraft air intake problems, along with seawater-to-coolant system heat rejection. This allowed the Power Merlin to be run at high power for significantly longer periods than the early-war aircraft variants, while using 87 grade fuel.

Unfortunately for Scott Paine/BPB the war interrupted their plans, and - partly due to the fact that they were still relying on RR for most of the parts for the engine - the MoD ordered a cut of the program and for BPB/Scott Paine to redirect their efforts during the War. The access to US built boat engines such as Packard and Hall-Scott put the final nails in the Power Merlin coffin.

Hi,
It would certainly be interesting to discover more details of the Sea-Merlin and the "Scott-Paine modifications". Generally, powerboats can have issues with their powerplants such as, over-rev if props come out of the water and long duty at high power. The Merlin before WW2 was not very mature even in it's designed aircraft applications. Of course, the Merlin VIII
has a low S/C gear ratio and is listed as Medium supercharged.

Cheers

Eng
 
I ran across an ad for the BPB power Merlin manual at a reasonable price awhile back but it had already sold. :(
Since then the prices have been ridiculous.

Power Merlin manual cover.png
 
The early Packards were rated for 1200hp for 15 minutes out of a 10 hour running period using 87 octane fuel at 2500rpm.
They were also rated at 1350hp hp for 15 minutes out of a 10 hour running period using 100 octane fuel at 2500rpm.
They were rated 1200hp for 1 hour in a 25 hour period at 2400rpm using either fuel.
They were rated at 900hp at 2000rpm continuous.
 
I ran across an ad for the BPB power Merlin manual at a reasonable price awhile back but it had already sold. :(
Since then the prices have been ridiculous.

View attachment 881280

Yes, I see them at around £400. It is unfortunate that there does not seem to be an online copy. However, the adverts have two illustrations that lend some information.
There is an illustration of the supercharger that is identical to that in the Merlin III Manual, which would make it similar to many single speed Merlins upto 1939.
There is an illustration of the RR/SU Updraught carburetor that is the same as the Merlin III as well, apart from the Altitude Needle being fixed and the altitude aneroid and linkage
being deleted. On the face of it, this would seem to indicate that the supercharger/carb arrangement was effectively structurally unaltered.
Here's hoping that someone can source more details!

Eng
 
You'd actually have to be able to make a better transmission and final drives. Given the poor state of German manufacturing from 1943 on - Dimensional tolerance for parts was never good, there was very little interchangeability, and a lot of hand fitting, an metal quality and Heat Treatment was all over the map. It was taking everything they had just to maintain production numbers, and quality wasn't in the cards.
With all that, I expect the best running Tiger II of all time is this restored example, where the whole tank was disassembled and meticulously put back together with refurbished components.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VyCOfDm_rdA&pp=ygUfa2luZyB0aWdlciBzd2lzenR3ZWxhbmQgcnVubmluZ9IHCQkjCwGHKiGM7w%3D%3D

Here's a current restoration underway. I expect the engine and drivetrain will be better than anything the Wehrmacht ever saw.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RrL_ovpR_Gw&pp=ygUWa2luZyB0aWdlciByZXN0b3JhdGlvbg%3D%3D

And an interesting final drive demo.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WzS18vKCWH8&pp=ygUfa2luZyB0aWdlciBzd2lzenR3ZWxhbmQgcnVubmluZw%3D%3D
 
Last edited:
That particular Tiger is also treated infinitely better than it was in service. After all, the museum isn't going to risk a prime exhibit in broken country, deep mud, or by pushing it to the edges of its performance.

I'm sure the Tiger's reputation for reliability would be far better if it was only driven on paved (or at least carefully graded and not muddy) roads in nice weather.
 
I'm sure the Tiger's reputation for reliability would be far better if it was only driven on paved (or at least carefully graded and not muddy) roads in nice weather.
Of course, and good points. But I'm more suggesting the museum's Tiger is better put together, with better components than the originals. It's reported that a Tiger II typically suffered a breakdown after traveling just 50 to 150 km. I expect the museum's example has reliably done much more than this, if only around the grounds. It would be interesting to know how the mechanisms, tolerances, metallurgy and cooling of the museum's example compares with the original - I expect the 21st Century coolants and lubricants used today would be superior for starters.
 
Not carrying a full crew and ammo load out might help.
That's a good point, and it adds up.

5 x fitted out 200 lb crew = 1,000 lbs.
43 x 50 lb AP projectiles = 2,150 lbs.
43 x 40 lb He projectiles = 1,720 lbs.
Total: 4,870 lbs., equal to the empty weight of a Bf 109G.

And then we should consider that the museum will not fill up with the Tiger II's max 860 liters of gasoline, equal to 1,403 lbs. With this is mind we can reduce the museum's Tiger II at the following weight:

2 x crew (likely lighter dressed, though chubbier) = 380 lbs.
No Ammo
75 liters of gasoline (sufficient for 15 km) = 120 lbs.
Total: 500 lbs. equal to 3% reduction from the Tiger II's 153k lb. combat weight

Though I wonder if the drive train would notice a 3% reduction. Perhaps other internal components, like batteries and radios would also be lighter today. The Tiger II had two lead acid batteries, each weighing 145 lbs. Today's Lithium-ion 12 V starter batteries weight about 20 lb. The Tiger II's radio installation (FuG radio, mountings, wiring, antenna, intercom) weigh in at over 150 lbs.
 
Last edited:
German design requirements in the thirties were for mobility with a good turn of speed. A light, compact engine with an emphasis on power was required.
This allowed lighter drive components including gearbox and final drive.

The Maybach HL120 offered a compact design with power. The resulting main tank was the Panzer III which was very
well balanced. The chassis was used all through the war, most importantly in the Stug III.

The next Maybach was the HL210 which was to go into the Tiger I but was underpowered and not fully sorted.
The HL230 resulted but was still not fully ready so it had problems.

Going for power also caused problems in the heavier tanks from the Tiger I on. Torque output was good but not until
higher RPM was reached.

When the Sherman received the Ford GAA it had plenty of torque through the RPM range which meant significantly less strain on the engine.

The Cromwell got the Meteor with the same advantages of the GAA.

Both engines had plenty of power as well for the weight of the tanks they were used in.

The GAA and Meteor had the same bore and stroke (not significant in itself but interesting).

The HL230 gave 690-700 HP at 3000 RPM but the engine had to be governed back to around 2500 RPM which gave around 100 HP less.
The stated horsepower per ton from the Panther on is usually worked out on the highest horsepower rating but should be worked out on the lower
600HP rate to reflect reality.

The lower engine RPM was necessary as the 230 would overheat easily which meant cracking of cylinders and heads. The overheating was due in part to the
larger cylinders in the same size block as the smaller capacity HL210. The distance between cylinders was far less with heat being a real problem.

Lighter gearboxes and final drives failed in the heavier vehicles as well as the engines. The initial design requirements of power from lighter high revving engines
did not translate to the heavier tanks and as such lead to them being failures.
 
German design requirements in the thirties were for mobility with a good turn of speed. A light, compact engine with an emphasis on power was required.
This allowed lighter drive components including gearbox and final drive.

The Maybach HL120 offered a compact design with power. The resulting main tank was the Panzer III which was very
well balanced. The chassis was used all through the war, most importantly in the Stug III.

The next Maybach was the HL210 which was to go into the Tiger I but was underpowered and not fully sorted.
The HL230 resulted but was still not fully ready so it had problems.

Going for power also caused problems in the heavier tanks from the Tiger I on. Torque output was good but not until
higher RPM was reached.

When the Sherman received the Ford GAA it had plenty of torque through the RPM range which meant significantly less strain on the engine.

The Cromwell got the Meteor with the same advantages of the GAA.

Both engines had plenty of power as well for the weight of the tanks they were used in.

The GAA and Meteor had the same bore and stroke (not significant in itself but interesting).

The HL230 gave 690-700 HP at 3000 RPM but the engine had to be governed back to around 2500 RPM which gave around 100 HP less.
The stated horsepower per ton from the Panther on is usually worked out on the highest horsepower rating but should be worked out on the lower
600HP rate to reflect reality.

The lower engine RPM was necessary as the 230 would overheat easily which meant cracking of cylinders and heads. The overheating was due in part to the
larger cylinders in the same size block as the smaller capacity HL210. The distance between cylinders was far less with heat being a real problem.

Lighter gearboxes and final drives failed in the heavier vehicles as well as the engines. The initial design requirements of power from lighter high revving engines
did not translate to the heavier tanks and as such lead to them being failures.
The durability issues beyond 2500 rpm on the HL230 came from insufficient oiling which caused crankshaft issues at 3000 rpm. This was solved on the 234 by modifying the oil feed holes and increasing their number to increase net oil flow to the crankshaft bearings, and could have been retrofitted to the HL 230 to restore its ability to run at 3000 rpm. The oil cooler was also increased in size.
One mistake that Maybach did make was that they used roller bearing tunnel crankshafts, which made sense in prewar constant speed engines and big diesels used in trains and ships, but were suboptimal in a tank engine owing to their greater inertia and resulting "sluggishness" when changing rpm. They are also more sensitive to oiling issues.

Regardless, the power to weight ratio in the Tiger II was suboptimal and most experimental or postwar tank designs of more than 40 tonnes used 27-30 L engines rather than the 23 the HL 230 got. Even then, the HL 230 even derated to 2500 rpm had a comparable specific output to good Wallied tank engines.

The oiling problem at high rpm was also a limitation of both the Ford GAA and R-975 radial. Oil pumps didn't give enough pressure to maintain adequate lubrication on R-975 beyond 2800 rpm. The Ford V8 GAA was also oil-limited and to boot the oil pump shafts could shear off at high rpms, so 2800 rpm was the recommended limit. In practice, it was governed to 2600 rpm (the crankshaft would also be an issue). Much like the HL 230, the Ford GAA was pushed into production too early and the models made up to about August/September 1943 had very inconsistent service lives. The R-975 also had fairly low service lives until the C4 model from 1944. Ditto for the Soviet V-2 diesel which had relatively low durability early in the war but steadily improved.

The M26 Pershing had the extra disadvantage that the Torqmatic steering system was a highly inefficient implementation of the torque converter concept (not only a worse type of torque converter, but also a low number of gears) which consumed quite a bit of power, but the cooling arrangement was also inefficient, such that net horsepower available was low, so the engine was rather heavily loaded. The M4 had fewer issues owing to the use of a mechanical transmission (even if less progressive than the torque converter type) and higher gross P/W ratio.

As I said, the transmission on the Tiger II was not a particularly weak element, and even the Panther's transmission, while worse, wasn't the main culprit. In the Panther, the real weak link was that the final drives' geometry was heavily limited by the front drive location and the fact that they were not integral to the sprockets and were offset from the transmission's axis, which made them quite simply too weak for the job. The Tigers didn't have this issue as they used planetary final drives which could more easily be made strong in spite of front-drive loaction, but were less mass-producible. The Sherman had simply enormous final drives. The Panther's final drive design is discussed here.
 
The GAA and Meteor had the same bore and stroke (not significant in itself but interesting).
Ford's GAA was developed from their XV-1650 V-12 engine, so the bore x stroke would have been fairly close.

BTW, the Packard Liberty 12A was a "1650" with a 5" bore and 7" stroke, making it fairly close to both the V-1650 and XV-1650.

It seems that the 1650 cid engine was an ideal size.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back