Best tank engines of WWII

[hobbes154]

British tank design was hamstrung for most of the war by the requirement for rail transport. This limited the width of tanks basically
up until the restraint was lifted with the Centurion.

Not unless 'hamstrung' = 'not a Centurion', which is a pretty high bar for most of the war. Most wartime British tanks were well under the limit.

"The British railway loading gauge required that the width should not exceed 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m) and the optimum width was 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m),[15] "

Cromwell and Comet were under 10', Crusader 9'1, Valentine even less.

 

[hobbes154]

Indeed, and it then went on to power the Centurion, which was arguably the best tank of its generation. I think in the competition for "best WWII tank engine", the main arguments against it was that it was quite late, first seeing service in Normandy in 1944. Had they started the project a few years earlier, they could have had something like the Cromwell and a 550 hp Churchill already seeing service in the North Africa campaign, which would have been substantial improvements. Alas, for various reasons it wasn't to be.

I think a fuel consumption more than double the best diesels and 50% more than the Maybachs or Detroit Diesels are also salient points. (Presumably linked to the Merlin not liking low rpms even compared to the Allison?)

 

[WARSPITER]

Churchills were a tad too wide on rail unless the side air cleaners were removed for transport.

There was also a problem with some rail corners into tunnels where load height could smack the
corner bricks on the way through. A specially lowered rail car (Warwell) had to be made for the Cheshire
and LMS line sections to transport Shermans due to their height.

Just because a maximum limit is specified is not necessarily a reason to make everything that wide.

As to fuel use for the Meteor in Normandy (first tank use), it wasn't bad as to range;

Panther 60 - 160 miles (160 imp gallons)

Sherman average ranges 60 - 150 miles (115 to 146 imp gallons depending on variant)

Cromwell 80 - 170 miles (110 imp gallons )

 

[z42]

Not unless 'hamstrung' = 'not a Centurion', which is a pretty high bar for most of the war. Most wartime British tanks were well under the limit.

"The British railway loading gauge required that the width should not exceed 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m) and the optimum width was 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m),[15] "

Cromwell and Comet were under 10', Crusader 9'1, Valentine even less.

In general UK loading gauges specified a width of 9'0", see e.g. Historical Loading Gauges on british railways . Only after WWII were they harmonized. Wider than that would be some kind of oversize load which would require extra care.

 

[z42]

As to fuel use for the Meteor in Normandy (first tank use), it wasn't bad as to range;

Panther 60 - 160 miles (160 imp gallons)

Sherman average ranges 60 - 150 miles (115 to 146 imp gallons depending on variant)

Cromwell 80 - 170 miles (110 imp gallons )

So if we take the average of the above values we get:

Panther: 0.69 miles/gal
Sherman: 0.80 miles/gal
Cromwell: 1.14 miles/gal

If we further take the weight of the vehicle into account:

Panther: 31 ton*miles/gal
Sherman: 25 tons*miles/gal
Cromwell: 32 tons*miles/gal

Doesn't look too bad.

 

[WARSPITER]

Good comparison.

 

[z42]

Can you support this with references to documents?

No. I remember reading it somewhere. But my memory or my sources might be wrong.

Unleashing the Power of V-2 Engine: From T-34 to T-90M says:

Cheplan had taken note of the AD-1 aviation engine project created by Jacob Mayer from the Ukrainian Avio-diesel Reasearch Institute in 1931.

He took several ideas from Mayer's engine, such as the use of steel threaded rods inside an aluminium crankcase and block. This use of aluminium was quite advanced for the era, with most contemporary engines using cast iron blocks.

...

Under the recommendation of aviation engine designer Vladimir Klimov, the V-2 engine had the same cylinder width as the Klimov M-100 aviation engine (a licensed copy of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y).

No further mention of any H-S engine in that doc.

 

[bf109xxl]

No. I remember reading it somewhere. But my memory or my sources might be wrong.

Unleashing the Power of V-2 Engine: From T-34 to T-90M says:

No further mention of any H-S engine in that doc.

Klimov was sent to France to study the HS12 in 1935. The piston diameter of the BD-2 (future V-2) was already approved in 1932 ( confirmed by documents).

 

[z42]

Klimov was sent to France to study the HS12 in 1935. The piston diameter of the BD-2 (future V-2) was already approved in 1932 ( confirmed by documents).

What's preventing Klimov from being aware of the basic facts of the H-S 12 before being sent there?

 

[swampyankee]

Nice! Are there any examples of two pistons per one cylinder engines in WW2?

Other than the Jumo 206, there were engines from Fairbanks-Morse and Doxford. Napier had a license for the Jumo 205, but never really used it.

 

[WARSPITER]

Klimov was sent to obtain a licence to build the 12Y in the USSR. From there it was developed further and became the
Klimov 100 and then the Klimov 105 which gave a good engine for the earlier Yak and Lagg aircraft.

 

[bf109xxl]

What's preventing Klimov from being aware of the basic facts of the H-S 12 before being sent there?

In 1931-1933 Klimov headed the gasoline engine department of the Central Institute of Aviation Engine Engineering in Moscow. Since 1933 he was in France. He had nothing to do with the development of the BD-2, which was carried out in Kharkov. I have not yet seen any evidence of Klimov's involvement in the development of the BD-2 in Russian-language sources, which are the most informative and reliable in this particular case.

 

[WARSPITER]

It isn't really all that important anyway. The Hispano Suiza connection was to do with a petrol aircraft engine and as Z42 noted in previous posts
it was a memory of something read rather than a statement.

 

[bf109xxl]

It isn't really all that important anyway. The Hispano Suiza connection was to do with a petrol aircraft engine and as Z42 noted in previous posts
it was a memory of something read rather than a statement.

I just noted that Klimow was not connected with the V-2 story in any way. The Kharkov plant had an experience with diesel engines, the plant had already developed the BD-14 prototype with 140 mm bore to that time and nobody needed there a very common (and a bit strange) advise from a person with no experience in diesel engines. I am not sure that Klimov knew about the BD-2 development at all (rather I am sure he was not informed). Engineers in Kharkov could use the experience of the development of the six-cylinder diesel engine PGE in Leningrad, at least there is an evidence that Leningrad was obliged to send documentation to Kharkov, but I have no idea to what extent this experience was useful for the development of the BD-2.

 

[WARSPITER]

Another casualty of Stalins heavy handed leadership when dealing with perceived threats was Konstantin Chelpin.

Chelpin had qualified in 1924 with a major in Internal combustion engines from the Kharkiv Technological Institute.

He studied further in 1928 - 29 in Switzerland, Germany, and Britain.

His work up until 1937 was at the Kharkiv Locomotive Factory with roles from designer, Head of the Diesel Department,
Lead Designer, and Head of the Engineering Design Bureau.

He was also a senior lecturer at Kharkiv Technological Institute.

Chelpin was the head of design for the famous V-2 diesel engine and was awarded the Order of Lenin for his work.

In December 1937 Stalin instituted the Greek Operation. This was in response to a small amount of people who were
anti communists and were of Greek descent.

Chelpins parents were both Greek and the most influential / wealthy were rounded up first. This included Chelpin
who was accused of being a member of a subversive group and conspiring to sabotage Kharkiv Locomotive.
Chelpin was 'persuaded' by the usual means to admit to being a spy and was executed in 1938. His wife
was sent a death certificate several years later stating he had died from heart failure.

Had Chelpin been allowed to continue his work the V-2 could have been even better than it was. Deaths for the
Greek Operation will never be known but it is certain they are in the tens of thousands.

 

[bf109xxl]

Another casualty of Stalins heavy handed leadership when dealing with perceived threats was Konstantin Chelpin.

The correct name is "Chelpan". The Soviets killed a potential Nobel Prize winner (he had really good chances!) in 1937 in Kharkov - there were not so many physicists of the same level in the Soviet Union, who discovered something named after them. Chelpan was just one of the very many innocently executed engineers and researchers.

 

[hobbes154]

In general UK loading gauges specified a width of 9'0", see e.g. Historical Loading Gauges on british railways . Only after WWII were they harmonized. Wider than that would be some kind of oversize load which would require extra care.

Fair point, Technology of Tanks agrees:

For instance, tanks designed in Britain before the Second World War were less than 2.67m wide to keep them within the loading gauge of British railways. (p.223)

But in that case they were breaking the limit from the Crusader onwards so you can't really say they were hamstrung either!

It does seem to be a commonplace that the Centurion broke some kind of limit - perhaps as you say oversize (e.g. only 1-way traffic or only certain routes).

 

[WARSPITER]

Chelpan was just one of the very many innocently executed engineers and researchers.

Which is a shame and I highlighted his fate as it is relevant to this thread.

 

[bf109xxl]

Which is a shame and I highlighted his fate as it is relevant to this thread.

Seems, that I expressed my thought not so well - unfortunately my English is too far from perfect. Of course, your information is substantial and interesting, I just wanted to clarify the name and show the scale of repressions. Besides Chelpan, 66 other engineers and managers of the plant were repressed. Director Bondarenko was executed, Firsov ( who led the development of the BT-7) died in prison in 1943, Trashutin (one of the leading experts on the V-2) was released from prison in 1939, etc. The Stalin's system was not only brutal, indeed it was very inefficient as well.

 

[Juha3]

Fair point, Technology of Tanks agrees:

For instance, tanks designed in Britain before the Second World War were less than 2.67m wide to keep them within the loading gauge of British railways. (p.223)

But in that case they were breaking the limit from the Crusader onwards so you can't really say they were hamstrung either...

In fact they were. During the war the British first tried to alleviate the problem by easing the railway clearance criteria, but restrictions were there. In the end it was decided to ignore the railway loading gauge restriction but due to the long development times, Centurion was the first British tank to fully benefit from it. The proliferation of tank transporters made that possible.