Best tank engines of WWII (4 Viewers)

[z42]

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.

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.

 

[bf109xxl]

Not to unduly disturb your lovefest here with WARSPITER , 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.

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.

 

[EwenS]

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.

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.

 

[marathag]

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

 

[z42]

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

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

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.

 

[marathag]

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.

It saved on parts from not using an intermediate gearbox to drop the driveline.
But resulted in this

Vs what could be done, like this image for an ultimate Chrysler M4, that the US never built, going on to the T20* line instead.

With a dropped driveshaft to the Ford V8.
Note the shorter hull height, allowing a far lower profile
Israelis tested that theory in metal

high power French 75mm, Diesel, E8 suspension, but by this time, the British decided to sell Centurions, and later US the M48 so need for doing great rebuilds of the M4 was reduced.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[marathag]

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.

For the Tiger I vs M4A2

with 1/35 models

 

[SaparotRob]

For the Tiger I vs M4A2

View attachment 793329
with 1/35 models

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not the same.

 

[marathag]

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.

With a lower hull profile, means less weight in armor for the same protection, as well as presenting a smaller target.

So the M4 could have been lighter, that would have reduced ground pressure and allow higher speed or better fuel economy. Great for logistics and mobility

Or weight could have kept the same as the 'tall' M4, with thicker armor making up the difference, helps with survivability and crew morale.

 

[SaparotRob]

However, as someone on YouTube pointed out, the Sherman and its boxy shape, made stuffing them in ships easier.

 

[Shortround6]

However, as someone on YouTube pointed out, the Sherman and its boxy shape, made stuffing them in ships easier.

You-tube = expert

 

[GrauGeist]

However, as someone on YouTube pointed out, the Sherman and its boxy shape, made stuffing them in ships easier.

Virtually all tanks are "boxy"...

 

[WARSPITER]

Virtually all tanks are "boxy"...

That must be where Volvo got the idea.

 

[GrauGeist]

That must be where Volvo got the idea.

Or...did the tank manufacturers copy Volvo?