Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?

[Shortround6]

Cromwell's suspension was one of the better ones of the war for offroad movement though. It's just that the tank initially had such a high power to weight ratio and such high gearing that it was easy to reach speeds which would break that suspension. But some other suspensions would have been unbearable/would have broken even before.

True, but it does show that the requirement for 20hp per ton for a 30 ton tank was not needed. The 600hp engine was very useful for the Comet but that tank could hit 32mph on road
at 15.4hp/ton.
The other problem with the Cromwell was that it often broke the crew at high speed on rough terrain, broke bones and/or concussions. This was a fault of many fast tanks with less than ideal suspensions.

This was NOT a new problem. British managed to render unconscious several crewmen of a MK IV tank in WW I during a demonstration for officials in London after running over a bunker mock up, low speed but the front of the tank dropped nearly 30ft when it crashed down after climbing the bunker.

Reality collided with theory much like the British theory of shooting on the move by having the gunner use his legs to keep the gun pointed in elevation.

 

[marathag]

As for "V10 or V12", the V12 obviously did not fit the requirements of the time and V10 probably would not either, as I am certain that is how they would have built it.

450HP from a V8 sounded great while in development for Medium tanks in 1941 for a 30 ton tank.

Wasn't a need for more HP, at that point.

But there wasn't vision that weights would be increasing for Mediums, and for Heavies, that the US decided not to build: and no, the 45 ton T26 Pershing was not a heavy, despite Armor Board calling it such to reassure the War Department and Public, where there was an increasing number of newspaper stories on why the M4 was coming up poorly in late 1944, and the Pershing was underpowered on a V8, made worse with the transmission choice, more powerloss in the Torqmatic.

This wasn't a problem when tested in the light M18 TD, but not in a far heavier vehicle. It made driving easy, but far more parasitic loss of HP, and much more heat, that the cooling system was not adequate for

Back to engine

a V10 would have been around 600HP (matching the Meteor) and the V12 GAC was 770hp@2700rpm with Max torque
of 1560ft-lbs@1600rpm

More HP would have been a bonus for the later version of the M4 that got heavier, esp. the Jumbo.

 

[marathag]

The US built 250 T-23 tanks with electric transmissions that were not high speed but had enough other problems that they never should have been put into production.

The T23 with HVSS suspension had a top speed of 35mph, and was praised for it mobility. Wouldn't have hurt the US to have fielded these in 1944, while still building the M4. The US had a surplus of Plants capable of building Medium tanks in 1944

 

[MIflyer]

In the post-WWII time period up through the perhaps the 1980's, surplus Allison V-1710 V12's were used to pump fracking fluid into the oil fields of the American west.

Knew a guy in OK who had worked for an oil company and said that he could have bought some V-1710 cheap. The company found out that those engines were not durable enough for their use.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Per Ogorkiewicz, the final Armstrong-Siddeley tank engine was an aircooled 180 hp V8 used in the Vickers Mark III and the A7, which doesn't appear to be linked to any known aircraft engine of that company. That effort allegedly ceased due to lack of funding.

Without going into the debate of aircooled vs liquid cooled tank engines and without knowing about the alleged technical issues this engine faced in both tanks, I'd argue there would still have been merit in continuing the Army-AS cooperation to obtain a more dedicated tank engine manufacturer and possibly more suitable engine designs. Moving to a V12 alone would yield 270 hp by the mid 30s, and it surely was possible to improve or extrapolate the AS Vee engine to obtain something more modern than the Liberty and more suitable than all the truck engine derivatives (Inline or flat).

Considering that a bunch of companies like Rover and Meadows eventually built Meteors and that Leyland had come very close to producing it before chickening out over the technical risks, I still believe that as long as the British govt paid, they could have set up production of any modified aircraft engine before the war no matter what the Air Ministry said. At the end of the day, the problem really was that the govt prioritized aviation needs to a very high degree over the Army's. I won't go into whether that was the only possible path.

The Independent tank had an Armstrong Siddeley V-12 of 350 hp. I wonder why it wasn't further developed?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I understand that postwar some Bristol radials were used as engines in busses.

Actually pre war and not radials but wobble plate!

Charles Benjamin Redrup - Graces Guide

www.gracesguide.co.uk

Bristol buses were switching to Gardner diesels at that time and the engine was dropped

 

[Reluctant Poster]

To me the great what if would be if Gardner was assigned the task of designing a diesel tank engine. After all their 6LW was very successful in recovering and transporting tanks. A V12LW might be a bit underpowered but I would imagine Gardner could develop a larger version.

 

[Humblebee]

According to Andrew Hills' Tanks of TOG Sir Harry Ricardo proposed in 1940 an H16 diesel version of the Napier Sabre as a tank engine, believing its boxy shape and short length would be ideal to fit into tank hull compared to a vee engine of comparable displacement. The overall length would be 44 inches. Estimated power output figures from 380 to 550 are given for the unsupercharged version and from 520 to 780 supercharged. Scale drawings exist of the proposed engine, but not clear if it ever made it to prototype. Given the production problems of the Sabre with its sleeve valves, not sure if this was a missed opportunity or not.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

You left out the Guiberson diesel radials. A great little engine.

Guiberson A-1020 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think great is the appropriate adjective to describe it.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

1939: Edsel was dealing with the French to get a big engine in Production at the new Factory Ford opened outside Paris the year before, but as things worked out, that wasn't an option after May 1940, and Old Man Henry hated the British so much, he spiked the deal for US production of Merlins for the UK. Making a Metric version of the Merlin for France was fine. Not Imperial spec for the British!
Despite Ford UK doing other Ford Products for the War.

The French Merlin wasn't metric. They would be assembled from British parts.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I agree that in the late 1930's, a derivative of the basic Lion would probably have made a good 400hp AFV engine for early WW2 tanks. I guess that, as you say, the status quo at that time was not able to accept the changes to tank design and the cost of the engines would have been high.

Eng

Actually it seems the Lion was considered for the Cruiser:

600 500hp Napier engines can only be Lions

From this website

A.13, Cruiser Mk.III, Mk.I - Tank Encyclopedia

The Cruiser Mk.III (A.13 Mark I), inspired by the Soviet BT tank series, was one of multiple WW2-era British Cruiser tanks.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[MiTasol]

I don't think great is the appropriate adjective to describe it.

View attachment 804078
View attachment 804079
View attachment 804082
View attachment 804083

Interesting but post war farmers who used cut down tanks for tractors loved them.