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

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

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.
 
Engineman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shortround6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Tom Fey said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Independent tank had an Armstrong Siddeley V-12 of 350 hp. I wonder why it wasn't further developed?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The French Merlin wasn't metric. They would be assembled from British parts.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
The Stannum Liberator
A
Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
6K
DDonSS3
D
Short Brothers flying boat conversion to land based transport?
Replies
4
Views
540
chris ballance
A
Could WW2 carrier aircraft use a ski jump?
Replies
13
Views
2K
don4331
D
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register