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