Why no Luftwaffe-derived engines in Heer vehicles?

[Admiral Beez]

Lee and Sherman tanks used aircraft-derived engines. The Rolls Royce Merlin was used in vehicles as the Meteor and postwar Meteorite (including diesel variant). Aero engines, with some aluminium replaced by steel and iron appear in many army vehicles in WW2. But not the Germans, which surprises me, as their aero engines, such as the Junkers Jumo 223 look like a good start.

Why didn't German army vehicles use aeroplane-derived engines?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you referring to post war? After the war, all German armament industry was demolished. There was no ability to produce these engines. The post war Heer was not established until 1955. 10 years after the war. It would have been too expensive to restart and retool up the assembly lines. Plus the equipment and plans probably no longer existed, at least not in Germany.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are you referring to post war?

No, I'm referring to Nazi Germany, so up to 1945.

 

[Milosh]

Because the Germans had the very good V12 Maybach engines.

 

[Koopernic]

Lee and Sherman tanks used aircraft-derived engines. The Rolls Royce Merlin was used in vehicles as the Meteor and postwar Meteorite (including diesel variant). Aero engines, with some aluminium replaced by steel and iron appear in many army vehicles in WW2. But not the Germans, which surprises me, as their aero engines, such as the Junkers Jumo 223 look like a good start.

Why didn't German army vehicles use aeroplane-derived engines?

The bulk of German tanks used the Maybach HL120 of around 12L and 300hp this includes the tanks Panzer III, Panzer IV, the StuG III, Jagdpanzer IV, the Porche Elefant used twin electrodynamic ward leonard drives driven of two HL120. Ferdinand Porche had designed a single engine to propel his version of the Tiger I but technical problems that couldn't be resolved in the available time forced the use of the two HL120.

The heavier tanks used the Maybach HL230 of around 23.095L and 700hp this includes the tanks Tiger I, Panther, Tiger II and derivatives Jagdtiger and Jagdpanther.

A development of the HL230 engine, the HL234, essentially replaced the carburettors with fuel injection was expected to produce over 850hp and be used in Tiger II, Panther II and Panther Ausf F. With supercharging 1200hp was expected.

I think the question should be why did the British use at Merlin derived Meteor engine in the most of their tanks from mid war onwards and two petrol engines in the Matilda II.

Why did some Sherman's have an air cooled radial? Others had 4 x V8 and some Marine Shermans had diesels.

If criticism is to be levelled at the German tank engines it should probably be that they had few if any diesels which though it has inferior P/W ratio has better fuel economy and the fuel can also be more easily synthesised and it is less likely to ignite. Only the Russians focused on diesel powered armour.

I could hsee the Junkers Jumo 210 being evolved as a tank engine but the HL120 and HL230 were perfectly adäquate. Moreover thought the HL210 had an Al alloy block it was problematic in the early Tiger/Panther tanks and the HL230 with a more sturdy cast iron block replaced it.

There was one sort German aero derived tank engine planed. This was the GT 101, GT102, GT103 which were scaled down BMW 003 turbojet. The GT101 used directed drive, the GT102 used a power takeof turbine and the GT103 had a heat recuperator. Experimental only. The P/W ratio was of great interest but also was the ease of manufacturing gas turbine fuel from coal.

The DB603 started as an automobile engine for the land speed record T80 car though I'm sure Daimler Benz always intended it to be an aircraft engine.

The Jumo 223 development you mention was superseded by the Jumo 224 which was essentially 4 Jumo 207 horizontally opposed Diesel engines connected at the corners. I think at 4500hp was expected and designed for transatlantic aircraft. Perhaps it belongs in a locomotive lie the Napier Deltic that powered much of British Rail. Maybe the 1200 ton Ratte tank?

The replacement for the Bradley IFV will likely get a Cummins 2 stroke diesel like the Jumo 205 in configuration. They're about 30% more powerful and more fuel Efficient. There is a long American tradition of Fairbanks Morse engines in this configuration.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Only the Russians focused on diesel powered armour.

The Italians and Japanese also fielded diesel armour.

 

[swampyankee]

US tanks usually used engines in current production and for 300 - 500 hp, there wasn't a better place to look than the aero engine market. The aero-derivative air-cooled radials (from Continental, Curtiss-Wright, Packard [diesel], and Guiberson [diesel]) all had good power-weight ratios and demonstrated good reliability in the field. The Ford GAA V-8 was actually an aero-derivative engine, cut down from a V-12 to a V-8. Possibly the oddest US tank engine was the 30 cylinder Chrysler-made, water-cooled radial.

 

[davebender]

Lee and Sherman tanks used aircraft-derived engines
Air cooled radial engines designed for aircraft use did not work so well in the Sherman tank. The Germans were smart to use purpose made engines for their tanks.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of this boils down to to the market and available engines. The US was bit late to the rearmament race and had not funded any large engines suitable for tanks. When you are building tanks in small batches you adopt existing engines even if they are not 100% suitiable. The US was using aircraft engines in the M2-3 series of light tanks, then used an aircraft engine in the M2-3-4 medium and finally they used one in the M6 heavy tank. When they had to increase production they had to take what they could get. Using aircraft engines (even trainer engines) in tanks was not an efficient use of resources when production was in the thousands, however attractive it looked when production was in the dozens.
The British were also in a bad spot for engines, as were most other countries as very few countries actually built large truck engines, at least in significant numbers.

The American radial diesels were of very limited production, relative to total production. A few hundred of one or another out of total US tank production? Much use was made of twin 6-71 Detroit Diesels, but most of these tanks went to the US Marines (already had diesel fuel in their supply chain) or were used for lend lease.
the 30 cylinder Chrysler-made, water-cooled engine wasn't really a radial, it was five 6 cylinder car engines geared together.

eachbank was a 4.1 liter engine which points out the problem with powering 30 ton tanks. This engine was about the same size as the engine used in the later PZ Mk 1 tanks or the engine used in most of the smaller German Half-tracks.
The US did NOT tax vehicles on the size of their engines, many European countries did to a greater or lesser extent, which hindered the development of large commercial engines.
Or forced some companies to try to use two existing cylinder blocks on an existing crankcase.

Please note that the Soviet Union did not have to worry about making money on a particular engine. They did have to worry about production space/capacity.
Germans were somewhere in between.

 

[Milosh]

The Jumo 223 weight was 3090lb. For the Jumo 224, it was 5720lb.
Junkers Jumo 223

 

[tomo pauk]

Lee and Sherman tanks used aircraft-derived engines
Air cooled radial engines designed for aircraft use did not work so well in the Sherman tank.

Cheers, Dave.
Care to elaborate the quoted sentence?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Using aircraft engines (even trainer engines) in tanks was not an efficient use of resources when production was in the thousands, however attractive it looked when production was in the dozens.
...

Why would that be the case for US radial engines used in tanks?

 

[Shortround6]

Why would that be the case for US radial engines used in tanks?

Because you could use engines not intended for use in aircraft in tanks, built by factories not building aircraft engines. That leaves the aircraft engine factory clear to make aircraft engines, even if they are for trainers.

 

[tomo pauk]

Because you could use engines not intended for use in aircraft in tanks, built by factories not building aircraft engines. That leaves the aircraft engine factory clear to make aircraft engines, even if they are for trainers.

Advantage might be that, in a country well established in making aircraft engines en masse and in a reliable fashion, but not making tanks en masse, a factory tooled for aircraft engines can quickly switch production between aircraft and tank engines. Just like it was the case with US industry.

 

[gjs238]

Because the Germans had the very good V12 Maybach engines.

Maybachs were originally zeppelin engines
Maybach - Wikipedia

 

[Shortround6]

Advantage might be that, in a country well established in making aircraft engines en masse and in a reliable fashion, but not making tanks en masse, a factory tooled for aircraft engines can quickly switch production between aircraft and tank engines. Just like it was the case with US industry.

The US didn't do a whole lot of switching back and forth. Wright provided engines before WW II for the light(?)and Medium tanks, These were the Whirlwind engines of which there were 7 and 9 cylinder versions. R-760 and R-975. Most (all?) of the Production light tanks up until the M3A3 actually got Continental R-670s.
Continental also built the Wright R-975 for tank use. According to Wiki Wright built about 7,000 R-975s, Continental built about 53,000.

Wright did provide the R-1820s used in the M6 Heavy tank but since only 40 of those were made it's impact on engine production was minor.

Wright did very little shifting back and forth between aircraft engines and tank engines.

Continental, in addition to making light (and Medium?) aircraft engines was a commercial engine maker with at least 21 engines in it's catalog in March of 1940. They ranged from a 26hp 69 cu in four cylinder to a 138hp, 501 cu in 6 cylinder. They were for industrial, bus and truck use.

The US engine scene was much larger larger and more varied than it is now. But even with the US makers of large truck and Marine engines nothing was really suitable for tanks
Or production was already spoken for.

 

[Shortround6]

Maybachs were originally zeppelin engines

Maybach may have built Zeppelin engines but the tank engines were not really derived from the Zeppelin engines.

 

[rednev]

The germans used high speed diesel engines in their s boats the british an americans used petrol engines in their mtb and pt boats.
Similar reasons the allies hadnt developed suitable diesel engines

 

[GrauGeist]

Having Maybach and Praga focus primarily on AFVs helped to keep the much-needed aircraft engines going to aircraft.

By the way, Daimler's MB500 series marine diesels were based on the DB600 engine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I find it interesting that the Italians used diesels in their tanks instead of designing something off of their aircraft engines. With a limited industrial base, Italy seems a good candidate for consolidation of designs across services.