Including buses that weighed less than a tank, had more room to mount the engine and cooling systems, more room for the simpler transmissions
It is not just the engine power tank designers had to look at, it was industrial capacity and capability, fitting the damn engines, transmission and everything else in an armoured box of a certain size (look at the covenanter and the cooling problems it had), cooling etc etc etc. The UK had diesel engined tanks in 1939 the problem was getting compact engines powerful enough to move the heavier vehicles at decent speeds.
The Soviet diesels were massive and took a great deal of space in the engine compartment. And diesel technology lagged behind gasoline in automotive performance without more sophisticated turbo-diesel technologies that are now virtually standard on everything from small passenger cars like the VW Rabbit/Jetta (in the States) to heavy construction equipment. Diesels give a good bit more torque and are more fuel efficient, but those buses you mentioned were very slow off the mark and probably had very bad initial acceleration - not exactly an enticing feature for combat AFV’s. The Soviets also didn’t particularly care for long term durability of diesel tank engines, as they didn’t have a lot of expectations on long term survivability…
Here’s something I’ve found addressing your points:
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Marine and submarine diesels of 1600 or more HP were available. However, they were slow revving, making them large and heavy for their ouput, with weights about 15 to 20 lb/HP, contrasting with the aero and mobile application (i.e. truck and agricultural) engine weights of 2.5 to 5 lb/HP.
You’re obviously aware of the water cooled GM 6046 rated up to 420 HP. It was literally two truck engines mounted together, they could work independently in some installations. Here’s a manual on eBay closing in 3 days. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/GM-MODEL-…
Probably would have been possible to find larger in-line diesel from agricultural or truck application, and mount side by side like the GM. Or, just lengthen the GM unit to 8 cylinders.
There was also an (up to) 450HP Cat D200A in the M4A6. This was a special long version of the Sherman, presumably because the engine was so big. It was an aircooled conversion of a Wright aero engine. There were gasoline versions up to 1500 HP, so uprating this engine would probably have been your best bet. It was used at 900HP in the M6. The M6 was delayed as there was no suitable transmission available, so that is another challenge you would have faced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
The US Army generally did not use diesels. The diesel tanks, tank destroyers, and artillary tugs were sent to the UK/Commonwealth nations, USSR, or the US Marines. The Marines used diesel in some landing craft, so were OK with diesel fuel. The Marines were chiefly involved in the Pacific theater, with some Army support. Some sources indicate the diesels were basically only used because there was a general shortage of most tank engines.
Certainly possible to stack the (up to) 350HP Guiberson. However, bulky, so the tank would need to be extra long and/or high. Cooling could also be an issue. Crank probably not strong enough to transmit power through one engine to the transmission, so probably very complicated transmission (though you could probably beef it up to accomodate load.)
Also, realize that the US and USSR philosophy was to standardize on a few decent machines, and produce in quantity. The Germans were less standard oriented, but were not able to match the quantities produced by the US or Russia.
But, why do you have to have a diesel? Early models of the Sherman brewed up easily, but despite many claims that the fuel was the problem, the gas fuel was not the major factor in this. It brewed up largely because the ammo was stored in lightly armored sponsons over the tracks. Later models relocated the ammo or used wet storage to fix. Other tanks were also gas powered and not especially easy to brew up. The M26 was gas powered, up through early versions of the M60, I believe. They were not especially known for brewing up, nor were the Panther and Tiger tanks, all gas powered.
The GM diesel was rated for 420 bHP, the Ford engines the Sherman often used were upwards of 450-HP…
[ British didn`t want them? or even Detroit-Diesel mills to power their own tanks?] -Detroit Diesels, which were a new, powerful 2-stroke unit, built by G.M., capable of modular unitization[ meaning that use of cylinders of the same displacement in increasing multiples ie 6/71 -six cyl of 71 c.i. or 8-12-16/71] that provides plenty of power, as needed by large heavy units like boats & fast heavy road transport…
…including Greyhound buses, which as U.S. interstate/continental transport are in a very different league from a London doubledecker…
See above. What may be fine for a civil application such as public transport may not have been good enough for military applications in this case…
South Africa still has Oliphants in service some of which were essentially new tanks based on the Centurion design (Oliphant 1b and 2). The old girls were getting long in the tooth though and I believe our AVRE’s were the last Meteor engined gun tanks in service.
Thanks for that info Nickdfresh & Leccy, some good stuff threaded in there…
Except that, since the Detroit Diesels were used, they must have passed mil acceptance tests…& its the torque output, rather than hp that really matters, when it come to shifting high inertia machines…
Also of interest is the cross-over of automatic-type tranmissions from commercial vehicles to tanks, beginning during that period, & more user friendly steering controls too…
The German Tiger Tank was the most feared vehicle tank throughout the war. Sadly only around 1.750 were ever produced becuase of the amount of recources required to produce and fuel them. None the less they were the best tank of the war.
Indeed. A handful of truly modern tanks did see service of a sort (Centurion and maybe M26). I certainly wouldn’t call the Tiger modern - you could argue the Panther, but IMHO the Tiger looks more backward to WW1 anf the British “I” tanks than forward to today.
I will agree that the tiger was, despite being very obsolete, a close relative of the Cold War NATO MBT’s . But the Tiger has little (aside from the features mentioned in my previous post) in common with The Challenger II, Leopard II, or the Abrams series. The Panther, and Tiger II foreshadowed the Rudiments of MBT’s of the 60’s, and were left with them in the dust of History once Chobham came along.
You need to quantify statements like that, Tigers did not enter service until the third year of the war, in 1939/40 the Matilda Senior and Char B1 worried the Germans, the Matilda Senior scared and confounded the Italians and even the Germans at the start in North Africa.
The T34 and KV1,s caused huge problems in 1941 till 42.
The Lee/Grant worried the Germans in 1942 then the Sherman did. The Churchill was feared in Tunisia and Italy in 1942/43 for its ability to get where no other vehicle could.
Post war the tiger gained a mythical reputation, during the war Panzer III and IV were mis-identified as Tigers.
Many tanks caused panic in their day, the Tiger I gained a huge post war reputation with many myths coming about (many of which have been shown wrong as has the Panther), Wittmans and the likes kill records being attributed to him as a Tiger commander when for much of his service he commanded StuG’s and Panzer III.
Hitler’s concept of having a qualitatively superior MBT in terms of defensive/offensive/mobility
characteristics is common to modern Western MBTs…
Mounting a gun capable of destroying enemy targets at ranges where the vehicle is largely proof against
counter-measures, is the key, since both heavily armoured, but poorly gunned British Matilda tanks & poorly equipped [as effective fighting machines] Soviet tanks didn’t yet have the solution worked out…
Panther was a more efficacious overall device, but I doubt many Panzer-waffen commanders would trade on a 1-to-1 basis, or that most opposition would prefer to face down the big 'un…
While those criteria may satisfy your definition of the term “concept” the Tiger fell well short of being superior in any real sense. It was derivative of older designs, being different only in that it was just larger, and much heavier. It was not more reliable, or even moderately reliable. Only in the best conditions could it be used with any hope of exploiting its few assets. And even in this narrow spectrum of best conditions it was slow, and more than vulnerable to aircraft attack even if it didn’t break down. The Panther far exceeded the Tiger I in innovative design features, though this did not make it a truly superior tank in the practical sense, as for every good point it may have had there were equal numbers of acute flaws. A truly superior fighting vehicle will not have such flaws as leave it vulnerable to those “lesser” adversaries it has to face.
All of the pro’s, and con’s of the Panther’s and both Tigers has been extensively discussed in this, and other threads, so no need to quote chapter, and verse. Long story short, I see what you mean, but I politely disagree that any of those vehicles were superior in their time, nor represent the same degree of advancement over their contemporary adversaries as do present day NATO MBT’s to theirs.
The Tiger was a rehash of pre-war designs in response to the British Matilda’s, French Char B1 and Souma S35 which were in their day superior to anything Germany had in terms of armour and firepower.
The Matilda was only poorly gunned when it came to 1941 by which time it was outclassed as it was outdated, comparing it to the Tiger I in its day as a comparable vehicles is useless, they were built for very different jobs.
My reply was pointing out that the Tiger could not be the most feared tank throughout the war as it only entered service after 3 years of war and roughly 2 1/2 before the end of the war. It was that a general all en-compassing statement does not stand up to scrutiny and can be misleading.
In 1939/40 the Matilda Senior and Char B1 were probably the most powerful tanks in service in the west (with the Matilda Senior probably winning in tank combat).
The T34 outclassed every tank the Germans had in 1940 (never mind the KV1) but it had glaring faults as well which made it less effective than it could have been.
The Western Allies were complacent about the Tiger to a large extent with 3 being knocked out by 6 pounders in quick order in Tunisia so maybe did not respond as well as they could and should have quickly enough.
I think you mean “Panzerwaffe” and the commanders didn’t have a choice between the T-34 and the Panther, which was evidence of Germany’s strategic failure to continue with tank development after the Fall of France and a failure of their intelligence to adequately inform them of Soviet capabilities. Only 6000 or so Panthers were ever produced and large numbers of T-34’s were pressed into German service. The Panther was to a large extent based on the T-34 in terms of bettering its attributes of cross country mobility, firepower, and armor protection…
I think German R&D plus actual productuion capability were beyond what they could actually support.
Result was a mish-mash of fair to near excellent fighting vehicles.
They fooled around with odd-ball designs when that was a true luxery that cost them needlessly.
For all the noted efficiency they are credited with, they had a marked lack of cooperation within.
I think the Panther was an excellent compromise and should have been exploited to a greater extent.
My only detraction is the interleaved suspension which caused many problems, both in maintenance and reliability.
More resources to addrss that would have been positive.
I’m glad many feel that the Tigers were impractical boogeymen whose reputation far outweighed their presence.
You must understand that the fighting ability of armoured units is due to far more than the simple idea of gun/armour.
The ability of the Nazi panzer arm to defeat nominally superior opponents such as the Matilda/T34 showed that
tactical proficiency inc’ communications & an effective fighting compartment were big factors…
The value of proficient team-work in each tank [ commander not having to do double duty as loader/gunner] within a practicable fighting space & with skills operating in coordination with its unit-members is recognised as vital today.
& so is the value of having your professional tankers feeling confident that they can take on & thrash the enemy,
Tiger-angst was a real factor…
So you’re quoting a fictional character created 25 years after the end of the war as an authority on how good a tank it was???
Eventually. When they first met them in Tunisia the fact that they were rapidly knocked out by 6pdr guns led to them being underestimated, making the later adjustment more painful - exacerbated by the very poor quality of British tank design before 1944/45.
LOL If we’re quoting films of the effectiveness of weapons, didn’t one of Oddball’s crewman call it (the Tiger they decided to commandeer) a “piece of junk” with “fuel leaking all over the place” IIRC? Negative waves, baby…negative waves…
