Jump to content


Best engine in a tank of WWII


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

del1000075029 #21 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 22:08

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 129
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Don't forget that V2 engined was used in one form or other in the BT7, T34/76, T34/85, KV1, KV2, KV85, IS, IS2, T55. T54, T64, T62 and all their sub variants.  Possibly also the BT4, but I'm not sure about that.

theta0123 #22 Posted Nov 03 2010 - 00:04

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Soviet equipment was made crudely, not with bad quality

The T-34 was a huge succes of an engine.

Twogun #23 Posted Mar 07 2011 - 05:19

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    03-07-2011
Note: The Sherman tanks sent to our Russian allies in WW2 were powered by the GM two stroke diesel that the guard units defending the Kremlin prefered over the T34. This engine was manufactured in the US well into the 1980s and is still in use today in many diiferant uses from trucks to marine apps. I can assure you it was much more reliable than the T34 V2 engine and would last a lot longer. Twogun

Asaiko #24 Posted Mar 07 2011 - 08:58

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 834 battles
  • 138
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010

View Postdapprman, on Oct 24 2010 - 10:26, said:

Did anyone aside from the Israeli's use the Centurion beyond the 1970s ?  The reason I ask is that in the Sho't used the Continental AVDS-1790-2A from the M48/M60 from the early 1960s onwards.
Centurions were still being used in Royal Artillery Regiments of the UK into the mid 70s to give Forward Observers in support of Armoured Regiments the ability to go forward with their supported arm. Deployed almost exclusively as part of BAOR in Germany. Ubique :)

colonelsandrs #25 Posted Oct 15 2011 - 19:12

    Private

  • Players
  • 7346 battles
  • 4
  • [GHOUL] GHOUL
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postdapprman, on Oct 25 2010 - 21:49, said:

As others have effectively pointed out, it's the application the engine is used for that decides the vehicle type if you have a full range of options.  If the vehicle is going to slow moving, or pulling away from an idle stand still then diesel will win virtually every time.  If it's for high speed,  and high acceleration through the gears, then you want petrol.

For example, from an idle revving stand still (so no build up revs and drop the clutch) I know my 115 bhp fiat multipla turbo diesel will hit ~ 20 mph (32 kmh) more quickly than my ~330 bhp mildly modified RX7 twin turbo.  And yes this does mean it's quicker and more nimble around town.  Hit the race track or country roads and obviously the end result is completely different.


colonelsandrs #26 Posted Oct 15 2011 - 19:20

    Private

  • Players
  • 7346 battles
  • 4
  • [GHOUL] GHOUL
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Everyone is talking about horsepower right now. In large vehicles, trucks, tanks, even ships, horsepower is of much less concern than torque. also, if an engine has lots of one but little of the other, that can be balanced using gearing.
Ex.: my F-350 with the 6.0l diesel makes about 300 hp and 550 ft/lbs of torque, but it is no tank engine. It is the GEARING that makes the difference, not what the engine would produce straight up, e.g. without gearbox, final drive etc. net HP and torque are far better measures.
with this in mind, my vote (somewhat regrettably) goes to the Chrysler A57. I would have said Caterpillar D200A but it was not a choice.
D200a is a diesel and diesels do produce more torque with less fuel.

Ducesettutamen #27 Posted Nov 07 2011 - 01:52

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 8132 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
As a former GM supervisor from a Powertrain plant I would have to throw my weight behind the GM 6046. Simply when it comes to the application of torque there is nothing out there like a straight 6 or straight 8. The fact that the 6046 was nothing more than a pair of Detroit 71s (the longest manufactured and most respected diesel engine in the world) makes it all the better. Maintenance on the engine was simple because it was well understood and a staple design of the American automotive industry. It was easily manufactured from existing lines requiring no retooling like the other engines. Beyond that the fact that critical damage to one half of the engine could be isolated and the tank still operated on the other. Maybe its not enough to keep you in combat, but being able to limp out of the line doesn't hurt your feelings any.

Teddy_Bear #28 Posted Nov 22 2011 - 22:05

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 5579 battles
  • 1,714
  • [DOOMD] DOOMD
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010

View Posttheta0123, on Oct 26 2010 - 22:32, said:

Yes a very good engine. But diesel engines>gasoline engines  :Smile_honoring:

Both where very good engines. And their designs where used post war alot.

I beg to differ, gasoline> Diesel. There is a reason why everyone except the Soviets used gasoline engines. The only real advantage of a diesel engine is the fuels's resistance to cold, which is why Russian tanks used it. Gasoline engines had been far better for the engine itself, provided a superior amount of energy for what was burned, was cheaper, cleaner, far quieter, did not give off excessive fumes (which gave away a tank's position) and many other advantages. Diesel engines of today are a different breed all together than the engines of yesterday.

Lunaris #29 Posted Nov 22 2011 - 22:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8216 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
The German cant use Diesel because they cant produce them.

Late version of Sherman also use diesel engine. One of the Patton tank also use diesel.