@@jamesberry3230 They are not part of the British story, therefore of academic interest only. What he failed to mention was the current plight of MBT manufacture in Great Britain. The failure of HM Gov to maintain a strategically vital industry.
My paternal grandfather was all too closely familiar with the engine in his MkIV female. The underpowered and extremely smoky Daimler sleeve-valve engine used in the MkI to IV ~ was made worse by the military’s system of fuel allocation. The highest octane fuel went to aircraft, middle rated fuel to staff cars and transport whilst the grotty old 45 octane was deemed suitable to tractors and the like ~ including tanks. The MkIV did have a more reliable fuel delivery system in the form of the ‘Autovac’ and the use of a ‘proper’ exhaust system certainly improved matters for the crew, whereas the earliest models lacked any real engine exhaust system at all, the gases just venting through slots in the roof above the engine. The conditions must have been appalling! My grandfather’s tank was knocked out by a German field gun ~possibly a 7.5cm or 7.7cm ~ which detonated in the engine block, utterly destroying the tank and showering my grandfather in burning engine oil. Even though he passed away in the mid 1960s when I was only 6 or 7, I can still remember the burn scars on him. I’ve always regretted that I wasn’t quite old enough to actually talk to him about his experiences. Those first tank crews were real trail-blazers ~ real tough buggers too!
@@toomanyuserids Yes, that is true in many cases, but just occasionally I’ve spoken to veterans who will talk. One was my first mother-in-law’s for lack of a better term, ‘boyfriend’. He’d been in mine clearance and bomb disposal in WW2. What he saw and experienced in the Western desert just increased my admiration for the ‘greatest generation’. Being lowered down a well in the desert to remove corpses dumped down there to, let’s say, ‘pollute’ the all-too valuable water was bad enough ~ but many of the corpses were booby-trapped too. He was the only member of his squad to survive the campaign. Then again, there was the ex-Luftwaffe fighter pilot who regularly flew into the airport in the U.K. where I worked in air traffic control in the 1970’s & 80’s. Great guy. There was a Polish guy on the airfield who had his own crop-spraying firm using Ag-Cats if I remember correctly. We often wondered if there would be any lingering animosity if they ever met, but apparently not. They arranged to meet in the flight briefing office one day and the German guy said, ‘Ah, Ladislav! Let’s go to the bar, have a drink and talk about f-ing stupid war!’ And so they did. Hope springs eternal…
@@davidpope3943 Thanks for that. In particular, I wondered just what octane rating the period fuels were. A Model T Ford had 4 to 1 compression for a reason. I was told restored WWI aircraft engines work better with naptha gas,call it Coleman fuel,than with modern 100LL avgas. The burn curve of the petrol ,the very engineering designed into the engines is based on that burn curve. At least it makes sense to me. I knew a number of WWII vets when young. My father had no desire to revisit his RCN Navy memories. Some would talk,but only amusing moments. I do wish I had the sense to get those who would talk to speak into a cassette tape recorder microphone. There was a WWI vet with an amazing story. He was deck gun crew on a British submarine,and the U boat was shooting back. A shell had incomplete detonation at the seat of his pants. The splinters worked out for decades,he literally had shoeboxes full of metal from his body. His wife threw them out when he retired. With that damage,nevertheless his plumbing worked,he sired three children and kept a full time job. The only thing he could not do was go through a metal detector. Very matter of fact,that tale told nowadays would cause jaws to drop. I sure wish the full story of his service and his civilian aftermath got written down. Real survivors,they were.
I'd love a video on "evolutionary dead ends" in tank design. Ideas that may have worked for a generation or two but didn't have staying power. The first that comes to mind are the oscillating turrets of the AMX designs, or maybe even earlier ideas about multiple turrets. And how many designs have you seen where there is a major secondary armament like a coaxial 20 or 30mm cannon that never makes it to production. I think this would be a fantastic video, or series of videos.
Obviously the biggest one is the entire concept and role of tank destroyers. Hugely important during ww2, they lingered on for a decade or so after before being entirely abandoned once mbts started being fitted with 100+MM guns.
@@samwise1790No, the tank destroyer never went away, it just became the ATGM carrier/overwatch vehicle. Many militaries still field those, in various forms. Fitting launchers for missiles instead of using a big gun is far more practical, as the vehicle can be smaller, lighter, and cost a lot less. Also, the fact that a modern anti-tank gun would be a ginormous 140mm calibre beast makes mounting a gun on any light vehicle unworkable.
@@86pp73 Also doctrine dependent. Some countries might prefer a casemate tank destroyer if their geography demands it (look at Sweden with the STRV103s for example. Although in the end they still replaced them with leopards.) But yeah, the TD never went away, it just swapped its big 120 and 150mm guns (if you're crazy like the Germans and the British) their 170 and 183mm guns for ATGMS on smaller and lighter chassis that are faster too. And then you have the US reintroducing the Assault Gun in the form of the M10 Booker because of Doctrinal Requirements. A nation's military doctrine (whether its air, ground or sea) determines the type of vehicle that country will invest in. So far in the modern world, Casemate Tank Destroyers like we saw in WWII and subsequently the 1950s (Like the JagdPz. 4-5) pretty much disappeared because we have no need for them.
ปีที่แล้ว
That is a good Idear. I am lifting that for my channel :)
I believe it's common knowledge and we combine them into the mobility department. That said I agree I'd like to see a portion of this video dedicated struggles the early transmissions had and how we overcame.
Tank engine design seems to be rather difficult; once an engine is finally debugged, there is a tendency to stick with it for as long as absolutely possible. You touched on it with the Soviet V-2 diesel, but the Ford GAA and RR Meteor went on to power tanks well into the Cold War. The Continental AVDS-1790 is a good Cold War example.
The Germans had an all new engine design slated for the Royal Tiger... but the Allies bombed the factory into oblivion. So... they had to use what they had.
Some engines just work like some cannons which is another part of the equation. We keep using the same 90mm gun from the M26 Pershing to the M48 Patton and early M1 Abrams had the M68 our copy of the Royal Ordnance L7 (mainly because the planned 120mm cannon from Rheinmetall was still being developed).
One of my favourite TH-cam channels. This is how a museum should use its material. How much we could learn if all museums took their own subject this seriously
Another excellent presentation from the Tank Museum. Well done. I learn more with each new class, thank you professor. The Chieftain was one of my favorite British tanks to bad the engine was so unreliable. Britain tried to meet the NATO requirements for a multi fuel engine then Germany and the US just disregard that and went ahead with diesel powered tanks. Imagine how good the Chieftain would have been with good reliable diesel.
@@dongiovanni4331Yeah the US didn’t really abandon the multi-fuel requirement it just took a while to get one in a tank. The first tank the US used a multi-fuel engine in was supposed to be the MBT-70 which got cancelled due to many factors but primarily because the thing was expensive and there were disagreements between the US and West Germans who were co-developing it. The M60 Patton was put in service during development but after the MBT-70 got canceled, the resources were redirected to make the M1 Abrams which had the turbine multi-fuel engine first intended for the MBT-70.
Chris is such an awesome presenter and orator, he explains subjects brilliantly and im thoroughly enjoying his latest videos, keep them coming as they are outstanding! 😊
While working on a generator I have had to climb inside a steel box with an 8.1L diesel engine on load a few times. Even with hearing protection and sound insulation on the inside of the casing, it was insanely loud and I did wonder how that would have compared to a WW1 tank. My conclusion is it would be chaotic, hot and deafening, but I`m sure it would have been better inside than outside, barely.
Even being in crews of more modern tanks like the M60 and Abrams, being inside the turret with the engine running was deafening (hence why we wore our CVC helmets all the time). I can’t imagine what it would be like an early MkI or MKIV.
On the L60. The multi-fuel requirement goes back to 1957-59. The US and Germany also agreed to it early on before dropping it. The L60 worked, but things got rushed.
Nothing to do with the fact that Leyland were an abyssal company and went out of business because of their systemic ineptitude. The L60 didn't work, it was garbage.
2:18 I don't know if much of you lived in a city where it would get 40ºC in the summer but I lived. You can get all naked and not move at all and you'd still sweat like a pig on a bonfire, I can't imagine the disconfort inside one of those WWI tanks if it really got to 45ºC in there.
South Africa upgraded each Centurion with a 29-litre Continental turbocharged diesel engine and a new transmission adopted from the M60 Patton.[87] The refurbished Centurions were also armed with a South African variant of the Royal Ordnance L7 105 mm main gun.[87] in 1985.[87]
Another great video. As a REME fitter/mechanic in the 1980's the L60 was infamous.. Such a shame that such a great tank was let down by such a piece of junk in the form of the L60. 😢
Quickly becoming my favorite channel, hope to visit the museum one day!!
ปีที่แล้ว
I think this was an excellent Video. The Tank museum is uniqly well placed to do such videos because you have all the important historical artifacts there ready and waiting as illustrativ aids.
I am glad you mentioned the Leyland L60. It's such an awesome and unique idea but was a premature technology. It has opposing pistons which meeting in the middle and fire away from each other to increase RPM and efficiency. A downside is that it requires two crank shafts. I wish it was developed further.
I don't think the technology was premature. Have a search for the Commer Double knocker engine, which also sounds more similar to the L60 than any other engine.
@@webtoedman My Granddad worked on them! He designed the governor for the Hi-Dyne engines while working at Paxman Diesels, and then ended up working with the chaps in Lancaster on the DP1. Incredible, I had almost forgotten about all of that.
Some Junkers aircraft of WW2 has opposed piston diesels, the Jumo 205 and onwards. The design is more compact than a conventional four stroke diesel engine in that it has no cylinder heads or valvetrain so is more simple. Being two stroke it is at least supercharged and in some cases turbo charged as well. The two stroke firing also adds to smaller size for similar power output when compared to a four stroke engine. As for the Leyland unit I am puzzled how you get a diesel to run on petrol and aviation Kero with out the wizardry of computerized timing control or variable valve timing as a drastic reduction in compression ratio would be needed for the lighter fuels.
Some time back I watched a hot rod building show on TV and the guy had huge gasoline engine out of a Sherman tank. He had the instruction book from the tank and it described how to properly warm the engine up. Start up, run at like 2000 rpm for 10 minutes. That should consume around 8 gallons of fuel. I thought , what kind of fuel tank they have, 500 gallons? 8 gallons just to warm it up.
Honestly the Sherman is one of my favorite tanks not only because I am American, but because it shows how versatile a tank can be. From a standpoint of logistics having most of your vehicles using the same chassis or components is everyone’s dream because it keeps things simple. The Sherman was one of the best examples as you had many variants as tank destroyers and in other specialized roles but also because the main tank was fitted so many different engines and weapon systems and other equipment. It was like a blank canvas for people to make developments on.
@@DrLoverLover No the Sherman. It has far more variants to see service and had different engines fitted within during its operational life. The T-34 kept using the same old Kharkov V-2 engine the Soviets used in almost every tank from the BT-7M to the T-90.
As an American I have just the opposite view. I always thought putting an air cooled radial gasoline aircraft engine in an enclosed vehicle like a tank, was a really bad idea for a number of obvious reason. I understand some of the reasons why they used it, and that monstrosity of the Chrysler engine, but the big Ford V8 was the preferred engine by everyone. But they had to work with what they could get. The Russians got it right with their diesel. That was one of the reasons why the T--34 was such a great overall package. Which history has shown us is the best way to go. Even recently there have been ideas floating around of converting the M1 to a diesel.
Great video. I really enjoyed it. Would love to see more videos about internal workings of tank engines and transmissions and other internal systems. Cheers!
Weird fact: The Russians have used a modified version of the German SLA-18 (Ferdinand engine) for their T-14 Amarta. But like the original engine, this also has been beset with problems, one T-14 breaking down on a Victory Day parade.
@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093No they didn’t. Therr is no proof anywhere on the internet they did that except from some guy on a forum lol. Multiple youtubers even called him out on it.
I do like these videos. Not because I'm a warmongering fool, but because very often they cover pieces of equipment that I was very familiar with, or, one of my ancestors was. History (a very boring subject for many) has shown (dare I say taught?) that mankind can make the same mistakes over and over again, and that, on many occasions it takes the blood of heroes, villains and civilians to resolve many issues. A few have commented on the 'lost stories' of veterans, or, the veterans reluctance to share. It's been my experience that veterans will share/talk to either other veterans or younger 'operatives'. Organisations like the British Legion and other Regimental-like associations are vital for this. Thanks for the vid, and thanks to all those who contributed below. God bless
Another awesome video. Perhaps you could have talked a bit about turbines considering the Abrams uses it (such a relevant tank in the last decades) and the Soviets also decided to have a go at it. Sill a lot of great content and I understand it is British oriented.
I was hoping to learn more on the turboshaft engine in the Abrams since it is so different from other tank engines, can you include that in future videos?
Three topics that I would like to have covered: 1) the effect of strategic materials (or lack/shortage thereof) on tank design 2) the effect of high-tech production/development capacity on tank design, and 3) anti-aircraft tanks and related vehicles, and how they relate to their conventional counterparts.
Early tank engines are so unique. Either special engines got “dumbed down” like aircraft engines into a tank, like a Continental radial or Meteor V12 Or boring reliable straight 6 engines become a 30 cylinder Chrysler Multibank or Bedford flat 12. And some tanks even got engines meant for the job like a Double Detroit Sherman. Just awesome stuff.
Great video and outstanding discussion. Any chance of a similar presentation on tank suspension? My fascination with tracked armor focuses on suspension, steering, and vision (slots, protectoscopes, periscopes, etc). Guns, armor, and combat not so much. Thanks for the education on engines!
I have the impression that tank engine application was driven more by "what is available" or "what can be adapted" rather than engines developed expressly for tanks. What would be the important characteristics for a tank engine- torque, the ability to use available fuels, reliability? Aircraft engine development during WWII was a furious race to keep ahead of the other guy- down to tearing down engines and sampling fuels from crashed enemy planes to see what they were using. Were captured tanks and other vehicles given the same treatment?
@@aaronleverton4221 they do have(or had) a Gas Turbine powered tank in the Tank Museum I swear they made a video on the T-80 and Explained it's gas turbine engine. Plus apart from Germany, Britain would be one of the first countries to get to use gas turbine/Turbojet propulsion for their aircraft, the Meteor, which would give them familiarity with turbine propulsion since Late war Germany even attempted to experiment with Gas Turbine Tank Engines with modified BMW-003s.
@@raymartcarreon6069 Please don't take this the wrong way, but your point about the T80 doesn't rebut what I said and I know all about Sir Frank Whittle.
I think turbines are a dead end with no advantages and several disadvantages. They are way more expensive to produce, fuel consumption is far higher than a diesel and no more reliable. They once had the advantage of being compact for their power output, but that is no longer the case. If the Americans produce a new line of tanks, I doubt it will have a turbine.
Another factor with tank engines is also the weight. The heavier the engine the more the tank increases in weight and so the more power that’s needed to get it going. That’s why some engines were developed from aircraft engines because they are both light and powerful, like the rotary engine in the M3 Lee/Grant, the M3 Stuart, and the M4 Sherman, the Meteor engine that several British tanks used, or even the turbine that the M1 Abrams uses.
And weight distribution. If the engine is shoved as far in the back as possible, it'll exert greater leverage on the chassis than in the middle, where space is at a premium.
You gotta love how for decades the solution for finding a good engine for tank was "let's take a look at what airforce has right now and derate it" and then with the coming of jet age that just stopped... Also it's still fascinating how WWI tank era ended with 400hp Liberty and then that engine served through (at least half of) WWII like no big deal.
It took me many years to realise that in the 1930s, the tank had an engine requirement that meant it needed a specifically-deigned engine: truck engines were too small and weak, plane engines were converted, but usually were far from ideal (wrong layout, too sophisticated, and needed for aeroplanes). So in the 30s they are trying to work out suspension and engine solutions without really being able to repurpose familiar civilian methods. Tanks advance quickly once torsion bars and proper 500hp-class engines appear. This is more subtle than the simple gun size/armour thickness/top speed triangle we think about.
13:57 Multi fuel engines usually run on either petrol or diesel. AvGas is simply aviation petrol, usually higher octane than road petrol. AvTur is aviation gas turbine fuel more like paraffin than diesel (i'm not clever enough to explain the difference between diesel and paraffin) and I guess you meant to say AvTur rather than AvGas and that it could run on paraffin. Commercial gas turbine jet engines run on Jet A1 which is pretty much the same as AvTur because AvTur is simply the military name for it (AvTag is similiar to AvTur)
V2 engine family is way bigger than that, its variants were powering most mass produced Soviet/Russian tanks all the way to T-90. Its 6 and 10 cylinder variants are powering BMP/BMD IFVs. V2 variants can be found in SPGs, engineering vehicles, SAM systems, heavy transporters − they're everywhere.
I realize that it's not a British design, and that you may not have one at the museum, but I am surprised that you didn't close with the Honeywell AGT1500.
I suspect it is a non-debatable tenet of belief in the tank community that German heavy tanks were underpowered. Although it is probably not decent to attack someone's religion, I'll give a few numbers to consider (although there may be versions with more powerful engines as well): - Churchill: 8.3 hp/t - Tiger II: 10 hp/t - M26 : 10.7 hp/t - IS 2: 11.2 hp/t - IS 3: 11.2 hp/t - Tiger I: 11.3 hp/t - KV 1: 12.6 hp/t I think it becomes clear that the German heavy tanks had a completely contemporary performance. Even medium tanks like the PzKw IV or M4 hardly had more in some variants (let's not even talk about British infantry tanks here). Yes, the Russian tanks, which are praised for their mobility, were rather in the upper range and actually had about 1-2 hp/t more than the Tiger II but in part less than the Tiger I. To speak here of an outstanding underpowering even of the Tiger II can therefore, in my opinion, only be honoured as a counterfactual truth of faith.
great stuff mobility an interesting topic, where I live I regularly see armour travelling past on transporters. A feature on transport may be interesting, prime movers, trains etc.
Great video on an important part of tank design. I never could figure out why they didn't turn to a properly designed diesel engine for Chieftain after the multi-fuel failed so badly at the start, but I guess there's a lot of inertia and 'sunk cost fallacy' so no one wanted to make the call (?).
It's a long story. If you can, get the Haynes Chieftain tank manual. The Tank Museum shop stocks it. It gives you a full and very interesting breakdown (no pun intended!) of the tangled development of the L60.
Leyland were a small to medium sized producer of staid but reliable commercial vehicles and busses. Unfortunately for them, from 1947 to 1979, the British governments were tied to a "Socialism Lite" policy which involved amalgamation of firms in the same industry into nationalised entities, then allocating contracts according to non competitive, political criteria. Leyland drew the short straw. Why Napier, who had deep expertise in two stroke diesel manufacture didn't get the job remains a mystery.
I would like to hear more specifics about tank transmissions and steering systems, since it's very different from automobiles that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. the continuous track requires differential steering, which means that there are no front wheels to turn and you steer by having one track move faster than the other. the steering systems themselves are an essential function of the transmission. this all has an effect on mobility, but the transmission is probably the most crucial element, because they can be surprisingly prone to failure. of course nowadays the engine and the transmission are combined into a powerpack, which is easier to replace as a whole. someone else has to determine, what was faulty, while the tank marches on with a new powerpack. when it comes to upgrading older tanks, a new powerpack is probably one of the first things done and the video should offer reasons why. in the video differences between gasoline, diesel and multifuel engines were mentioned, but gas turbines and opposed-piston engines (like the Leyland L60) could have been mentioned as well and compared to more conventional diesel engines, but time is a finite resource. the different steering systems are the reason why some tanks had two engines (one for each track) for example and to give another example some tanks can neutral steer due to their steering system, while others cannot, although even without neutral steering the turning radius of a tracked vehicle is still a lot smaller compared to a wheeled vehicle. I would say that while the engine affects the mobility of the tank, it is crucial to note that the ability to use different fuels and fuel efficiency are important characteristics of the engine, since they determine the range (with the volume of the fuel tanks) of the tank and some of its logistical requirements (i.e. fuel). another absolute essential part of the mobility off-road is the suspension of the tracks, but it might be better to focus on one thing at a time and talk about tank suspensions some other time, although as yet another example I think many are familiar with the Christie suspension of the T-34. interestingly no modern tank uses it anymore, but that's enough, since this comment has far too many words already, I am well aware that the video is more about engines in particular rather than mobility in general and I do think that it's a very good video overall, so this is not a criticism in any way. I just think it's important to understand that mere engine power will not be useful without a robust transmission, which links the engine to the tracks. there have also been tanks with an electric drive, which means that there is an additional step, where the engine is used to generate electricity and that in turn is used to power electric motors that move the tracks. the advantage of such a system is usually the ability to move forwards or backwards at the same speed. now to return to the topic of transmission perhaps it would be good to remind how tanks can differ in the number of reverse gears and by extension their reverse speed, which has been a subject of discussion as the T-72 has a painfully slow reverse speed due to its gearing ratio, which maximizes torque at the expense of speed. on the other hand a Western upgrade like the Renk ESM 350 would give it 5 reverse gears instead of 1 and the ability to neutral steer. anyway that should be enough rambling about tanks for today.
I would like to here more about upgrades that were being worked on during the war that never made it into service like the Fuel injection system for the HL230
Man, I could listen to Chris all day. A wealth of information. I was hoping he would touch on the U.S. Abrams with the turbine engine. Great coverage otherwise.
Crucial to powering a main battle tank is that the tank has the ability to accelerate very quickly from a standing start out of its firing position. Therefore, engines that develop a high torque even at low revolutions offer a decisive advantage.
@9:47. There is no way that each of those 5 Chrysler engines produced 425 hp; the whole multibank is only about 370 hp. The engines were straight six flatheads of 4.1 litres (250 cu inch).
@@WalkaCrookedLinethe Ford GAA the long and short of it is that the engine was first intended by Ford to break into the aircraft engine market that didn’t work out. Their decision makes sense given their involvement in the automobile market and how you know the V8 us Americans loved were first made for aircraft for example. Specifically when World War II began the British were in America because they were in good terms despite the overall isolationism of the public in the latter nation. The British were looking for a US company to make the more complex components of the Rolls-Royce Merlin in the US for the war effort. The main problem was when they went to Packard, another manufacturer of luxury cars, they wanted to make the entire engine not be a subcontractor. The Brits eventually sent some production drawings of the Merlin across the pond at which point they got seized by the Treasury Department. Using the drawings Ford decided to break into the aviation market with a reverse-engineered version of the Merlin V12. There was a problem for Ford however. There wasn’t any demand. As the United States was preparing for war, the main customers would be the US Army Air Corps and the US Navy and neither were interested. The AAC was only interested in the engines from their established contractors. The Navy on the other hand didn’t want a V-12 as they preferred radial engines for their reliability since having a engine crap out over the ocean is a death sentence. However by this point the Army was relying on their established contractors for aircraft engines in tanks but with the war looming they were going to risk disrupting their supply of engines for tanks so they accepted the Ford GAA which is the Ford V-12 chopped down to serve as a V-8.
I find the history of soviet/russian engines pretty cool. Outside of the Abrahams Jet turbine I feel like they have a lot more cool engines that dont follow standard orientations or featuresets. Things like their X shaped engines, opposed piston engines, the smoke screen feature that uses rich exhaust etc. Lots of cool things related to engines.
I wish you guys could of went in deeper with how the older engines worked compare to why the newer modern ones use newer advances in petrol and engine technology with the camshafts, injection methods etc
the biggest grip I have is that you said that phrase. "quantity has a quality all of it's own" which I cannot believe in the slightest. I find that quality always wins wars and 'unfortunately' for Germany, it started to sacrifice quality with quantity towards to the end of the war; which is why so many tanks broke down or ran out of fuel and was unable to fight towards the end of the war. the M4 Sherman's were built to incredible quality which is why they were able to operate so much better than any German tank that had a seizure trying to keep up especially towards the end of the war when precious materials and good quality equipment was in such short supply. not to mention using forced labor isn't the most amazing idea when it comes to building sophisticated pieces of equipment that you intend to use against your foe. which is trying to end the tyrannical regime, that is keeping such forced labor enslaved.
Germany couldn’t afford quality nor quality. It leaned towards quality, because it didn’t have enough fuel for tens of thousands of PZ4’s and the support crews for them. They used slave labor where they could, but that was just so their soldiers had equipment to fight, even though the said soldiers were outnumbered like 2 or 3 to one.
We hope you enjoyed Chris' latest episode of Evolution. We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments down below! 😊
A pleasure to watch. Chris is really settling in well.
no mention of soviet engines like the 6 cylinder opposed piston engine of the T-54/55 or the Abrams turbine engine
@@jamesberry3230 good points.
I love his clear and concise presentation, good work!
@@jamesberry3230 They are not part of the British story, therefore of academic interest only. What he failed to mention was the current plight of MBT manufacture in Great Britain. The failure of HM Gov to maintain a strategically vital industry.
My paternal grandfather was all too closely familiar with the engine in his MkIV female. The underpowered and extremely smoky Daimler sleeve-valve engine used in the MkI to IV ~ was made worse by the military’s system of fuel allocation. The highest octane fuel went to aircraft, middle rated fuel to staff cars and transport whilst the grotty old 45 octane was deemed suitable to tractors and the like ~ including tanks. The MkIV did have a more reliable fuel delivery system in the form of the ‘Autovac’ and the use of a ‘proper’ exhaust system certainly improved matters for the crew, whereas the earliest models lacked any real engine exhaust system at all, the gases just venting through slots in the roof above the engine. The conditions must have been appalling!
My grandfather’s tank was knocked out by a German field gun ~possibly a 7.5cm or 7.7cm ~ which detonated in the engine block, utterly destroying the tank and showering my grandfather in burning engine oil. Even though he passed away in the mid 1960s when I was only 6 or 7, I can still remember the burn scars on him. I’ve always regretted that I wasn’t quite old enough to actually talk to him about his experiences.
Those first tank crews were real trail-blazers ~ real tough buggers too!
wow amazing story man, thank you for sharing
Many wouldn't want to talk much about wars. My uncle the F6F pilot was reluctant.
@@toomanyuserids Yes, that is true in many cases, but just occasionally I’ve spoken to veterans who will talk. One was my first mother-in-law’s for lack of a better term, ‘boyfriend’. He’d been in mine clearance and bomb disposal in WW2. What he saw and experienced in the Western desert just increased my admiration for the ‘greatest generation’. Being lowered down a well in the desert to remove corpses dumped down there to, let’s say, ‘pollute’ the all-too valuable water was bad enough ~ but many of the corpses were booby-trapped too. He was the only member of his squad to survive the campaign. Then again, there was the ex-Luftwaffe fighter pilot who regularly flew into the airport in the U.K. where I worked in air traffic control in the 1970’s & 80’s. Great guy. There was a Polish guy on the airfield who had his own crop-spraying firm using Ag-Cats if I remember correctly. We often wondered if there would be any lingering animosity if they ever met, but apparently not. They arranged to meet in the flight briefing office one day and the German guy said,
‘Ah, Ladislav! Let’s go to the bar, have a drink and talk about f-ing stupid war!’ And so they did.
Hope springs eternal…
@@ghxst7951 My pleasure. It was an honour just to have known him and other veterans.
@@davidpope3943 Thanks for that. In particular, I wondered just what octane rating the period fuels were. A Model T Ford had 4 to 1 compression for a reason. I was told restored WWI aircraft engines work better with naptha gas,call it Coleman fuel,than with modern 100LL avgas. The burn curve of the petrol ,the very engineering designed into the engines is based on that burn curve. At least it makes sense to me.
I knew a number of WWII vets when young. My father had no desire to revisit his RCN Navy memories. Some would talk,but only amusing moments. I do wish I had the sense to get those who would talk to speak into a cassette tape recorder microphone.
There was a WWI vet with an amazing story. He was deck gun crew on a British submarine,and the U boat was shooting back. A shell had incomplete detonation at the seat of his pants. The splinters worked out for decades,he literally had shoeboxes full of metal from his body. His wife threw them out when he retired. With that damage,nevertheless his plumbing worked,he sired three children and kept a full time job. The only thing he could not do was go through a metal detector. Very matter of fact,that tale told nowadays would cause jaws to drop. I sure wish the full story of his service and his civilian aftermath got written down. Real survivors,they were.
I'd love a video on "evolutionary dead ends" in tank design. Ideas that may have worked for a generation or two but didn't have staying power. The first that comes to mind are the oscillating turrets of the AMX designs, or maybe even earlier ideas about multiple turrets.
And how many designs have you seen where there is a major secondary armament like a coaxial 20 or 30mm cannon that never makes it to production.
I think this would be a fantastic video, or series of videos.
Obviously the biggest one is the entire concept and role of tank destroyers. Hugely important during ww2, they lingered on for a decade or so after before being entirely abandoned once mbts started being fitted with 100+MM guns.
@@samwise1790 I wouldn't say they disappeared entirely, they just started flying in the form of attack helicopters.
@@samwise1790No, the tank destroyer never went away, it just became the ATGM carrier/overwatch vehicle. Many militaries still field those, in various forms. Fitting launchers for missiles instead of using a big gun is far more practical, as the vehicle can be smaller, lighter, and cost a lot less. Also, the fact that a modern anti-tank gun would be a ginormous 140mm calibre beast makes mounting a gun on any light vehicle unworkable.
@@86pp73 Also doctrine dependent. Some countries might prefer a casemate tank destroyer if their geography demands it (look at Sweden with the STRV103s for example. Although in the end they still replaced them with leopards.) But yeah, the TD never went away, it just swapped its big 120 and 150mm guns (if you're crazy like the Germans and the British) their 170 and 183mm guns for ATGMS on smaller and lighter chassis that are faster too.
And then you have the US reintroducing the Assault Gun in the form of the M10 Booker because of Doctrinal Requirements. A nation's military doctrine (whether its air, ground or sea) determines the type of vehicle that country will invest in. So far in the modern world, Casemate Tank Destroyers like we saw in WWII and subsequently the 1950s (Like the JagdPz. 4-5) pretty much disappeared because we have no need for them.
That is a good Idear. I am lifting that for my channel :)
Transmissions and suspension are just as critical to mobility. Please cover that
And steering. Each one of those could be their own episode.
“They’re not important.”
-Ferdinand Porsche, 1942
@@yolkiandeji7649and that's why we got Henschel Tigers...not Porsche Tigers LOL
I believe it's common knowledge and we combine them into the mobility department. That said I agree I'd like to see a portion of this video dedicated struggles the early transmissions had and how we overcame.
That’s true but most tanks have been designed around the engine and the gun…
Really enjoying Chris as a host and his content.
Better than that battleship nostrils David who has a sharp intake of air between sentences. Putting you off.
"Oh, bugger, the Boiling Vessel is on fire!" Thanks again for these succinct and informative overviews of important tank concepts.
Tank engine design seems to be rather difficult; once an engine is finally debugged, there is a tendency to stick with it for as long as absolutely possible. You touched on it with the Soviet V-2 diesel, but the Ford GAA and RR Meteor went on to power tanks well into the Cold War. The Continental AVDS-1790 is a good Cold War example.
The Germans had an all new engine design slated for the Royal Tiger... but the Allies bombed the factory into oblivion. So... they had to use what they had.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 A good problem!
Car engine families can stick around for quite a while as well.
@@tz87854g series from Mitshubishi are this very example. You can't find it elsewhere but Mainland China...
Some engines just work like some cannons which is another part of the equation. We keep using the same 90mm gun from the M26 Pershing to the M48 Patton and early M1 Abrams had the M68 our copy of the Royal Ordnance L7 (mainly because the planned 120mm cannon from Rheinmetall was still being developed).
One of my favourite TH-cam channels. This is how a museum should use its material. How much we could learn if all museums took their own subject this seriously
Another excellent presentation from the Tank Museum. Well done. I learn more with each new class, thank you professor. The Chieftain was one of my favorite British tanks to bad the engine was so unreliable. Britain tried to meet the NATO requirements for a multi fuel engine then Germany and the US just disregard that and went ahead with diesel powered tanks. Imagine how good the Chieftain would have been with good reliable diesel.
The US would go on to field the Honywell ARG 1500 turbine engine, which is multifuel a decade or so later.
The one and only export customer specified the Leopard 1’s MTU engine, instead of the Leyland L60, according to my understanding.
@@dongiovanni4331Yeah the US didn’t really abandon the multi-fuel requirement it just took a while to get one in a tank. The first tank the US used a multi-fuel engine in was supposed to be the MBT-70 which got cancelled due to many factors but primarily because the thing was expensive and there were disagreements between the US and West Germans who were co-developing it. The M60 Patton was put in service during development but after the MBT-70 got canceled, the resources were redirected to make the M1 Abrams which had the turbine multi-fuel engine first intended for the MBT-70.
Noo, It’s 10PM and I have stuff to do tomorrow. Looks like I’ll have to watch in the morning...
yeah, that didnt happen.
Y ?
@@ew3612 yes, it did. I live on the other side of the world, where it is currently 7:43.
@@ew3612yeah no other parts of the world don't exist we all know this
Chris is such an awesome presenter and orator, he explains subjects brilliantly and im thoroughly enjoying his latest videos, keep them coming as they are outstanding! 😊
Thank you for all the top quality videos and sorry for not contributing before.
While working on a generator I have had to climb inside a steel box with an 8.1L diesel engine on load a few times. Even with hearing protection and sound insulation on the inside of the casing, it was insanely loud and I did wonder how that would have compared to a WW1 tank. My conclusion is it would be chaotic, hot and deafening, but I`m sure it would have been better inside than outside, barely.
Even being in crews of more modern tanks like the M60 and Abrams, being inside the turret with the engine running was deafening (hence why we wore our CVC helmets all the time). I can’t imagine what it would be like an early MkI or MKIV.
On the L60. The multi-fuel requirement goes back to 1957-59. The US and Germany also agreed to it early on before dropping it. The L60 worked, but things got rushed.
Nothing to do with the fact that Leyland were an abyssal company and went out of business because of their systemic ineptitude.
The L60 didn't work, it was garbage.
I've really enjoyed this series. I think it's good viewing for both enthusiasts and people with no prior knowledge.
2:18 I don't know if much of you lived in a city where it would get 40ºC in the summer but I lived. You can get all naked and not move at all and you'd still sweat like a pig on a bonfire, I can't imagine the disconfort inside one of those WWI tanks if it really got to 45ºC in there.
South Africa upgraded each Centurion with a 29-litre Continental turbocharged diesel engine and a new transmission adopted from the M60 Patton.[87] The refurbished Centurions were also armed with a South African variant of the Royal Ordnance L7 105 mm main gun.[87] in 1985.[87]
I heard the Rhodesians and South Africans were quite innovate, they designed world leading mobile armoured vehicles.
Another great video. As a REME fitter/mechanic in the 1980's the L60 was infamous.. Such a shame that such a great tank was let down by such a piece of junk in the form of the L60. 😢
I was the first person to drive a challenger 2 in service. I drove it off the transporter when it was delivered to the ScotsDG in Jan 1998.
I thoroughly enjoy Chris and his presentation - this was a really interesting video !
Quickly becoming my favorite channel, hope to visit the museum one day!!
I think this was an excellent Video. The Tank museum is uniqly well placed to do such videos because you have all the important historical artifacts there ready and waiting as illustrativ aids.
Thanks!
Very instructive channel. Thanks to Chris and the team.
I am glad you mentioned the Leyland L60. It's such an awesome and unique idea but was a premature technology. It has opposing pistons which meeting in the middle and fire away from each other to increase RPM and efficiency. A downside is that it requires two crank shafts. I wish it was developed further.
I don't think the technology was premature. Have a search for the Commer Double knocker engine, which also sounds more similar to the L60 than any other engine.
@@Daniel-S1 I haven't heard of that, I'll have a read. Cheers.
@@1992jamo Look up the Napier "Deltic" engines, the idea taken to its logical extreme.
@@webtoedman My Granddad worked on them! He designed the governor for the Hi-Dyne engines while working at Paxman Diesels, and then ended up working with the chaps in Lancaster on the DP1. Incredible, I had almost forgotten about all of that.
Some Junkers aircraft of WW2 has opposed piston diesels, the Jumo 205 and onwards. The design is more compact than a conventional four stroke diesel engine in that it has no cylinder heads or valvetrain so is more simple. Being two stroke it is at least supercharged and in some cases turbo charged as well. The two stroke firing also adds to smaller size for similar power output when compared to a four stroke engine. As for the Leyland unit I am puzzled how you get a diesel to run on petrol and aviation Kero with out the wizardry of computerized timing control or variable valve timing as a drastic reduction in compression ratio would be needed for the lighter fuels.
The quality of Chris' videos and the film crew's video production is outstanding, world class!
Some time back I watched a hot rod building show on TV and the guy had huge gasoline engine out of a Sherman tank. He had the instruction book from the tank and it described how to properly warm the engine up. Start up, run at like 2000 rpm for 10 minutes.
That should consume around 8 gallons of fuel.
I thought , what kind of fuel tank they have, 500 gallons?
8 gallons just to warm it up.
My favorites by far are the M4 Sherman radial and the Abrams turbine engine. Just radical yet effective. Always fascinating.
Honestly the Sherman is one of my favorite tanks not only because I am American, but because it shows how versatile a tank can be. From a standpoint of logistics having most of your vehicles using the same chassis or components is everyone’s dream because it keeps things simple. The Sherman was one of the best examples as you had many variants as tank destroyers and in other specialized roles but also because the main tank was fitted so many different engines and weapon systems and other equipment. It was like a blank canvas for people to make developments on.
@@emberfist8347 You mean the T34
@@DrLoverLover No the Sherman. It has far more variants to see service and had different engines fitted within during its operational life. The T-34 kept using the same old Kharkov V-2 engine the Soviets used in almost every tank from the BT-7M to the T-90.
@@emberfist8347 Yes, exactly
As an American I have just the opposite view. I always thought putting an air cooled radial gasoline aircraft engine in an enclosed vehicle like a tank, was a really bad idea for a number of obvious reason. I understand some of the reasons why they used it, and that monstrosity of the Chrysler engine, but the big Ford V8 was the preferred engine by everyone. But they had to work with what they could get. The Russians got it right with their diesel. That was one of the reasons why the T--34 was such a great overall package. Which history has shown us is the best way to go. Even recently there have been ideas floating around of converting the M1 to a diesel.
Great video. I really enjoyed it. Would love to see more videos about internal workings of tank engines and transmissions and other internal systems. Cheers!
A brilliant presentation - well done!
Weird fact: The Russians have used a modified version of the German SLA-18 (Ferdinand engine) for their T-14 Amarta.
But like the original engine, this also has been beset with problems, one T-14 breaking down on a Victory Day parade.
Thanks, I kept wondering where that engine came from.
@@xandervk2371 Learned via Lazerpig here on YT
@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093No they didn’t. Therr is no proof anywhere on the internet they did that except from some guy on a forum lol. Multiple youtubers even called him out on it.
This is a fascinating angle to view tank development history, Cheers.
I do like these videos. Not because I'm a warmongering fool, but because very often they cover pieces of equipment that I was very familiar with, or, one of my ancestors was.
History (a very boring subject for many) has shown (dare I say taught?) that mankind can make the same mistakes over and over again, and that, on many occasions it takes the blood of heroes, villains and civilians to resolve many issues.
A few have commented on the 'lost stories' of veterans, or, the veterans reluctance to share. It's been my experience that veterans will share/talk to either other veterans or younger 'operatives'.
Organisations like the British Legion and other Regimental-like associations are vital for this.
Thanks for the vid, and thanks to all those who contributed below.
God bless
Another awesome video. Perhaps you could have talked a bit about turbines considering the Abrams uses it (such a relevant tank in the last decades) and the Soviets also decided to have a go at it. Sill a lot of great content and I understand it is British oriented.
It's the Russian who adopted turbine first, right after WW2.
I was hoping to learn more on the turboshaft engine in the Abrams since it is so different from other tank engines, can you include that in future videos?
Another excellent, informative video!
Three topics that I would like to have covered:
1) the effect of strategic materials (or lack/shortage thereof) on tank design
2) the effect of high-tech production/development capacity on tank design, and
3) anti-aircraft tanks and related vehicles, and how they relate to their conventional counterparts.
I would like to see a video on the most successful tanks in terms how many variants used in other roles like ARVs or SPAA were made.
Early tank engines are so unique.
Either special engines got “dumbed down” like aircraft engines into a tank, like a Continental radial or Meteor V12
Or boring reliable straight 6 engines become a 30 cylinder Chrysler Multibank or Bedford flat 12.
And some tanks even got engines meant for the job like a Double Detroit Sherman.
Just awesome stuff.
this episode was very interesting and informative, thanks guys... its sad there are no more Evolution series videos coming :(
Legendary achievements of Sir Harry Ricardo 1885- 1974. ❤ Cool suave name!! Thank you very much Tank Museum ❤
A video on fire control systems and night vision would be good
I would also like to see that.
Great video and outstanding discussion. Any chance of a similar presentation on tank suspension? My fascination with tracked armor focuses on suspension, steering, and vision (slots, protectoscopes, periscopes, etc). Guns, armor, and combat not so much. Thanks for the education on engines!
I'd love an overview on suspension types.
I have the impression that tank engine application was driven more by "what is available" or "what can be adapted" rather than engines developed expressly for tanks. What would be the important characteristics for a tank engine- torque, the ability to use available fuels, reliability? Aircraft engine development during WWII was a furious race to keep ahead of the other guy- down to tearing down engines and sampling fuels from crashed enemy planes to see what they were using. Were captured tanks and other vehicles given the same treatment?
Really enjoying Chris as a host and his content.. Transmissions and suspension are just as critical to mobility. Please cover that.
Great video. Curious why the addition of the turbine engines was left out. Lighter, more compact with increased reliability and power.
they were more complicated, less reliable, and consumed more fuel. He sis say it was more of a surface level video.
Because UK never used them and the number who did can be counted in one rude gesture?
@@aaronleverton4221 they do have(or had) a Gas Turbine powered tank in the Tank Museum I swear they made a video on the T-80 and Explained it's gas turbine engine.
Plus apart from Germany, Britain would be one of the first countries to get to use gas turbine/Turbojet propulsion for their aircraft, the Meteor, which would give them familiarity with turbine propulsion since Late war Germany even attempted to experiment with Gas Turbine Tank Engines with modified BMW-003s.
@@raymartcarreon6069 Please don't take this the wrong way, but your point about the T80 doesn't rebut what I said and I know all about Sir Frank Whittle.
I think turbines are a dead end with no advantages and several disadvantages.
They are way more expensive to produce, fuel consumption is far higher than a diesel and no more reliable.
They once had the advantage of being compact for their power output, but that is no longer the case.
If the Americans produce a new line of tanks, I doubt it will have a turbine.
When I see a new video by you guys I immediately click!!! I love learning about things I didn't even know I was interested in!
Great episode. Really missing the workshop chats though. But Aussie Armour channel is a great substitute 🙂
Lovin' it!! Excellent series thank you!
Another factor with tank engines is also the weight. The heavier the engine the more the tank increases in weight and so the more power that’s needed to get it going. That’s why some engines were developed from aircraft engines because they are both light and powerful, like the rotary engine in the M3 Lee/Grant, the M3 Stuart, and the M4 Sherman, the Meteor engine that several British tanks used, or even the turbine that the M1 Abrams uses.
And weight distribution. If the engine is shoved as far in the back as possible, it'll exert greater leverage on the chassis than in the middle, where space is at a premium.
No love for the gas turbines in the M1 Abrams series? 😀 As a former M1 crewman, we got to love/hate the whine of that turbine running.
In short. 1. Metallurgy. 2. Fuel Injection 3. Diesel. 4. Turbocharging.
5. Boiling Vessel without running the engine
6. No punitive taxes based on car Engine displacement ?
Protectionism 4tl.
This video is so informative, professional and well put together ❤
Love the film footage of the Whippet just blazing along a road until a tiny car just whips right by it! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
great information and well presented - thanks
I love the rumbling of the engines
Really like Chris and this content more please
Cool instructor,very informative great work
You folks have the coolest tank museum in the world!
You gotta love how for decades the solution for finding a good engine for tank was "let's take a look at what airforce has right now and derate it" and then with the coming of jet age that just stopped...
Also it's still fascinating how WWI tank era ended with 400hp Liberty and then that engine served through (at least half of) WWII like no big deal.
I've been loving these series that are more expensive.
It took me many years to realise that in the 1930s, the tank had an engine requirement that meant it needed a specifically-deigned engine: truck engines were too small and weak, plane engines were converted, but usually were far from ideal (wrong layout, too sophisticated, and needed for aeroplanes).
So in the 30s they are trying to work out suspension and engine solutions without really being able to repurpose familiar civilian methods. Tanks advance quickly once torsion bars and proper 500hp-class engines appear. This is more subtle than the simple gun size/armour thickness/top speed triangle we think about.
13:57 Multi fuel engines usually run on either petrol or diesel. AvGas is simply aviation petrol, usually higher octane than road petrol. AvTur is aviation gas turbine fuel more like paraffin than diesel (i'm not clever enough to explain the difference between diesel and paraffin) and I guess you meant to say AvTur rather than AvGas and that it could run on paraffin. Commercial gas turbine jet engines run on Jet A1 which is pretty much the same as AvTur because AvTur is simply the military name for it (AvTag is similiar to AvTur)
V2 engine family is way bigger than that, its variants were powering most mass produced Soviet/Russian tanks all the way to T-90. Its 6 and 10 cylinder variants are powering BMP/BMD IFVs. V2 variants can be found in SPGs, engineering vehicles, SAM systems, heavy transporters − they're everywhere.
Very good engines
The L60 was not V6 but a 6cyl (12 piston) twin opposed 2-Stroke engine.
Fascinating as always!
Great documentary !
Enjoyed this, thanks!
I realize that it's not a British design, and that you may not have one at the museum, but I am surprised that you didn't close with the Honeywell AGT1500.
Excellent. Interesting to learn more on the third (mobility) piece. Thanks!!
Thank you. Excellent video.
Always great topics by very knowledgeable people. Thank you very very much
Your videos are excellent!👍
I suspect it is a non-debatable tenet of belief in the tank community that German heavy tanks were underpowered.
Although it is probably not decent to attack someone's religion, I'll give a few numbers to consider (although there may be versions with more powerful engines as well):
- Churchill: 8.3 hp/t
- Tiger II: 10 hp/t
- M26 : 10.7 hp/t
- IS 2: 11.2 hp/t
- IS 3: 11.2 hp/t
- Tiger I: 11.3 hp/t
- KV 1: 12.6 hp/t
I think it becomes clear that the German heavy tanks had a completely contemporary performance. Even medium tanks like the PzKw IV or M4 hardly had more in some variants (let's not even talk about British infantry tanks here).
Yes, the Russian tanks, which are praised for their mobility, were rather in the upper range and actually had about 1-2 hp/t more than the Tiger II but in part less than the Tiger I.
To speak here of an outstanding underpowering even of the Tiger II can therefore, in my opinion, only be honoured as a counterfactual truth of faith.
There are mobility trials videos of the Panther on TH-cam. Their suspensions were difficult to repair but the german big cats were very mobile.
Should've mentioned that surprisingly Japan was the first to use diesal engines for tanks!
Amazing, thank you for sharing!
Fascinating video, thank you so much.
The best thing i heard in training when i joined R.E.M.E was you will be a B mech lol Even in training everyone knew about chieftains reliability
Vert interesting history, thanks for sharing!
Thank you! That was most interesting.
great stuff mobility an interesting topic, where I live I regularly see armour travelling past on transporters. A feature on transport may be interesting, prime movers, trains etc.
Smashing video. Thank you.
Great video on an important part of tank design. I never could figure out why they didn't turn to a properly designed diesel engine for Chieftain after the multi-fuel failed so badly at the start, but I guess there's a lot of inertia and 'sunk cost fallacy' so no one wanted to make the call (?).
It's a long story. If you can, get the Haynes Chieftain tank manual. The Tank Museum shop stocks it. It gives you a full and very interesting breakdown (no pun intended!) of the tangled development of the L60.
They should have put a Cummins KTA in the Chieftain.😉
Leyland were a small to medium sized producer of staid but reliable commercial vehicles and busses. Unfortunately for them, from 1947 to 1979, the British governments were tied to a "Socialism Lite" policy which involved amalgamation of firms in the same industry into nationalised entities, then allocating contracts according to non competitive, political criteria. Leyland drew the short straw. Why Napier, who had deep expertise in two stroke diesel manufacture didn't get the job remains a mystery.
For a brief moment I thought he was going to do the "your the best, your the best" Fantano outro.
I would like to hear more specifics about tank transmissions and steering systems, since it's very different from automobiles that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. the continuous track requires differential steering, which means that there are no front wheels to turn and you steer by having one track move faster than the other. the steering systems themselves are an essential function of the transmission. this all has an effect on mobility, but the transmission is probably the most crucial element, because they can be surprisingly prone to failure. of course nowadays the engine and the transmission are combined into a powerpack, which is easier to replace as a whole. someone else has to determine, what was faulty, while the tank marches on with a new powerpack. when it comes to upgrading older tanks, a new powerpack is probably one of the first things done and the video should offer reasons why. in the video differences between gasoline, diesel and multifuel engines were mentioned, but gas turbines and opposed-piston engines (like the Leyland L60) could have been mentioned as well and compared to more conventional diesel engines, but time is a finite resource.
the different steering systems are the reason why some tanks had two engines (one for each track) for example and to give another example some tanks can neutral steer due to their steering system, while others cannot, although even without neutral steering the turning radius of a tracked vehicle is still a lot smaller compared to a wheeled vehicle. I would say that while the engine affects the mobility of the tank, it is crucial to note that the ability to use different fuels and fuel efficiency are important characteristics of the engine, since they determine the range (with the volume of the fuel tanks) of the tank and some of its logistical requirements (i.e. fuel). another absolute essential part of the mobility off-road is the suspension of the tracks, but it might be better to focus on one thing at a time and talk about tank suspensions some other time, although as yet another example I think many are familiar with the Christie suspension of the T-34. interestingly no modern tank uses it anymore, but that's enough, since this comment has far too many words already,
I am well aware that the video is more about engines in particular rather than mobility in general and I do think that it's a very good video overall, so this is not a criticism in any way. I just think it's important to understand that mere engine power will not be useful without a robust transmission, which links the engine to the tracks. there have also been tanks with an electric drive, which means that there is an additional step, where the engine is used to generate electricity and that in turn is used to power electric motors that move the tracks. the advantage of such a system is usually the ability to move forwards or backwards at the same speed. now to return to the topic of transmission perhaps it would be good to remind how tanks can differ in the number of reverse gears and by extension their reverse speed, which has been a subject of discussion as the T-72 has a painfully slow reverse speed due to its gearing ratio, which maximizes torque at the expense of speed. on the other hand a Western upgrade like the Renk ESM 350 would give it 5 reverse gears instead of 1 and the ability to neutral steer. anyway that should be enough rambling about tanks for today.
I would like to here more about upgrades that were being worked on during the war that never made it into service like the Fuel injection system for the HL230
Excellent !! More please
Man, I could listen to Chris all day. A wealth of information. I was hoping he would touch on the U.S. Abrams with the turbine engine. Great coverage otherwise.
I would like to see a complete history and information about tank transmissions and steering systems from many countries.
Crucial to powering a main battle tank is that the tank has the ability to accelerate very quickly from a standing start out of its firing position. Therefore, engines that develop a high torque even at low revolutions offer a decisive advantage.
@9:47. There is no way that each of those 5 Chrysler engines produced 425 hp; the whole multibank is only about 370 hp. The engines were straight six flatheads of 4.1 litres (250 cu inch).
Would like to hear more about the development & evolution of various engines like the Meteor & others.
I'd be interested in the history of the Ford GAA
@@WalkaCrookedLinethe Ford GAA the long and short of it is that the engine was first intended by Ford to break into the aircraft engine market that didn’t work out. Their decision makes sense given their involvement in the automobile market and how you know the V8 us Americans loved were first made for aircraft for example. Specifically when World War II began the British were in America because they were in good terms despite the overall isolationism of the public in the latter nation. The British were looking for a US company to make the more complex components of the Rolls-Royce Merlin in the US for the war effort. The main problem was when they went to Packard, another manufacturer of luxury cars, they wanted to make the entire engine not be a subcontractor. The Brits eventually sent some production drawings of the Merlin across the pond at which point they got seized by the Treasury Department. Using the drawings Ford decided to break into the aviation market with a reverse-engineered version of the Merlin V12. There was a problem for Ford however. There wasn’t any demand. As the United States was preparing for war, the main customers would be the US Army Air Corps and the US Navy and neither were interested. The AAC was only interested in the engines from their established contractors. The Navy on the other hand didn’t want a V-12 as they preferred radial engines for their reliability since having a engine crap out over the ocean is a death sentence. However by this point the Army was relying on their established contractors for aircraft engines in tanks but with the war looming they were going to risk disrupting their supply of engines for tanks so they accepted the Ford GAA which is the Ford V-12 chopped down to serve as a V-8.
I find the history of soviet/russian engines pretty cool. Outside of the Abrahams Jet turbine I feel like they have a lot more cool engines that dont follow standard orientations or featuresets.
Things like their X shaped engines, opposed piston engines, the smoke screen feature that uses rich exhaust etc. Lots of cool things related to engines.
Excellent Thanks for sharing.
Armor, Firepower and Mobility the Triforce of the tank
We must unite the pieces of the triforce and bring forth the Master Tank
Nice I enjoyed this video
Would love to see more of this with other countries tank engines
That intro transition deserves an Oscar 😂
I wish you guys could of went in deeper with how the older engines worked compare to why the newer modern ones use newer advances in petrol and engine technology with the camshafts, injection methods etc
Armor, Firepower, Mobility this is what we call The Triforce of Asskicking.
the biggest grip I have is that you said that phrase. "quantity has a quality all of it's own" which I cannot believe in the slightest.
I find that quality always wins wars and 'unfortunately' for Germany, it started to sacrifice quality with quantity towards to the end of the war; which is why so many tanks broke down or ran out of fuel and was unable to fight towards the end of the war. the M4 Sherman's were built to incredible quality which is why they were able to operate so much better than any German tank that had a seizure trying to keep up especially towards the end of the war when precious materials and good quality equipment was in such short supply. not to mention using forced labor isn't the most amazing idea when it comes to building sophisticated pieces of equipment that you intend to use against your foe. which is trying to end the tyrannical regime, that is keeping such forced labor enslaved.
Germany couldn’t afford quality nor quality. It leaned towards quality, because it didn’t have enough fuel for tens of thousands of PZ4’s and the support crews for them. They used slave labor where they could, but that was just so their soldiers had equipment to fight, even though the said soldiers were outnumbered like 2 or 3 to one.