British tank engines

Put it here as it would have an impact on WW2 designs.

The 500hp Thornycroft RY-12 diesel was used in the A6 which never got beyond prototype or design stage.

Is there any reason why this was not looked at again later when the need for more power was getting obvious, assuming you can solve the problem of developing a transmission to handle that much power.

 

it was probably too heavy, or too unreliable

 

T-34 used 500HP diesel angine,ant it was excelent engine,prolly betther then moust of ally's and german ones.

 

a lot of decisions like that are made more for production and distribution reasons rather than how good the actual engine was.

FNG

 

Why was it "prolly (sic) betther (sic) then (sic) moust (sic) of ally's (sic) and german ones"?

What are your criteria for engine excellence?

 

tank engines should be valued on BHP to weight along with service mileage to general reliability.

Fuel effecincy is also important but that is generally dictated by the total weight of the tank to the BHP of the engine.

But as I said, often a good engine is ignored not becuase it is good but because it's supply does not fit in the global picture of the total war machine. If all your tanks and trucks are diesal you do not want a single petrol one knocking about. If a great engine uses a lot of Alumimium which you are struggling to source then there is no point in fitting it.

FNG

 

That is true, but the British did use (at least in the early stages of the war) a mixture of petrol- and diesel-fuelled tanks.

It would be handy to know a few more details & figures on this engine.

 

..i read that the brits in the western desert liked american stuarts and called them "honeys" ...not because they had great firepower or thick armour but simpley because their engines would always start up in the morning and then were likely to continue running until they were switched off or ran out of gas...i guess they could live with being out gunned and out armoured by the jerrys but haveing an engine that might up and quit at the very worst time for no apparent reason was something which they found somewhat unnerving and unfair..

 

woody:
Stuarts weren't prone to throwing a track either, and that came as a pleasant surprise to British tankers.

Story goes that a Stuart was being tested by British tankers who did their best to put it to the test. Hard as they tried, they could not get it to shed a track. When asked what he thought of the Stuart, he replied "Sir, it's a Honey!"
The rest is history.

Tim

 

They were much loved by the troops for their reliability and the fact that they were used as infantry tank at a time of " panzer madness"
leaving the foot sloggers far behind , all alone to deal with petty details like machine gun nests and pockets of infantry in well dug in position .

 

Range,price,fuel consumption,power etc? German used petroll engines ,with higher power but more complicate system is,there is more chance for failure. Russians had problem with quality of production not with design of engines.

Consider that that diesel is more easy to produce ,and lower fuel consumption,allso heard stories that petrol on hard winted got prone to "crystalise" and to be completly usleless.

 

.
A good quality petrol would not cristallise until very very low temperatures but diesel would become a slurry easily enought ,especially poor quality stuff with plenty of waxes in it ,
the russians truckers mix some kerosene with it to make it flow better ,

I would assume that the stuff available would have various quality grade
it's also very stealable ,
some less than delicate pilferer might be tempted to make up the volume and weight with some other liquid such as water

.

 

But if the quality of production was a problem, then the quality of the engines would be questionable too, wouldn't it?

 

Average in WWII T-34 life was 100 working hours. Simple tank,cheap but good enought was easy to produce and maintain,but when u charge on digg in enemy positions u must expect high losses.T-34 was more less reliable tank ,decent war machine. KV-1 had problem with gearbox, SU-152 and SU-122 had problems with front suspensions (heawy armor+ heawy gun).

Engine alone newer made some problems (wide spread problems) to any Russian tank,so that engine is good enought

 

..I READ THAT T34S were mostly plagued with transmission problems and that often they went into action with a spare gearbox lashed to the side of their mount ..

 

For a soldier in the field, production quality problems ARE a problem, no matter how well designed the engine is. But I agree when you say that the engine was perfectly suitable to the tank.

Diesels have more problems in cold weather than petrol engines have, though. The diesel becomes thick, doesn't flow properly et cetera - I love in a cold place, so trust me, I know!

 

I don't know how it was back in the 40's but today there are additives in the diesel to make it flow easy even in the cold.

But, cold weather is hell for a diesel engine. -25 degrees and my car,, with a diesel engine, makes big protests when trying to get it going.

The possitive thing with diesel engine is that they are much more fuel efficient, they produce less horsepowers, but much more torque.

damn, my english sucks

 

:lol:

 

Me too

 

Simon - I have a feeling of impending doom that I said something funny that I don't yet understand :lol: