Diesel engines in WWII

Were those (2) Four Cylinder, in-line motors, coupled together and driving one crank.?
That is to say.....two (normally) separate motors that were hooked together to make one engine.?
Thank You

 

I have Steven Zaloga's Osprey book on the M4 Sherman tank. He states that the availability of diesel fuel through USN channels was the reason the USMC adopted the M4A2 Sherman. The Soviets also took a great many M4A2's, particularly the later versions with the 76mm gun. Other M4A2's went to the French and the Poles.

 

They were two GMC 6-71s coupled to a single crankshaft. Each 6-71 had six cylinders and each had its own mechanical supercharger.

The GMC 71 series diesels all used cylinders with a displacement of 71 cubic inches each and the number of cylinders ranged from 1 to 24, some were inline and some V

They were all two stroke and GMC continued to market them in various configurations for trucks and buses into the 1980s. Experienced truckers said they had a distinctive sound and called them Screaming Jimmys or Rocky Mountain Hummingbirds and other less flattering things. The most widely used post war commercial version was the Detroit Diesel DD 318, which was an 8V-71

 

Some other US diesel vehicles:

1. M36B2 tank destroyer
2. M10 tank destroyer
3. M3A3 Lee medium tank
4. M3 Lee medium tank (some had Guiberson diesel engine)
5. M3A1 Lee medium tank (some had Guiberson diesel engine)
6. M3 light tank (500 with Guiberson diesel engine)
7. M3A1 light tank (211 with Guiberson diesel engine)
8. M2A4 light tank (a few late vehicles with Guiberson diesel engine)

 

I think that is more the reason than anything else....

 

Diesel ! Much better for better heavy vehicles. I am not neutral on this issue, I like heavy trucks, locos and tanks with heavy Diesel engines Also sounds better

 

Say what you want about trucks and tanks...But, when it comes to sound, a diesel locomotive never comes close to steam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoI7MOWJZ-A

 

Unless you are standing behind it one of the most impressive things about the M1 is the lack of sound from the engine.

 

@ Takao: Big fan of steam, too

@ LWD: Probably better to sneak upon the enemy.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvS8_H5rKs

 

What a cute little trinket.

Here's a big one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ_7m_Rb4dA

 

I would look at logistics and the US Ordnance Department., If they started with gasoline they would damn well finish the war with gasoline !!. People do learn, do use see any post war gasoline tanks in any number except in the US for a while. The Leopards and Challengers, both marks ! & !! are diesel for a reason. The Israeli's converted their Sherman's to diesel. And of course the Merkovas Now of course the Russians and the US turned to multifuel turbines but the Germans, French, Israeli's , and Brits stuck with piston diesels. That other forum sure has some ill informed as well as bright people. . Strange mix, good no stange people are here

The characteristics of a diesel are better suited to tanks. True most tanks brew up from ammo but diesels are inherently less flamable , not a bad thing. The high compression rations do call for heavier construction which probanble contributes to their reliability over long periods.

I do not believe the US predominately used gasoline because it was better, it was easier and faster to make more gas tanks. A strategy that worked for them. But if I were a tanker I would have wanted a diesel, and better armor and gun and lower silouette and, etc. Plus the US used a variety of engines which may have been necessary but also logistically strange. As yes I like the Sherman.

The most i8nteresting question is why did the 10 & 36 use diesel, that is a logistical mystery. And in the Ardenne in 44-45, why did they not put some kind of top on the turret.

In a more perfect word I think the US would have been measurably better off if it produced a solid v-8 diesel tank engine of 500-600 hp and if a heavy was needed add 2 or 4 more cylinders of the same dimension, a V-10 and 12. Then trucks, and other vehicles could have all been diesel . Of course that assumes refining capacity to match.

Gaines

 

I actually know the answer Gaines. The T-35 prototypes of the 3in. GMC M-10 was built on an M4A2 hull. I would guess, that once again it was because the US Army was taking all the gas powered Sherman's they could get, but really didn't want the diesel powered ones. It is also interesting that when the new GMC showed it's worth that the Army decided they needed to increase production they substituted the M4A3 chassis. Designated the GMC M-10A1, they were gasoline powered.
The 90mm GMC M-36 started out as the prototype 90mm GMC T-71. It was a new turret, with a new gun, mounted on an M10A1 chassis which by evolution (M4A3) made it gasoline powered. However, the need for 90mm GMC's was so great they produced the M36B1 on an M4A3 hull (gasoline-187 produced) and the M36B2 on the M4A2 hull (diesel-287 produced) as opposed to the M10A1 hull.

 

Now that makes at least some sense ,.... thanks ! BTW, appreciate that wonderful shot of the 103A2's. the Opelika , Al, National Guard had one as a display. That was one Big tank. I could not talk then into letting me look inside .. It disappeared one day, hope it went to Ft Benning for the forthcoming Yank Museum.

Gaines

 

I think they have at least one there. I was on sensory over load during my visit so I'm not sure

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/50896-backstage-visit-to-ft-benning-tank-collection/?p=560335

 

Here's a list from Wikipedia of surviving M-103's:

• Range 408A, Camp Pendleton, CA. (Blown out, former practice target, now a rattlesnake nest)
• U.S. Army Ordnance Center and Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA,
• Radcliff, Kentucky (M103)
• Shively, Kentucky (M103A2)
• Fort Lewis, Washington (M103A2)
• Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama (M103A2)
• 45th Infantry Museum, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (M103A2)
• Armed Forces Center, Syracuse, New York (M103A2)
• Credit Island Park, Davenport, Iowa (M103)
• Military Vehicle Technology Foundation in Portola Valley, California (M103A2)
• 3d Cavalry Regiment Museum, Fort Hood, Texas (M103)
• Marine Corps Mechanized Museum, Camp Pendleton, CA
• Pioneer Park, Nacogdoches, TX (non-functioning)
• Euclid City Hall, E. 222nd Street. Euclid, Ohio
• Heritage Center of the Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma AZ
• Dugway Proving Ground, UT, M103 hulk for testing
• VFW in Anniston, Alabama
• Bovington Tank Museum, UK
• American Armor Foundation Tank Museum, Danville, Virginia
• U.S. Army TACOM LCMC, Warren, Michigan
• Camp Shelby, Mississippi (M103)
• National Armor & Cavalry Museum, Fort Benning GA (M-103A1, M-103A2, T-43 & M-51)
• Range 68 MOUT site, Fort Bragg, NC (non-functioning)
• US Marine Corps Reserve Center, Yakima WA (M-103A2)
• Institute of Military Technology, Titusville, Florida (M103A2)

Just happened across this. It's the British contemporary heavy tank to the M-103, the FV-214 Conqueror. Those guns must have an incredible /L number.


Some video of the M-103, Ken Estes does a really good job telling about the tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kmUQ4uiWoT8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAI5qg2ZZiU&feature=player_embedded

Last but not least an M-103 at Bovington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45uZOblVCZc&feature=player_detailpage

 

The one at TACOM used to be near the Mound Gate. I'm not sure where it is now. It's been a few years since it was there by the way.

 

The one near me, 8 miles or so, was not running condition. I am still trying to figure out how they moved it !!! Lots of 103's left, a few tons of steel !! It's proportions are such that until I saw one I did not realize how big they were.

Did any ever see combat anywhere and with anyone ?

 

I thought there were somein Korea, but I looked it up and they were too late for that by several years. Wiki lists them as being in service during the Vietnam war but according to"
http://www.tanks.net/early-cold-war-tanks/m103-heavy-tank.html