Thanks muchly good Sir, much appreciated! 👍🎂👍Happy Belated Birthday @Claymore!
Unfortunately, the decorative candles look more like a fire storm these days!! 😳😉🤣
Thanks muchly good Sir, much appreciated! 👍🎂👍Happy Belated Birthday @Claymore!
happy belated bday!!Thanks muchly good Sir, much appreciated! 👍🎂👍
Unfortunately, the decorative candles look more like a fire storm these days!! 😳😉🤣
No exact data, but a quick pixel measurement using the 120mm bore of the engine on its schematic would give roughly 1165mm length and 1045mm height without accessories.What were the length and height of the S35 engine?
I'm wondering if a mid-1930s US gasoline engine, such as the Hall-Scott "400" truck/bus-market version of the "Invader" marine straight 6 (310 peak hp in 1937-38) or "Defender" marine 60° V-12 (about 1000 hp in a 1940 supercharged version), would have fit into the engine bay.
If so, then once the French British Purchasing Committee was started up, SOMUA might have bought powertrains from USA as a fast way to leapfrog their tank design toward greater mobility and an ability to carry the weight of more armor and armament.
happy belated bday!!
just light them outside and use them to barbecue lol
Well, I've no idea how old you are, but here's a cake that you can save until the appropriate date.
View attachment 903566
Many happy returns
The Defender and Invader were ~ the same length; the Defender was created by joining two Invader cylinder banks to a common crankshaft housing in V-form, with of course a slight cylinder offset.The Hall Scott Defender would be far too big at nearly 2000 cu in ( 36L engine!), while the 17-18L Invader would probably be bigger (longer anyway given it has 6 cylinders in line) than the Somua V8.
The (possible) advantage of an engine like the Invader over an engine in "advanced development" would be that the former had a number of years of real world proof of ruggedness and absence of issues and problems, in relatively high numbers since it was primarily a commercial truck and bus engine, in addition to the related marine version. Hall-Scott as a significant US engine manufacturer for heavy over-the-highway trucks, marine uses, fire equipment, mining equipment, crawler tractors, engine-powered railcars and the like produced two orders of magnitude more engines than the expected SOMUA tank production.And at this size, France had better specialized tank engines well advanced in development in 1940 (a 350hp Renault straight-6).
Yes, but again comparing a theoretical solution to a proven one in (moderate) volume production and heavy duty usage every day for many years.Even just lengthening the Somua V8 to a V12 (apparently suggested for a SOMUA G1 offering) would give an engine of comparable displacement to the Invader, but in a more efficient V12 configuration and with a bit more power.
Yes, not arguing that Hall-Scott's technology was advanced. Certainly it was not. But, their mid-to-late-1930s engines had impressive track records for ruggedness, durability, drivability and maintainability. Their higher torque and therefore much-flatter power curve, compared to an equal-displacement diesel or to most other spark-ignition engines of even 25% more displacement, made them easy to drive in challenging situations with less shifting, and allowed use of simpler transmissions without sacrificing performance.US engines could mostly help with numbers, but not really with performance at this point.
Fair enough. On a second glance, the Defender is actually very modern for a commercial engine of the time, and it could have been a credible powerplant for one of the long-hull Shermans or preferably a US heavy tank, since as a boat engine, it runs constantly at its peak rpm of 2100. In a tank it would not always run at peak so you could up the maximum regime to get a bit beyond 600hp. And it would be overall a much more compact powerplant for the M6, which could allow sufficient size reduction to be viable even at around 600hp. Or you can keep the supercharged 900hp version. In the former case, the Defender appears as an engine of somewhat similar output to the late-war Chrysler A-65 project, but with a greater displacement and thus even better torque curve for heavy tanks.The Defender and Invader were ~ the same length; the Defender was created by joining two Invader cylinder banks to a common crankshaft housing in V-form, with of course a slight cylinder offset.
The (possible) advantage of an engine like the Invader over an engine in "advanced development" would be that the former had a number of years of real world proof of ruggedness and absence of issues and problems, in relatively high numbers since it was primarily a commercial truck and bus engine, in addition to the related marine version. Hall-Scott as a significant US engine manufacturer for heavy over-the-highway trucks, marine uses, fire equipment, mining equipment, crawler tractors, engine-powered railcars and the like produced two orders of magnitude more engines than the expected SOMUA tank production.
Yes, not arguing that Hall-Scott's technology was advanced. Certainly it was not. But, their mid-to-late-1930s engines had impressive track records for ruggedness, durability, drivability and maintainability. Their higher torque and therefore much-flatter power curve, compared to an equal-displacement diesel or to most other spark-ignition engines of even 25% more displacement, made them easy to drive in challenging situations with less shifting, and allowed use of simpler transmissions without sacrificing performance.
As a side note, the Invader / 400 series also existed in well-proven flat versions, i.e. a straight six laying on its side, originally for use in underfloor mounts for snub-nosed, rear-engine buses. Such an engine configuration could be utilized to create a medium tank or assault gun that, while wider, could be much lower than the late-1930s norm. That wouldn't have been relevant to the S35, but could have been to a future project.
When you say a fraction what numbers are we talking about ? 0.something 0.0something 0.00000 something ?A hovercraft is kept elevated by the average pressure under it, applied over its bottom area, being greater than its weight when it's sitting on the ground and equal to its weight when it's reached movement-height.
A hovercraft without skirts is very inefficient at creating pressure under itself. With a super-light hovercraft with a relatively large area, sufficiently powerful blowers/fans may be able to create enough pressure. With a heavier hovercraft, the needed pressure is much greater. As the needed pressure increases, the inefficiency of a skirtless design becomes ever harder to overcome.
Calculate the gross area of your object. Given its weight, that gives you the needed pressure. If it's more than a fraction of a PSI, a skirtless design is going to be implausible.
The Zubr class is an armored personnel and heavy vehicles carrier.It is also armed to a great extend.What im proposing is a slight change to its propulsion mechanism.In this forum i really dont know which section is better suited for this question.This is an alternative armored vehicles thread after all.Unless by armored vehicles we mean something that has tracks and or wheels and nothing else.If that is true then send me a private message explaining in detail why such an idea that im proposing wont workThis is off topic. Edit your existing post with a link to somewhere else where it's not, and I'll respond further.
This is off topic. Edit your existing post with a link to somewhere else where it's not, and I'll respond further.
I don't do PMs.
As of 1940 the Germans thought that a short 75mm direct-fire gun, i.e. KwK 37 L/24, was the optimal main armament for infantry support AFVs, because smaller-caliber guns' HE shells were much less effective against infantry-battlefield targets. Arguably, the Germans were right. Perhaps the French would have had a similar realization before too much more time had passed.(...) the proliferation of 50mm guns and 50mm of armor on the German side and war experience would have most likely required such alterations to the French infantry tank program that they would have converged towards full-blown medium tanks (a 2-man turret with the long 47 would have been required at least to be relevant against 50mm-thick face hardened plates on Pz III and IV).