Britain orders the 16 tonner Mk III tank into Serial production - how does this change British AFV development
- Thread starter Cryhavoc101
- Start date
-
- Tags
- afv british army tanks
Not good for reliability because they, like aircraft engines, don't handle changes in RPM well. The Merlin lost half of its power (at least) when it was used in tanks.
The Merlin lost half its power when used in tanks because they detuned it and took the superchargers off.
and it had to run on Pool petrol (@70 octane or similar to commercial grade pre war petrol) not 100 or even 87 octane aviation spirit and provide useful power at low revs.
Cromwell tank - Wikipedia
Delivered to Aldershot on 6 April 1941, the test team had trouble timing its runs because it was so fast, estimating it reached 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). Leyland arranged to start production of 1,000 examples of the engine as the Meteor.
With engine power doubled, it soon became apparent that the additional stresses placed on the Crusader components required significant re-work to increase reliability. Leyland had no spare capacity, and re-work commenced with the help of BRC&W.[6] It was planned to fit this to BRC&W-built versions of their original A24 submission.
"Driver, declutch before landing"They removed the supercharger from a Merlin Mk. III to downgrade the performance to a suitable level for tank use, reversed the direction of engine rotation to match tank transmissions, and fitted the resulting engine to a Leyland-built Crusader.Cromwell tank - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Delivered to Aldershot on 6 April 1941, the test team had trouble timing its runs because it was so fast, estimating it reached 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). Leyland arranged to start production of 1,000 examples of the engine as the Meteor.
With engine power doubled, it soon became apparent that the additional stresses placed on the Crusader components required significant re-work to increase reliability. Leyland had no spare capacity, and re-work commenced with the help of BRC&W.[6] It was planned to fit this to BRC&W-built versions of their original A24 submission.
Interesting as Pool itself was originally actually 68 octane and remained about that post war. The Meteor had to be able to digest Pool even if it got general Wallies fuel in action. Getting the Meteor to run so well was an under recognised feat of Rolls Royce cars and Rover production. Rover eventually got 810bhp out of it on post rationing petrol and fuel injection.
So sorry, old boy, but on this side of the Pond, "If my math is right" is perfectly acceptable. (We don't say "bonnet" or "loo", either.
)That's bound to be too high. You'd have to sacrifice all the trucks, motorcycles, arty tractors, staff cars, & any other motorized stuff--meaning you'd have lots of tanks able to outrun leg infantry, perfect for being defeated in detail.
I wouldn't go above 75% in any given year, & I'd guess there would be an average 50% armor & other for the decade: say 45-50 Six-tonners?
Last edited:
*puts this here*
It was just a musing a few years back.
The Black Prince rides again
The Prince goes to War. With the Churchill Mk III in service and popular with its crews there was still concern in the RAC that their tanks would be outgunned. It was no secret that the German Panzer IV with its long 75mm gun could engage Allied tanks at longer ranges than units equipped with...
www.alternatehistory.com
It was just a musing a few years back.
The biggest failing of the Black Prince is simply that it wasn't a Centurion
In ref high weight of marine engines:
In a 16 ton tank, let alone a 25-30 ton one, I can't imagine a couple of hundred pounds would make an enormous difference. I don't say reducing the weight, without sacrificing durability, would be a bad idea....
It had twice the operational range of a Centurion, so technically it would go twice as far.
marathag
Banned
Going with a derated Merlin(Meteor) would not have been impossible for an easy 600hp, and this could have been done in 1942 first with the 3" gun, and then the 17pdr when available.
I just can't stand the 16 tonner design. They could have built this instead?
Totally made up tank on 16 tonner chassis. That side "sled runner" says volumes about the suspension. Let's lift that up a bit at least. Looking at this picture you start with a slow infantry tank with five crew in all the right places. A main gun, but bigger than a three pounder. An old Hotchkiss six pounder tank 57mm of longer barrel, say 25-30 calibres? I understand the Royal Navy are working on a 47 calibre one. (2385 ft/s at the muzzle with a naval HE round 2.85 Kg shell, about 2850 ft/s with AP-I, HE-I: 2,056 ft/s due to 4Kg shell 900g of HE, APDS 3800 ft/s)
Totally made up tank on 16 tonner chassis. That side "sled runner" says volumes about the suspension. Let's lift that up a bit at least. Looking at this picture you start with a slow infantry tank with five crew in all the right places. A main gun, but bigger than a three pounder. An old Hotchkiss six pounder tank 57mm of longer barrel, say 25-30 calibres? I understand the Royal Navy are working on a 47 calibre one. (2385 ft/s at the muzzle with a naval HE round 2.85 Kg shell, about 2850 ft/s with AP-I, HE-I: 2,056 ft/s due to 4Kg shell 900g of HE, APDS 3800 ft/s)
Last edited:
Nice oval shaped turret ring that would have, not sure how well it would work in practice though. I do agree ditching the two useless mg turrets was the way to go, they never worked well in any tank saddled with them and were uninhabitable in the desert.
They removed the supercharger from a Merlin Mk. III to downgrade the performance to a suitable level for tank use, reversed the direction of engine rotation to match tank transmissions, and fitted the resulting engine to a Leyland-built Crusader.Cromwell tank - Wikipedia
Delivered to Aldershot on 6 April 1941, the test team had trouble timing its runs because it was so fast, estimating it reached 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). Leyland arranged to start production of 1,000 examples of the engine as the Meteor.
With engine power doubled, it soon became apparent that the additional stresses placed on the Crusader components required significant re-work to increase reliability. Leyland had no spare capacity, and re-work commenced with the help of BRC&W.[6] It was planned to fit this to BRC&W-built versions of their original A24 submission.
Dammit Captain, we've got to do something about Sgt Oddball and his crew of misfits.
Last edited:
The ring overlaps the tracks, even if the turret basket doesn't. I'll have my 76mm gun, you see if I don't. The co-axial HMG is in the turret (moved from gunner's side to loader's and ball mount chassis MMG on R/T operator's side for production).
Last edited: