Let's build a WW2 US tank - start with the crew, gun and engine

Chrysler's tooling would have been better spent building gearboxes for more reliable engines.

But the Multibank was reliable, despite its complexity

In a competitive test at Aberdeen which began October 11, 1943, and continued until February 10, 1944, four M4A4 tanks with Chrysler multibank engines were entered against four tanks of each of three other engine types. Three of the four Chrysler-powered tanks completed the 4,000 mile marathon. Of the other twelve, only one finished. Ordnance reported that the Chrysler motor gave the most reliable performance, that its maintenance requirement was lowest, its power loss after 400 miles negligible. Its oil consumption was bettered only by a Diesel tank engine.

http://sbiii.com/chrymult.html
 
1. Supercharged Wright cyclone 7 aircraft engine, 155mm long Tom gun, sloped armor, Christie suspension, and four treads.

2. Same as above but swap 105mm gun and two large treads.

3. Now swap for 90mn gun and improve engine for fast medium tank.
 
As for gasoline-fuelled inline engines, the Brits installed modified Rolls-Royce Merlin engines in early Centurion tanks. Again, Merlins provided a brilliant power-to-weight ratio but were so difficult to maintain, that they were all replaced with more durable diesels by the 1960s.

The British Army didnt bother replacing its Centurion Meteor engines and they were still in use until the 1991 Gulf War. I trained on Centurions and maintenance was difficult but not because of the Meteor that was a relatively simple engine it was because the people who designed the whole engine bay obviously believed that all crewmen had 4 elbows, 4 hands, prehensile Monkey tails and the ability to see through metal.
 
...
Back to single-row radial engines installed in American tanks (e.g. Wright-Continental R-975) .... they offered great power-to-weight ratios, but their air-cooling made them bulky and tall. The R-975 had the advantage of being in service since the 1920s, so all bugs had been worked out, making it a simple, easily-maintained engine.
One possible solution - to height -would be to lay radials flat in the hull (as per early helicopters).

The M18 tank destroyer used the very same R-975 as the Sherman, a simple addition of intremediate gear cut the hull height considerably. The R-975 was not that high - 44 in diameter, vs. Merlin 61 being 40 in tall. Granted, laying the engine flat or tilting them by 45 deg helps with height if it is such a problem.

As for the Chrysler multi-bank engine .... Hah! ..... Hah! ..... just demonstrates how desperate the Americans were during WE2! Immediately after the war, the US Army "gifted" all its multi-banks to allies.
Chrysler's tooling would have been better spent building gearboxes for more reliable engines.

The Americans were not desperate for tanks, nor for their engines. They almost outproduced Germany and UK combined in tanks, and were basically giving out the tanks to their allies. US tank engines were not lacking anything, compared with what other major powers used in their tanks.
With that said, I'd love to have Chrysler producing un-supercharged V-1710 for tanks.
 
IIRC, in mid 1940 Ford suddenly offered to the USAAC/USAAF their own V-1650 (a V-12, bore x stroke 5.4 in x 6 in) when Henry wrecked the deal to build the RR Merlin (V-1650, a V-12, bore x stroke 5.4in x 6 in), Ford being DOHC vs. RR being SOHC.
Basically - in mid '40 the Ford V-1650 is just a paper proposal in the time Allison has the V-1710 flying?
 
IIRC, in mid 1940 Ford suddenly offered to the USAAC/USAAF their own V-1650 (a V-12, bore x stroke 5.4 in x 6 in) when Henry wrecked the deal to build the RR Merlin (V-1650, a V-12, bore x stroke 5.4in x 6 in), Ford being DOHC vs. RR being SOHC.
Basically - in mid '40 the Ford V-1650 is just a paper proposal in the time Allison has the V-1710 flying?

But not enough production capability, and the Allison block had the supercharger section as part of the block, it was integral, unlike most V12s aero engines.

A new block would need to be designed/tested/produced.
This didn't happen till 1945 with the V-1710-G6

By time it would take Allison to get a new production line going, you could have the Ford anyway.

Only timesavers would be parts interchangeability, and existing training courses for mechanics.
 
Top