The Soviets made a habit of it, driving new tanks straight from the factory to the front line.
In those cases though the front line was like 1 - 2 miles a way
The Soviets made a habit of it, driving new tanks straight from the factory to the front line.
If that. In cases where it was further (at least in 1941/2) they often broke down part way into the journey due to poor QC at the factories.In those cases though the front line was like 1 - 2 miles a way
I'm fairly certain Napier were incapable of cranking out any engine in decent quantities, least of all the Lion which was a handcrafted beast even by the standards of bespoke engines. In the pursuit of making it the lightest possible engine every component had been reduced to the minimum, which meant none of them were interchangeable. The three cylinder blocks were all different slightly different sizes, the bolts slightly different lengths, that sort of thing.Napier must know more orders are very likely and they could be large orders. The temptation to cut their losses on the Sabre and just crank out Lion's, either petrol or diesel, must be very high. The could also possibly be looking at variations of the Lion for other uses, thinks like a V8 and V6 derived from it as well as a flat 4 could all be very useful and good sellers. The impact on aircraft engine production could be massive but I really don't want to derail the thread talking about it.
I read a slightly different take on this where Clarke's vitriol was aimed at the 2 per and Vickers was guilty by association. The article implied that Clarke believed the 2 pdr was an inadequate weapon (possibly because of his artillery background and the feeble HE shell). He was heavily involved in the development of the new 6 pdr so possibly will have a fit at Carden's 75 mm solution. But Carden could maybe get him onside by emphasising the space the Valiant has for his new project.So I came across this in P M Knight's A13 Mk I & Mk II Cruiser Tanks A Technical History. Black Prince Publications 2019 page 105-6:
I'm not entirely sure that answers your question. It also throws a negative light on what I had taken to be Vickers 2-pdr as the pompom, which was accepted and used by the Navy. Perhaps the Latvian tank used this rejected 2-pdr and my original understanding of Carden's "M/C gun" is wrong.
Earlier in the book (page 3), Clarke is senior military member of the Ordnance Committee. It talks about the race between the increasing penetrative ability of anti-tank weapons and the corresponding increase in the armour thickness needed to defeat them. Martel considered that this was a race that the anti-tank gunwas always going to win, and in this respect his thoughts were completely in accord with those of EMC Clarke at Woolwich, "who had vociferously argued against the development of Infantry tanks. Both men were also of the belief that the best protection for a tank was therefore speed and mobility." All this was in the context of the design of the A9 and A10 by Carden and Vickers, which were too slow, and increasing the armour of the A10 wouldn't therefore help as it slowed the tank. TBH there is probably more to it than all that but Knight's book is excellent, but suffers from having no index, so I'm having to scan and skim to find what I've noted as interesting/useful.
I'm fairly certain Napier were incapable of cranking out any engine in decent quantities, least of all the Lion which was a handcrafted beast even by the standards of bespoke engines. In the pursuit of making it the lightest possible engine every component had been reduced to the minimum, which meant none of them were interchangeable. The three cylinder blocks were all different slightly different sizes, the bolts slightly different lengths, that sort of thing.
For an engine designed without compromise for maximum performance and minimum weight and that was hand built by craftsmen, that was fine. But for volume production when skilled labour is at a premium it is a disaster. I can also confidently predict the logistics troops in the RAC coming to dislike it due to the shear number of similar but very slightly different spares that will be required to support and repair a Lion in the field.
Out of all the companies, Ford does indeed look like the winner on this. Dagenham has a separate production line for engines after all.Well that complicates things slightly.
I always kind of felt a modified Lion might be developed and this makes it a necessity. Perhaps a look by Ford as well so they can adjust the drawings to ease mass production like they did with the merlin.
Yes but they were not new designs of tanks they were just newly builtThe Soviets made a habit of it, driving new tanks straight from the factory to the front line.
Old engine ( with even older tech ) being pushed to its limits and beyond so it broke , a lot. From memory it had major cooling issues and separate cylinders to the crankcase. It also maxed out around 340hp so no good for 20 ton+ tanks.What was the issue with the Liberty engine?
Would the Napier Culverin be able to be adapted to being a bit smaller? Or we go back to the Thornycroft RY12?
It also had a chain drive which drained off I think it was 15% of the output!Old engine ( with even older tech ) being pushed to its limits and beyond so it broke , a lot. From memory it had major cooling issues and separate cylinders to the crankcase. It also maxed out around 340hp so no good for 20 ton+ tanks.
The Merlin didn't need changing for mass production, it just needed all the details added on to the drawings. Simple example I read was hoses, Rolls Royce's drawings just said "3/8' high pressure hose from Point A to Point B", it was left to the fitters to work out how long the hose was, clips, fastenings, etc. Which works with a skilled workforce that knows all the company standard details, but Ford had to measure it out, specify connectors, fixings, all from scratch, then write out a procedure than an untrained workforce could follow. Then multiply it up by almost every ancillary detail on the engine and you can see why Ford took a year to get ready for mass production.Well that complicates things slightly.
I always kind of felt a modified Lion might be developed and this makes it a necessity. Perhaps a look by Ford as well so they can adjust the drawings to ease mass production like they did with the merlin.
Culverin was twice as heavy and 50% taller, though it would have more power, 800hp to 600hp in an RAF spec Lion XI (I'm assuming both get downrated for tank use, but the advantage will be similar). It was also designed for an external compressed air-starter, which is never going to work on a tank so it'll need chunky batteries and an electric starter, further increasing the weight. You could use it, but it will not be a one for one swap, you will need to seriously redesign the tank to make it fit.Napier Culverin
Getting the US involved in any UK engine is for the better. What Packard did to the Merlin was amazing.Well that complicates things slightly.
I always kind of felt a modified Lion might be developed and this makes it a necessity. Perhaps a look by Ford as well so they can adjust the drawings to ease mass production like they did with the merlin.
It's possible for air start for tank engines, Soviets used it for the V2 on T-34s.It was also designed for an external compressed air-starter, which is never going to work on a tank
going from2400 for standard engine to 3600 rpm is huge for large engines like this., that was done for some of the race spec engines and it is a good match for a notional Diesel-Lion, but there is not much more you can squeeze out of the design in terms of RPM or compression, that work has already been done.
1938 for first production. GM bought Vauxhall to get into the UK market in 1925, so that's the way in that wayIs the GM diesel available for licence ? I am assuming that the Valiant will be built in Canada, eventually. Is the twin 6 GM in production?