Read the forum code of contact
By: - 26th August 2012 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The answer to this one is fairly simple; it was because the development of tanks at the time was very rapid and there wasn’t time to develop a completely new ‘conventional’ engine that had the required power.
Aircraft engines already had enough power but were not always best suited to fitting in tanks; the US for example were forced to use a radial engine (amongst others) in the Sherman that caused fundamental problems in its overall layout.
Other ways were tried to produce enough power; one ‘solution’ was to couple two or more smaller engine together. Some versions of the Sherman had the wonderful (well, bizarre) Chrysler Multibank engine, formed by mounting five six-cylinder truck engines onto a common shaft!
One nation that never seemed to have to use aero-engines in tanks was Germany but there is no truth in the often-quoted ‘fact’ that German tanks were diesel powered.
A derivative of the Rolls-Royce Merlin, the unsupercharged Meteor, was still powering a few British tanks in the First Gulf War!
By: - 26th August 2012 at 13:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C.D.
Warren, wasn't the Sherman, although very fast and agile, no match for the German Tigers, who had a much greater firing range, ie, the Flack 77 derived from the ground based anti aircraft gun. They say The Shermans were death traps due to where the fuel tanks were located, if suffering a direct hit?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 26th August 2012 at 20:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wouldn’t say that the M4 Sherman was anymore of a ‘death-trap’ than any other tank of the same weight-class during WW2; but, you’re right, it wasn’t a match for the Tiger.
The German Panzer IV had its fuel tanks in the fighting-compartment with the crew, as did the much-vaunted Russian T-34; as far as I know the M4 Sherman didn’t. However the real danger to the crew were the rounds for the main-gun that were invariably in the fighting-compartment; if the brass shell-cases of these rounds were penetrated by splinters this would lead to a catastrophic fire as the propellant rapidly burnt. The crew, who were possibly already wounded, would have a matter of seconds to escape before they were incinerated; even those that did get out would often be badly burnt.
When all is said and done the important thing is to keep the enemy rounds from penetrating the armour; the Sherman suffered from armour that was too thin and enemy tanks that had powerful guns capable of penetrating it at long range.
By: - 26th August 2012 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CD.
Warren, Yes I agree with the Sherman Vrs the Tiger. Our Churchill Tank, had only a 6 pounder, with A.P.C. rounds, and was certainly no match for the Tiger, BUT, if the Commander of a Churchill was able to get behind the Tiger, it had a slight chance of a "Kill Shot", that was the Tigers track, which wouldnt stop the Tiger from rotating its main gun and blasting the Churchill, The "Sweet" spot, if able, was to hit the turret ring thus preventing the rotation of the turret, however, the Tiger lived to fire another day, unless the Churchil could get a second shot off and hit the Tigers track.
One cannot even begin to imagine however the noise the crews of the Shermans had ringing in their ears from the Radial engine.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 26th August 2012 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In my humble opinion tank crews in 1939-1945, or today for that matter, wouldn’t have the luxury of aiming for a track or a turret ring; not with the gun-sights available and the pace at which tank-on-tank action would take place. They’d try to get their shot off first, try not to miss the target and hope it did some damage to something vital.
I’ve read accounts of Allied crews watching round after round bounce off the front of a German tank.
I’ve also read that British crews tried to ricochet a round off the hard-packed ground in front of a Panther tank in the hope that it would penetrate the thin belly armour under the tank...
...real men fight in tanks! :(
By: - 26th August 2012 at 23:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One cannot even begin to imagine however the noise the crews of the Shermans had ringing in their ears from the Radial engine.
Check out these crazy bas1ards! :eek: (Don’t worry, the music dies after about five minutes.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVwFN1Tap7k&feature=fvwrel
The ‘STOP’ sign at 06:50 is superb.....yeah, they totally paused!!! :D
By: - 26th August 2012 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
R-975 without silencer.....it just purrs like a pussy-cat! ;)
By: - 27th August 2012 at 00:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remarkablly quiet, but in the confines of a Tank?.
How come the mechanic in the video was able to work on the engine with his arm, over one of the exhausts without it taking his skin off?.
Good video though Warren, thanks for the link.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 27th August 2012 at 00:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Check out these crazy bas1ards! :eek: (Don’t worry, the music dies after about five minutes.)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVwFN1Tap7k&feature=fvwrel
The ‘STOP’ sign at 06:50 is superb.....yeah, they totally paused!!! :D
One can see why the USA produced these in vast numbers, they are so damned quick, fun to drive on tarmac, wonder what they are liike on rough terrain?.
As for the stop sign it didn;t stop for, who would be able to stop the Tank, for failing to comply?. I dont think a squad car could force it to a standstill.;)
Had they been given a larger, longer range main gun, they would certainly given a Tiger a run for it's money.Especialy as it was lightly amour protected.
Wonder why they didn't, perchance because they were expendable?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 27th August 2012 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To make the Sherman better, they could fit a 10ft extension drainpipe to the main barrel, and play loud music to disorientate the enemy. Must be true - Donald Sutherland said so....
By: - 27th August 2012 at 00:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Had they been given a larger, longer range main gun, they would certainly given a Tiger a run for it's money. Especialy as it was lightly amour protected. Wonder why they didn't, perchance because they were expendable?
The British did give the Sherman a better gun; they fitted the 17-pounder (76.2mm) and called it a Sherman Firefly. There were never enough of them and, at first, the US Army wasn’t interested.
By: - 27th August 2012 at 01:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Our Churchill Tank, had only a 6 pounder, with A.P.C. rounds, and was certainly no match for the Tiger...
Interestingly, the only running Tiger I in the world, at Bovington Tank Museum, was knocked-out by a Churchill Tank with its 6-pounder gun. The Tiger bears the scars to this day; the 6-pounder round was fired from dead-ahead and first struck the underside of the 88mm gun-barrel. It grazed the underside of the barrel again (I’d like to see the physics of that one) and then hit the gun-mantle directly below the barrel; this deflected it downwards through the thin decking of the hull into the tank between the driver and the radio-operator. The impact on the mantle also broke the counterbalance system for the 88mm gun.
At this point the crew of the Tiger decided that ‘discretion was the better part of valour’ and abandoned their tank and ran for it!
By: - 27th August 2012 at 08:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The British did give the Sherman a better gun; they fitted the 17-pounder (76.2mm) and called it a Sherman Firefly. There were never enough of them and, at first, the US Army wasn’t interested.
Interesting you should bring up the 17 pounder Warren, as I have the complete projectile in my attic, it's as good looking as the day it was made. De activated obviously.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 27th August 2012 at 08:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interestingly, the only running Tiger I in the world, at Bovington Tank Museum, was knocked-out by a Churchill Tank with its 6-pounder gun. The Tiger bears the scars to this day; the 6-pounder round was fired from dead-ahead and first struck the underside of the 88mm gun-barrel. It grazed the underside of the barrel again (I’d like to see the physics of that one) and then hit the gun-mantle directly below the barrel; this deflected it downwards through the thin decking of the hull into the tank between the driver and the radio-operator. The impact on the mantle also broke the counterbalance system for the 88mm gun.
Yes, I have seen, and have a photograph of this particular Tiger at Bovington, But you missed out one bit of damage, and that the round also hit the skirt on the offside, just above the track, as you say, how one round could bounce from one place to the other is increadable.
The Firefly, had it gone into full production, would have given any model of the Tiger a run for it's money, strange realy, when they could have bettered the Sherman with it,Considering it;s further range and larger gun.When looking at old War films, real, not ones made for entertainment, to see after a battle, just how many Tank turrets had been blown off, and lay some distance fron the hit Tank. Are they just resting on the ring gears just by their weight alone?, or are they attached by some other means?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 27th August 2012 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To make the Sherman better, they could fit a 10ft extension drainpipe to the main barrel, and play loud music to disorientate the enemy. Must be true - Donald Sutherland said so....
I remember that film, it was quite good, but can the hell as like recall what the name of the film was.:)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 27th August 2012 at 10:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kelly,s Hero,s, starring Clint Eastwood.
Ron
By: - 28th August 2012 at 09:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Ron. Thats the one, wonder when it will come back on TV as a repeat?.:)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 29th August 2012 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ie, the Flack 77
Wouldn't that be 'Flak 88' Linc?
As to Kelly's Heroes - it appeared about once a fortnight on average a year or two back.
Moggy
By: - 29th August 2012 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Moggy,
Flack 88 yes.my mistake, :rolleyes:
Did you know the Firefly in some variations fired Rockets, carried just over 70 rounds of 17 pounders, and was also able to fire Sabots, The name, "Firefly" was not the Official name for this Tank, but somewon called it that, and the name stuck. Although not in the same class as todays tanks, it was a fantastic Tank, that even the Commanders of the Panzers would try and evade a fight with.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 29th August 2012 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
During WW2 all Allied tanks apart from Soviet tanks, had an additional problem by comparison with German tanks, the simplest problem of all in that Allied tanks had to be readily transported by sea, had to be capable of being landed by landing craft which automatically put a restriction on size.
Soviet tanks which didn't have this restriction very quickly became as heavily armoured and gunned as any German tank, working from memory the K2 was quite capable of going toe to toe with most German tanks and simply taking whatever was shot at it.
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 26th August 2012 at 11:14
The above engine was fitted to the Grant, sherman, and one or two other Tanks. including the M4A1. I understand that aircraft engines have been fitted into Tanks since around 1918, the question is, why did they need to use aircraft engines instead of conventional engines?.
Don't know if this is the right place to Post this.
Jim.
Lincoln .7