Detroit arsenal: how the Americans learned to make tanks

Assembly tanks MZ General Lee at the Detroit Arsenal

American tank city

Before World War II, the Americans were relatively good at building only light tanks. At the same time, a gigantic resource base, scientific potential and experience in organizing in-line production allowed the United States to quickly launch the flywheel of tank production. Do not forget about a significant trump card - there were no military operations on the territory of the country, which could not but affect the effectiveness. Not a single bomb fell on the factories of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

Compare this with the emergency evacuation of the Kharkov Tank Plant and the establishment of the production of armored vehicles almost in the open field at the Ural enterprises. And at this time the Nazis rushed to Moscow. When Americans brag about the scale and quality of defense products produced during the Second World War, it is necessary to pass information through a dense cognitive filter.

Art Nouveau factory from the pen of Albert Kahn himself

One of the symbols of the power of the military-industrial complex of the United States can be considered a plant that is included in history under the name Detroit Arsenal (Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant).

For the construction of the enterprise, they chose a plot of land with an area of ​​​​almost 46 hectares, almost 30 kilometers from the center of Detroit. In the future, the town of Warren formed around the plant. According to American sources, the Detroit Arsenal was the first plant in the United States built exclusively for the production of tanks. Under the guidance of architect Albert Kahn and Chrysler, the Arsenal was completed in just eight months at the end of April 1941. The Chrysler team began digging under the foundation in September 1940.

The dates of the start of production and the completion of construction did not coincide - the first tanks left the gates even before the acceptance of the plant by the commission. In any case, the huge plant was built in record time for its time. According to the legend, when the workers mastered the mass production of tanks, winter had not yet left Michigan, and a steam locomotive had to be driven into one of the unfinished workshops for heating.

The plant was built in a record eight months by May 1941

Albert Kahn is a significant figure in the world of industrial architecture. He made a significant contribution to Soviet construction - in total, at the height of the Great Depression, his office designed almost six hundred plants and factories in three years. Including tractor factories in Stalingrad, Chelyabinsk and Kharkov. The Detroit Arsenal, in full analogy with Soviet enterprises, in peacetime could be quickly redesigned for civilian products. Only not for the production of tractors, but for the needs of the automobile division of Chrysler.

Despite the location of the plant in the heart of America, Albert Kahn provided, albeit symbolic, but resistance to bombing. Concrete walls in some areas reached almost a meter thick, and the roof structure protected critical nodes from destruction.

Production and testing of the M3 Lee at the Detroit Arsenal

The first tanks from the Detroit Arsenal were issued in April 1941 - it was the M3 Lee, later, after the expansion of production, the M4 Sherman joined it. Chrysler has never been involved in the development of tanks, and to illustrate this, we will give an example of the creation of a motor for Sherman. It was also called the "Frankenstein engine" - it was assembled from five six-cylinder passenger gasoline engines. The result was an amazing 30-cylinder power plant, developing 425 hp. With.

Another Detroit legend speaks about the level of Chrysler's competence in the field of tank building. When asked in 1940 if his factories and workers would be able to build tanks, the president of the Keller company, he firmly answered “Yes!”, and then clarified: “What does a tank look like”?

Detroit Arsenal

Looking ahead, we will mention that the Detroit Arsenal at different times built all the most famous American tanks - M26 Pershing, M46 / 47 Patton, M67 Zippo flamethrower, M60 and until 1991 M1 Abrams tanks. With a high degree of conventionality, the Arsenal can be called an analogue of the Soviet Tankograd, which includes a complex of enterprises in Chelyabinsk.

It was at the tank factory in Detroit that President Roosevelt coined and voiced the phrase "Arsenal of Democracy" in September 1942. According to another version, he first spoke about this at the end of 1940.

Detroit at the beginning of the war became the largest military-industrial center of the United States. More than 350 workers moved to new factories and repurposed car factories to assemble tanks, aircraft, trucks, guns and ammunition. The Americans calculated that two percent of the US population, concentrated in the Detroit agglomeration, produced up to ten percent of the country's military products.

That Rosie the Riveter

American folklore believes that it was in the Detroit Arsenal that the famous "Rosie the Riveter" was born, which has become a symbol of women's work in the defense complex of the United States. The heroic image of a well-fed Rosie with a sandwich, embodied on canvas by artist Norman Rockwell, was supposed to encourage American women to go to factories more actively.

Rosie really could have been from the Detroit Arsenal - for a couple of years the company assembled M3 Lee tanks, the armor of which was connected just with riveting. The pneumatic riveter on Rosie's lap is of impressive size, indicating a clear armor production profile. Such aggregates are redundant for thin sheets of aviation duralumin.

Postwar Detroit Arsenal

In just 55 years of operation, the Detroit Arsenal produced 44 tanks. In the United States, they boast that over the years of the Second World War, the plant outdid the tank production of the Third Reich in terms of volume. Every fourth American tank produced from 512 to 1941 came out of the gates of the Detroit arsenal - in total, this is more than 1945 thousand vehicles.

The production of complete tanks in Detroit stopped in 1991, and after another five years the plant was finally closed.

The Americans felt like winners in the Cold War, and it was decided to transfer the extra enterprise to private hands. But not completely - until now, offices engaged in the development of promising models of military equipment nest on the territory of the plant. For example, the Tank-Automobile Directorate and Arms Command (TACOM), as well as the Advanced Research and Development Center for Ground Vehicles (DEVCOM).

During the Cold War, these structures were distinguished by a mass of interesting prototypes and mass-produced military vehicles, which had a serious impact on the development of the world industry. Even in the Soviet engineering school one can find many borrowings from the Detroit arsenal. For example, the MAZ-535 was inspired by the American XM194E3 8x8 heavy truck tractor. The difference is that our car went into series and became the ancestor of a whole class of technology, while the American one remained in prototypes.

On the territory of the former Arsenal there are unique climatic installations that allow you to simulate the temperature and humidity of any part of the world. This is especially important for testing military equipment with a hybrid drive. Laboratories simulating off-road conditions for wheeled and tracked vehicles have been preserved. It can be said that the “American tank city” has transformed into an analogue of the Russian 38th Research and Testing Institute of Armored Vehicles in Kubinka.

After the war, the Detroit Arsenal produced more than 22 tanks.

During the post-war period, the Detroit Arsenal has experienced several ups and downs.

The first failure occurred in 1952, when the company failed to increase the production of tanks for the war in Korea. Interestingly, by that time Chrysler had been removed from business and the plant was transferred to the army artillery department. As a result, in five years, the military managed to launch the plant in such a way that it had to be urgently returned to Chrysler managers, and multimillion-dollar Pentagon contracts flowed into the company with it.

In total, Chrysler built 1952 M1954 Patton tanks between 3 and 443. For the Vietnam War, the Detroit Arsenal produced at least five hundred M47A60s. In response to the 2 Arab-Israeli war, the factory produced a record five tanks per day.

Since 1979, a new hero has entered the scene - the main battle tank M1 Abrams, the production of which was launched at the plant in Lima, Ohio (Lima Art Tank Plant). At first, the Detroit Arsenal produced only individual components for the Abrams, but later the main plant could not cope with defense orders, and Chrysler was transferred to the full production cycle.

However, since 1982, the company was taken over by General Dynamics, under whose leadership the M1 and M60 were produced in parallel for another five years. The last tank left the factory gates in 1991 - it was the Abrams.

After that, the company was interrupted by the assembly of tank components for the main plant in Lima, and in 1996, as mentioned above, it ceased to exist.

Comments

[alexandre II]

There is a proverb, no matter how hard the Turkmen nuclear physicists work, the result is always marijuana ... so are American tanks, ... a thunderstorm of the Papuans

[Negro]

Quote from: alexandre

american tanks

Sherman was the best tank of 42-43 years and by a margin the most massive. An exceptionally successful car. Of the 80 post-war years, the Americans had 15-20 noticeable problems with tanks, mainly the tank crisis of the 70s

[Igor1915]

Why 42-43? in aggregate, convenience, combat qualities, reliability, quantity - I think in the first place, in the second t-34

[Negro]

Quote: Igor1915

Why 42-43?

Despite all the problems of the Panther, in the world with the Panther, the Sherman was not the best tank. Against the background of tanks of the 44th year: Panther, T-34-85, Sherman Firefly, Comet - Sherman 76 looks far less advantageous than against the background of the three-four, crusader-cromwell and T-34-76 with a four-stage and oil air filter.

Actually, this is my personal alhistorical claim. Instead of a big modernization (like the T-34 into the T-34-85, Cromwell into the Comet, not to mention the new Panther tank), the Americans cheated and raked (by American standards they raked, of course). The theoretical 44 Sherman could be stronger than any other tank, including the Panther.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

Instead of a big modernization (like the T-34 into the T-34-85, Cromwell into the Comet, not to mention the new Panther tank), the Americans cheated and raked (by American standards they raked, of course). The theoretical 44 Sherman could be stronger than any other tank, including the Panther.

For what we say friendly "thank you" anti-personnel lobby.
The tank must destroy the infantrythey said. A tank should not fight tanksthey said. To fight tanks there are anti-tank guns and tank destroyersthey said. And this is already having a "firefly" in front of my eyes.

We, however, had the same views - Order 325 and the composition of the standard BC T-34 and T-34-85 are an example of this. But there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped - they wanted to increase the direct range of the T-34 gun while maintaining the power of the OFS, but received a gun with maximum armor penetration (for the USSR and for the T-34 chassis).

[DesToeR]

Quote: Alexey RA

For which we say a friendly "thank you" to the anti-personnel lobby.
The tank should destroy the infantry, they said. A tank should not fight tanks, they said. To fight tanks, there are anti-tank guns and tank destroyers, they said. And this is already having a "firefly" in front of my eyes.

And then you read the memoirs of a Nazi on the Tigris near Kursk and are surprised at his "Yaroslavna's cry": the poor thing used up three rounds of ammunition without firing a single armor-piercing. Sometimes it happens like Mikhalych ... The same thing is in the memoirs of ALL tankers who fought in a "working" order. Huge consumption of land mines against the background of meager consumption of armor-piercing. Well, how will we create tanks then? For real combat conditions, where the main enemy is a bunker, anti-aircraft gun, infantry, or for abstract wishlists of descendants in the 21st century, i.e. forehead CT right through with 1500m?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: DesToeR

For real combat conditions, where the main enemy is the bunker, anti-tank gun, infantry

It is in the tanks of the NPP from separate battalions, regiments and brigades that the main enemy is infantry, artillery and field fortifications. And then among this flower garden of soft targets there may well be a "shtug" or "hetzer".
And the tanks of the corps and armies included in the breakthrough regularly meet with fire brigades from the enemy’s mechanized formations. And to retreat, hiding behind infantry with anti-tank guns (as Order 325 advises) does not always work.
And what should a tanker on the T-34-76 do in such a situation, for whose gun already 80 mm of armor is an insurmountable obstacle?
Of course, you shouldn't run into a "firefly" - the problem of the quality of armor-piercing shells will immediately arise there. But it would not hurt to increase armor penetration while maintaining the power of the OFS - so that at least the enemy’s ST could be unpleasantly surprised.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Alexey RA

And what should a tanker on the T-34-76 do in such a situation, for whose gun already 80 mm of armor is an insurmountable obstacle?

Well, let's be honest: when did the 76mm T-34 tank become sorely missed? This is the second half of 1943, when the Panther was added to the Shtug with its 80mm wolf and the T-4 with its 60 ... 80mm in the forehead. Yes, it sucks, but the T-34-85 (autumn) is already sent to the series. And the release of these hard-to-vulnerable vehicles in the 3rd Reich is not striking in its scale, especially against the backdrop of an avalanche of Soviet tanks. For some reason, "wise" descendants in the 21st century completely ignore the law of the transition of quantity into quality. And it really works as then and today.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

For which we say a friendly "thank you" to the anti-personnel lobby

We will not.

The anti-personnel lobby of a healthy person, Manstein is his last name, came up with a shtug, one of the best examples of WWII BTT. The American anti-personnel lobby did not need to invent anything. It was necessary to let General Motors and order a Churchill brigade for each infantry division.

Instead, the infantry division was given a battalion (normal battalion, 40 vehicles) M10. That is, tanks with weakened armor and a weakened land mine.

Manstein was not brought. Either he did not pass the fifth paragraph, like Kruger, or he died at the wrong time, like Chaffee, or the Americans themselves found him in time and expelled him from the service because he is dofiga smart, like Yarnell.

Quote: Alexey RA

they wanted to increase the direct range of the T-34 gun while maintaining the power of the OFS, but received a gun with maximum armor penetration

Some strange argument, from a series of too armor-piercing ZiS-2.
Let me remind you that the T-34-85 has a gun from the Su-85, tank destroyer. I don't think this is a coincidence. Like the gun from the M10 on the Sherman. Another thing is that if the task was to strengthen the armament of the T-34, taking into account the results of Kursk, then the USSR does not have many options: S-53 and ZiS-5. At the same time, the ZiS-5 proved to be unsatisfactory.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

Some strange argument, from a series of too armor-piercing ZiS-2.
Let me remind you that the T-34-85 has a gun from the Su-85, tank destroyer. I don't think this is a coincidence. Like the gun from the M10 on the Sherman.

If the GABTU with the GAU ran into armor penetration, then the S-34 gun could have been on the new T-54. The proms would only say thank you - for the S-54 it was not necessary to screw up the shoulder strap and the hull and redo the tower, the "nuts" were enough. We would get the Soviet "Sherman-76". But the high initial speed of the OFS did not go well with the steel cast iron of the hull - something like a "forty-five" OS was obtained. So, in order to preserve the power of the main projectile, the caliber had to be raised.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

If the GABTU with the GAU ran into armor penetration, then the S-34 gun could have been on the new T-54.

ZiS-4.

Quote: Alexey RA

We would get the Soviet "Sherman-76".

Without a tank commander.

Quote: Alexey RA

But the high initial speed of the OFS did not go well with the steel cast iron of the hull

She did not combine well with alloyed steel. When they recall the objections of the same Patton against the new Shermans in favor of the old ones, it’s just about a half mine.

At the same time, judging by Pasholok, the S-54 caliber would have problems both with the Tiger on board and with the Shtug in the forehead.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Negro

Despite all the problems of the Panther, in the world with the Panther, the Sherman was not the best tank.

If the "peace" for Sherman is limited to the Panther, then the Yankees win by a huge margin. 36 thousand Shermans against 6 thousand Panthers and 6,5 thousand T-4s. The ratio is 1 to 3 in favor of the Yankees. But we are in a "world" where there is only Panther! Then 1:6 and the Shermans cover a scanty pride of German cats like a bull to a sheep.
Both Sherman and Panther have "on board" all the same anti-ballistic armor conventional for ST WWII and a three-inch gun in the turret.

[Negro]

Quote: DesToeR

If you limit the "world" for Sherman to only Panther, then the Yankees win by a huge margin

"Women are still giving birth" - this is not the attitude that American tankers expect from their command.

Quote: DesToeR

36 thousand Shermans against 6 thousand Panthers and 6,5 thousand T-4s. 1 to 3 ratio in favor of the Yankees

You, again, to the Eastern Front with such calculations.

Quote: DesToeR

That Sherman, that Panther have "on board" all the same anti-ballistic armor conventional for ST WWII and a three-inch gun in the turret

No. The panther has anti-projectile armor in the front (from ZiS-3, S-53, 6lb and 76mm), while the Sherman from Pak40 and KVK42 does not have anti-projectile armor. The German three-inch is enough for any enemy equipment, except for the late IS-2 and Churchill 7, and the American one is not enough.

And most importantly - in 44 you can directly indicate tanks that are better than Sherman 76, at least three. Which is quite a shame - among these three is the English modification of Sherman. Talking about the volume of production here is a bit out of place - no one prevented the Americans from producing good tanks in such quantities instead of mediocre ones.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

"Women are still giving birth" - this is not the attitude that American tankers expect from their command.

But which they regularly receive. I immediately recall the clearing of a passage in a minefield in the style this "Sherman" was blown up, the next forward.

Quote: Negro

You, again, to the Eastern Front with such calculations.

Well, why go there? You can get closer - in the USAAF with their conveyor for the processing of personnel and equipment with minimal damage to the enemy.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

I immediately recall the clearing of a passage in a minefield in the style of this "Sherman" blown up, next forward.

You see, this one-time case (known from memoirs) of the loss of several cars is immediately remembered to you precisely because it seemed wild to all the witnesses. Tank professor Rotmistrov, of course, could not remember such cases. Not to trifles.

Quote: Alexey RA

You can get closer - in the USAAF with their conveyor for the processing of personnel and equipment with minimal damage to the enemy

Minimum? Didn't expect from you. Even to the RAF such claims back and forth.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

Minimum? Didn't expect from you. Even to the RAF such claims back and forth.

Until 1944 - minimal. Systematic work on key objectives began only towards the end of the war. And before that there were one-time actions and throwing from side to side. In fact, the Yankees stepped on the German rake of the Battle of Britain, when after one or two hits the target was considered disabled, and the strike strategy changed like the phases of the moon.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

Until 1944 - minimal

Well, you know. We are just the 44th year and are interested.

In addition, there is an opinion that "to develop a new type of combat operations" and "to give the army the tank model they ask for" are tasks of varying complexity.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Negro

"Women are still giving birth" - this is not the attitude that American tankers expect from their command.

And in what universe is their opinion of interest to the American generals? Don't tell tales about good American officers.

Quote: Negro

You, again, to the Eastern Front with such calculations.

Including the Eastern Front. True, 23 thousand T-34-85 tanks must be added to this American steel avalanche over the same period. Do you still want to speculate about small-scale German cats? about custom-made lime tanks? Try...

Quote: Negro

And most importantly - in 44 you can directly indicate tanks that are better than Sherman 76, at least three. Which is quite a shame - among these three is the English modification of Sherman.

It is a shame to consider this modification better than the American "light eight". His gun was not so good - we look at the accuracy of shooting with a sub-caliber at a distance of 400 yards and 800 yards and ... we are quietly surprised.

Quote: Negro

Talking about the volume of production here is a bit out of place - no one prevented the Americans from producing good tanks in such quantities instead of mediocre ones.

Well, unlike the American military (Customer) and production (Contractor) today, you certainly know better from your cozy sofa. Yeah.

[Negro]

Quote: DesToeR

And in what universe is their opinion of interest to the American generals?

It will sound incredibly controversial, but it was not customary for Americans to waste people completely in vain, even under their grandfathers. The irrevocable ratio between the USSR and its allies was roughly 5:1 from the middle of 44 until the end of the war (without the Pacific Ocean) is explained primarily by this elusive fact. Much more than others, but this fact above all.

Quote: DesToeR

True, 23 thousand T-34-85 tanks must be added to this American steel avalanche over the same period

As I said, the principle "send 10 cars - one will be lucky" is not good for the Western Front.

Quote: DesToeR

It is a shame to consider this modification better than the American "light eight".

Seriously? But I don’t see anything shameful in taking into account the actions of the enemy. As for the "mchazev", yes, the firefly is definitely better, and no, the mchazev is actually a tank of the Korean War - he did not have time for the summer campaign of 44 years.

Quote: DesToeR

we look at the accuracy of shooting with a sub-caliber at a distance of 400 yards and 800 yards and ... we are quietly surprised.

I have news for you. WWII sub-calibers were not suitable for 800 yards. As well as cumulatives. Last chance weapon for dagger ranges.

Quote: DesToeR

Well, unlike the American military (Customer) and production (Contractor) today, you certainly know better from your cozy sofa

Certainly more visible. In particular, I can see that the intellectual efforts made by the British, German and even Soviet leaders, that is, clearly feasible, were considered unnecessary by the American generals. Moreover, the American generals were in the simplest of the conditions listed.

I will say more, the performers were just ready to give tanks adequate to the 44th year - the benefit of mind and effort was required for this was very little, Sherman's modernization potential was huge. But the customer fought back with his hands and feet. More precisely, the ten-headed Serpent Gorynych of the American Ministry of War / General Staff was the customer, in which each head tried to bite one or more neighboring ones. In short, people had no time for tanks at all: scandals, intrigues, investigations. Greetings to the great staff officer Marshall, the great commander Eisenhower and the effective manager Roosevelt.

[TIR]

Sherman was not the best. No matter what criteria were used to evaluate, either Panther came out on 1st place, or T-34, or T-34-85. Good tank, but not the best. Post-war US tanks were generally 10 years late from the Soviet ones. In the Middle East, the Yankees disgraced themselves in general

[Negro]

Quote: TIR

Regardless of the criteria used to evaluate

Are you targeting the Zvezda channel?

Quote: TIR

either Panther came out on 1st place

Therefore, I limit Sherman's superiority to 42-43 years. There are many questions for the Panther, but an adequate car appeared only in the middle of the 45th.

Quote: TIR

or T-34

The real, and not the paper T-34, is generally a tank curiosity.

Quote: TIR

or T-34-85

If the Sherman 75 was superior to the T-34-76 in absolutely everything, then the T-34-85 had one big plus compared to the Sherman 76 - a universal weapon. Otherwise, Sherman is still better.

Quote: TIR

Post-war US tanks were generally 10 years late from the Soviet ones.

I, apparently, will surprise you, but the USSR could claim qualitative (and quantitative) superiority in tanks from the strength of 15 years - from the T-64B to Abrams.

Quote: TIR

In the Middle East, the Yankees disgraced themselves in general

Decided to take up clowning?

[AUL]

Quote from: alexandre

American tanks, ... a thunderstorm for the Papuans

Do you have any specific information on this issue, or just blurted out?

[Bookworm]

Can you say something about Abrams? Bad or thin armor? Weak gun? Or, perhaps, bad shells? Maybe disgusting surveillance devices? Or a fire control system?

[Alexey RA]

Quote from: alexandre

There is a proverb, no matter how hard the Turkmen nuclear physicists work, the result is always marijuana ... so are American tanks, ... a thunderstorm of the Papuans

Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
The indicated tank models compare favorably with the domestic ones in terms of ease of operation, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and current repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces ...

© Marshal BTV Fedorenko (head of the ABTU of the Red Army and commander of the BTiMV of the Ground Forces)

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

Marshal BTV Fedorenko

It should be mentioned that Fedorenko already has a T-34-85 at his disposal, which is incomparable with Soviet machines of the 42nd year.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

It should be mentioned that Fedorenko already has a T-34-85 at his disposal, which is incomparable with Soviet machines of the 42nd year.

And who, after 1945, en masse went to the UKN. As, however, and all the tanks of the war. For...

I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance, they can be compared with the best foreign models ...

© Marshal BTV Fedorenko (Head of the ABTU RKKA and Commander of the BTiMV Ground Forces).

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

And who, after 1945, en masse went to the UKN. As, however, and all the tanks of the war. For...

For the quality of Soviet technology of the war years (hmm, only the military?) left much to be desired.

We haven't touched on another topic yet. Soviet technology was usually expensive and complicated - in production and operation. Comrade Grabin, without any irony, described the participation of process engineers in the design of weapons as (his) feat. Fans of stamping and AK-47 hello.

Against this background, stories about the stupid Chrysler, where the tank was painted by the military in general terms, and excellent and numerous American automotive engineers were engaged in production from and to, are perceived from a different angle.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

Soviet technology was usually expensive and complex - to manufacture and operate. Comrade Grabin, without any irony, described the participation of process engineers in the design of weapons as (his) feat.

Well, in those days, not only Soviet technology sinned with this. The problems of production described by Grabin (which he attributed to a planned economy, when it is profitable for foundry workers to give huge blanks to fulfill the plan) one to one repeat the problems of the capitalist Bofors with its tenfold excess of the mass of blanks over parts. As well as the marvelous production technology with "drill through the meth after assembly" and "finish with a file during assembly."
By the way, Chrysler, after all, also noted with Bofors - it was its engineers in the USA that completely redesigned the Swedish design and technology (classified by the Yankees as "a way to employ the maximum number of skilled workers for the maximum time") for a normal conveyor.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

reworked Swedish design and technology (classified by the Yankees as "the way to employ the maximum number of skilled workers for the maximum time") into a normal assembly line.

Yes, this is a well-known story.

But there is a nuance. The Swedish gun was not adapted for mass production because it was not intended for mass production. This is a marine system that was not produced, but built. Ship dates, prices and quantities for the Swedes were the norm.

No one meant that the number of guns that the Swedes estimated for themselves for 10 years (taking into account all foreign orders) the Americans would need to make every month of the 43rd year.

Speaking of Chrysler. Already the American improved four-barreled Boffors cost as much as TWO Shermans.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

But there is a nuance. The Swedish gun was not adapted for mass production because it was not intended for mass production. This is a marine system that was not produced, but built.

So the Bofors also had land-based versions of the 40-mm. Which, in theory, should have been better adapted to mass production.
And which in fact had exactly the same problems - judging by Chrysler's attempts to establish their production in 1940 under a Swedish license for Britain (since all production was originally supposed to go to the Island Empire, this was not formally considered a violation of the license). Then they tried to launch an army anti-aircraft gun into the series. And they began to remake the CD and TD precisely from the army version.

And when the Yankees decided come out of the darkness in 1941 and officially acquire a license from the Swedes, they took three types of Bofors - a single-barrel gun and a pair for the fleet + a single-barrel gun complete with a platform for the ground forces. And with the original Swedish CD and TD on all three systems the problems were the same.
Just to avoid unhealthy competition and dissipation of forces, all work with the Swedes was transferred to the USN. Which, as a result, bought anti-aircraft guns for the army too.

Quote: Negro

No one meant that the number of guns that the Swedes estimated for themselves for 10 years (taking into account all foreign orders) the Americans would need to make every month of the 43rd year.

Well, if you include 450 man-hours of qualified workers per gun in the documentation, then even the deadlines for foreign orders will be in question.

“Manual labor,” Roman said quickly. - Failsafe. Designs by Leo Ben Bezalel. Ben Bezalel collected and debugged it for three hundred years ...

© ABS. PNvS.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

Well, if you put in the documentation 450 man-hours of skilled workers per gun

Here in the thread they cry that they don’t pay enough for skilled workers under capitalism. But Bofors found what to do with skilled Swedish workers for twenty years ahead - and for good money.

The Americans differ from the Swedes, among other things, in that they had a conveyor, and more than one. And no one else had a conveyor in the American sense. Neither the Germans nor the British.

[Vladimir_2U]

It remains to be hoped that as a country of engineers - USA is no longer the same as before.

[fa2998]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It remains to be hoped that as a country of engineers - USA is no longer the same as before.

Surprisingly, the country quickly mobilizes when necessary! 2 World Wars is an indicator of this. "He will bake" the necessary production will begin again. There is experience, and economic potential.

[Luminman]

Quote: fa2998

Surprisingly, the country quickly mobilizes when necessary

This is not the same country...

[mr.ZinGer]

And what country is that? Apart from China, nothing else comes to mind.

[ycuce234-san]

This is a question of the vocational education system - you can count the number of vocational schools and engineering faculties there and get an accurate idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe limits of possibilities.

[Negro]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

USA is not what it used to be.

Much stronger. The states of the 30s, to put it simply, are the current China, the plan for the shaft at a rather secondary technical level. But during the war and post-war period, they pulled over all the high-tech.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Negro

The states of the 30s, to put it simply, are the current China, the plan for the shaft at a rather secondary technical level.

Even in the 30s, not to mention the 40s, the United States was at a high technical level of development, the secondary is about science. Much like China now.

Quote: Negro

But during the war and post-war period, they pulled over all the high-tech.

With a stretch - like China now.

[Negro]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Much like China now.

The production level is high, the scientific and technical level is relatively low. Low relative to the British, of course, the world leaders at that time. On the other hand, with mass production, the British are much worse.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

how is china now

China should not even dream of such a lafa.

[svp67]

I almost doubt the ability of the Americans to start producing tanks again. If the necessary funds are allocated for this, they will do it. And very quickly

[far diu]

Modern MBT will not be able to clip as quickly as in WWII, at least for now. If their plan to automate the economy by 2030 succeeds (which is why so many chip and component factories are being built now), then it is possible, but most likely they will not revive tank building, because this makes no sense.

[paul3390]

Don't think. You fall into the sin of liberalism, which believes that money is something like a magic wand. Like, it’s worth highlighting them - and tomorrow everything will already appear. No, it won't show up. From the allocation of the dough, turners, milling cutters, welders, OTKshnikov, tool makers, and other working people will not appear. And another 10 years - they will gain experience in order to achieve the necessary conditions .. Iosif Vissarionovich did not say in vain - cadres decide everything ...

But for all these professions - you still need to find those who want to. In countries where the position of a working person is extremely unprestigious - this inevitably turns out to be a problem. For in the public mind, a worker = a sucker, and a barrista or a dog hairdresser = a successful person .. Well, who will go to the factory to grumble in such situations?

I remember under Soviet rule - the engineer angrily bawled that they were like all of themselves with diplomas - but they get three times less than hard workers in the shop. Like - ay-yai-yai .. Why did the Bolsheviks do it - only out of the type of love for the proletariat? Yes, nevermind - they were realists, and they clearly understood that it was possible to drive a person to the machine only with a decent salary. But even this is not enough! It is necessary - that his profession is also considered extremely prestigious by society! Otherwise - everything will be as it is now, no one wants to grumble at the factory, even if for half the salary - but one hell of a manager in the office. For not kuzyavo - to be a locksmith. Girls don't appreciate it.

What am I all for? Yes, to the fact that they, and, alas, ours - everything is neglected to an extreme degree .. In all respects. No one to work. There are neither ready-made personnel, nor, most importantly, those who want to become them. To overcome the catastrophe of liberalism, it is necessary to radically change the entire system of social values. On this - weak in the knees that our type of elite, that theirs .. So - quickly no one will do anything. Even if you take it tight right now - I think at least ten years ..

[Aaleks1974]

Paying an engineer three times less than a worker is also not the smartest decision! Which, in general, history has proven ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Not only did they pay very little, but it seemed not enough. Since the mid-80s of the last century, they thought of calling students after the first year, as soon as they turned 18, not allowing them to finish their studies.

[Aviator_]

Since the mid-80s of the last century, they thought of calling students after the first year, as soon as they turned 18, not allowing them to finish their studies.

This nonsense lasted only one year. I won’t be surprised that this is not from stupidity, but solely to discredit the USSR among the population. Perestroika with subsequent collapse had to be prepared!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This went on from 1984 to 1989 at least.

[paul3390]

And not every engineer was paid less .. I also knew those who received more. What is the problem here, in my opinion? Following the course of the Bolsheviks for the comprehensive increase in the education of the population, at some point they decided that it would be time to make higher education mass. At the same time, forgetting to unfasten the connection of higher education = position about the people's consciousness. So here it is .. But the people - they took everything differently, like if I have a higher education - give me a place. So they spawned a bunch of strange characters, who seem to have a tower, but - they actually didn’t become engineers ..

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I would like to recall that in the USSR there was a distribution system for university graduates. That is, jobs for them have been identified.
And what, in your understanding, is a position or place, it is not at all clear to me, and does not fit in with the situation that existed at that time.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Well, finally, from you a close description of reality. The problem is precisely in the social structure and in the impossibility of transferring knowledge and skills by inheritance, in the form of workers and especially engineering dynasties. The income from engineering labor is below the level of reproduction, and therefore there is a shortage of both competent engineers and the results of engineering creativity.
But as soon as you point out that the problem was not created now, but many decades ago, then the adequacy of perception disappears. The culprits are effective managers and office hamsters. In addition, a unique social mechanism operates, thanks to which an individual who has demonstrated success is expelled by all means. Now they are trying to describe it with the term "communalization", a kind of community that does not allow one to stand out.

[Bookworm]

Well, you yourself confirmed with further reflections that it is still a matter of the amount of money allocated.

[paul3390]

Hmm ... But further, lower than money - for whom did I write?

[Negro]

Quote: paul3390

Don't think. You fall into the sin of liberalism, which believes that money is something like a magic wand. Like it’s worth highlighting them - and tomorrow everything will already appear

Not tomorrow, but within 10 years. Take an interest in the rocket and automobile business of the well-known swindler and swindler of African origin I. Mask.

Quote: paul3390

From the allocation of the dough - turners, milling cutters, welders, OTKshnikov, tool makers, and other working people will not appear .. Engineers, standardizers, technologists, developers, testers will not appear ..

In America, they already are. It is the largest industrial power in the world, comparable (quantitatively, but not qualitatively) only to China.

[LastPS]

It's not a matter of "not being a jerk". The working conditions in the workshop and in the office are incomparable, and the physical load in the workshop is much higher, while the salary level is either the same or lower, well, why would a person ruin his health, for what? The market decided, if you don’t want to provide a decent standard of living for a hard worker, get strained with personnel, not only can you not find a specialist during the day with fire, but the quality will most likely be mediocre.

[Alf]

Quote: svp67

If the necessary funds are allocated for this, they will do it.

Funds are very good, but a lawyer and a lawyer will not replace a handy locksmith-turner-grinder.

[gsev]

Quote: Alf

Funds are very good, but a lawyer and a lawyer will not replace a handy locksmith-turner-grinder.

There is a constant competition of peoples and states. It is not enough to allocate enough resources to solve the problem, you need to find a more optimal way to use the allocated resources. Musk adequately spent the allocated resources and won the space race against Rogozin. Rogozin spent resources suboptimally. He managed to shoot a blockbuster in space on the ISS to the envy of Hollywood and Bollywood, paint a rocket in Khokhloma, create a cool PR agency to bully Musk by flying on trampolines, but the carrier created under the leadership of Rogozin is in no way superior to that created by S.P. Korolev's Seven of Companions. And Rogozin did not even bother to create a group of space reconnaissance and communications. This is because the most important thing is not the allocation of money for a fashionable direction, but the calculation of which direction of technology is critical and requires the allocation of money. That is why I.V. Stalin limited the ambitions of the leaders of the MGB and officially sought the independence of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and put scientists in high scientific positions and made their MGB officers only their deputies.

[rocket757]

It is worth recognizing that America is a great country ... it was.
What is it now??? this is a question for themselves, the rest of the world, if I don’t spit in their direction, then at a loss

[ycuce234-san]

He made a significant contribution to Soviet construction - in total, at the height of the Great Depression, his office designed almost six hundred plants and factories in three years.

If it was produced according to the project of the plant in 2 days, then this indicates that they used only a typical finished project, which was adapted by 1-2% and no more. The photocopiers at Kahn were apparently working in three shifts.

[Blackmokona]

Quote: ycuce234-san

He made a significant contribution to Soviet construction - in total, at the height of the Great Depression, his office designed almost six hundred plants and factories in three years.

If it was produced according to the project of the plant in 2 days, then this indicates that they used only a typical finished project, which was adapted by 1-2% and no more. The photocopiers at Kahn were apparently working in three shifts.

Rather, just one master and hundreds of apprentices, which the master only directed and checked

[Negro]

Quote: BlackMokona

Rather, just one master and hundreds of apprentices, which the master only directed and checked

It's about something else altogether. By "Albert Kahn" is meant not a person, but a company. How countless huge buildings Zaha Hadid designed, of course, not Zaha in one snout.

[Doctor]

It's about something else altogether. By "Albert Kahn" is meant not a person, but a company. How countless huge buildings Zaha Hadid designed, of course, not Zaha in one snout.

Clearly a company. One person cannot pull out what was later called "industrialization in the USSR."
For the design of 570 factories, Kahn and Co. received 2 billion dollars from Stalin (250 in today's money). Swiss annual income .

The first order - the Stalingrad Tractor, was generally built in the USA, dismantled, transported to the Volga and assembled in 6 (SIX) months.

The branch of Kahn's office in the USSR was called Gosproektstroy. Taxied by his bro, Moritz.

[Negro]

Quote: Arzt

For the design of 570 factories, Kahn and Co. received 2 billion dollars from Stalin (250 in today's money). Swiss annual income

Here it should be clarified. Kahn's firm was not only a designer, but also a general contractor. I will not check your amount, but we are talking about the supply of turnkey plants, with all the equipment.

Quote: Arzt

The Stalingrad tractor was generally built in the USA, dismantled, transported to the Volga and assembled in 6 (SIX) months.

Yep, those are the stories.

[point]

Typed solutions were indeed used everywhere, which does not negate the fact that the plants were built and operated according to the plans. The concentration of effort created a decidedly unique situation in which designers had a plethora of standard orders. In real life, tasks are distributed among different bureaus and at a slower pace. But this does not mean that the maximum productivity of labor is achieved in this way.

[ycuce234-san]

Now is the period of world deindustrialization, and therefore, with small orders, they work slowly with each project individually - there will be more of them - they will again develop standard projects and begin to rivet them.
Let's not forget that at that time urban planners also built cities according to standard projects - if you did this now, mortgages would be available even to homeless people.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Do not build illusions. Apartments, that is, housing, were very expensive in the USSR. With salaries of 90-110 rubles, the cost per square meter was 119-130 rubles. The numbers are for memory, I can be wrong, but the order is approximately as follows. Then there was an increase in prices, and with a salary of 200 rubles, a two-room cooperative apartment began to cost 12 rubles.
So even then it was not smeared with honey. But, for the elite, there was an opportunity to get free housing.

[Negro]

Hm, yes.

Chrysler has never been involved in the development of tanks, and to illustrate this, we will give an example of the creation of a motor for Sherman. It was also called the "Frankenstein engine" - it was assembled from five six-cylinder passenger gasoline engines. The result was an amazing 30-cylinder power plant, developing 425 hp. With.

Tank engines of special production during WWII were made only by the Germans. The rest either altered the engines from the aircraft, or depicted something with automobile ones. Chrysler's five-fold inline six was a completely normal solution for those years, the proven technology made it possible to produce a good number of engines with decent quality. The USSR would be happy if it could create something similar on the basis of the ZiSovsky Hercules. In the American case, the choice of the base is surprising (as are the Cadillac engines on Stuart and Chaffee), but here the demand is not from Chrysler, but from the customer.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Do you take the liberty of asserting that the USSR did not have a special tank engine during World War II? Maybe the V-2 diesel engine and the tanks themselves were not on it in the USSR?

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The world did not have a special tank engine? Maybe a V-2 diesel

Are you talking about an aluminum V12 under 40 liters in volume? Does this design and dimension of the engine mean anything to you?

Quote: Negro

The rest either altered the engines from the aircraft, or depicted something with automobile ones.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Indeed, when creating the V-2, developments in the aircraft engine were taken as the basis. But only a person with certain gaps in thinking can consider the B-2 aviation.

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

But only a person with certain gaps in thinking can consider the B-2 aviation.

The B-2 from an aircraft engine, among other things, had two generic features:
1. Aluminum block - and this is in the Soviet situation with aluminum.
2. Length. It was one and a half times longer than the more powerful Panther. For a tank, this is a huge minus. Especially for a tank with a Soviet layout. The Americans, with their own aviation and therefore also very long Ford, faced this problem on Pershing.

However, I think you are taking it too close to heart. The USSR was not the number one engine-building power in the world, unlike the United States, and the situation with tank engines against the background of everything else was quite acceptable. The same Americans came to engines of special construction only in the 50s.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Negro

2. Length. It was one and a half times longer than the more powerful Panther. For a tank, this is a huge minus.

Not everything is so simple, especially if you figure out at what speed the maximum power removal from the Soviet diesel engine and the German Maybach was achieved. Will it not turn out that in 95% of cases the Germans drove the same 450 ... 500 hp? without "squeezing" everything out of their engines? EMNIP then maximum Maybach gave out at 3500 rpm, and V-2 at 1800.

Quote: Negro

For a tank, this is a huge minus. Especially for a tank with a Soviet layout.

Are you talking about the layout of the T-44 tank with the same engine? So there were no problems - they turned the engine across the tank. It turns out that it was possible.

[Negro]

Quote: DesToeR

Not so simple

By itself.

Quote: DesToeR

without "squeezing" everything out of their engines?

Let's not now remember what the B-2 really gave in the 42nd in terms of power.

Quote: DesToeR

gave out at 3500 rpm, and B-2 at 1800.

A low-speed engine for a tracked vehicle is more convenient. But it creates a much greater load on the checkpoint - already lousy.

So the Soviet tankers used their torque to drive virtually without a box - in one gear.

Not everything is as clear cut as you said.

Quote: DesToeR

there were no problems - they turned the engine across the tank. It turns out that it was possible.

You would be so smart and go to Kharkov in the 39th year.

The Soviet Union brought a short MTO to the 49th year. The Americans got a short MTO in the 52nd on the M48. During WWII, the Germans had a short MTO (which was not so important during their layout) and the "backward" British (installed along an aircraft engine, but a very short gearbox, combined with final drives and placed across the car). Therefore, on the Cromwell, Comet and Centurion, the turret stands in the middle of the vehicle, and on the M26, IS / KV and T-34, the long MTO “squeezes” it onto the front roller.

By the way, especially for the patriots. In the competition "let's make a tank engine for ... get rid of it," of course, not Chrysler with its 30 pots, and not even Kharkov, but Ford wins. V8 with a volume of 18 liters against the Soviet V12 38 liters takes the same 1,5 meters. Plus, there is also a rather big hydraulic transmission behind it, and even further final drives. As a result, the M26 has Kim Kardashian food, if you know what I mean.

[geraet4501]

In the competition "let's make a tank engine for ... get rid of it," of course, not Chrysler with its 30 pots, and not even Kharkov, but Ford wins.

Knipkamp liked this engine very much: “As for the engines of the Allies, in his opinion, the best engine for combat vehicles was the 8-cylinder V-engine of Ford with a capacity of 500 hp (apparently meaning Ford GAA) He considered it very practical development, especially in terms of production and service."

V8 with a volume of 18 liters against the Soviet V12 38 liters takes the same 1,5 meters

The motor itself is 45,5 inches long, that is, 115,5 cm. Apparently, you took the size with the clutch and other body kit.

As a result, the M26 has Kim Kardashian food, if you know what I mean.

Solely because of the transmission with a longitudinal gearbox and torque converter. The total length of the entire transmission of the M26 was 56,5 inches, while the engine was only 45,5 inches. That is, the engine was shorter in length than the transmission!

[Negro]

Quote from: geraet4501

very practical design, especially in terms of production and service

In this regard, the Ford firm did not lose face.

Quote from: geraet4501

The motor itself is 45,5 inches long, that is, 115,5 cm. Apparently, you took the size with the clutch and other body kit

Are you guided by the drawing of Pasholok in Zen? There, the box and the engine partially overlap each other.
However, I gave a figure for the GAA. GAF may have been shorter.

Quote from: geraet4501

Solely because of the transmission with a longitudinal gearbox and torque converter.

As you understand, the problem with the length of the MTO is entirely. To which unit to make claims - the second question.

[geraet4501]

Are you guided by the drawing of Pasholok in Zen? There, the box and the engine partially overlap each other.

I didn't understand what you mean. I looked at Hunnicutt's Patton volume, on page 12 he gives a visual comparison of the engine block and transmission between Pershing and Patton.

On Pershing, the length of the transmission is 56,5 inches; on the Patton, the length of the CD-850 is 29,5 inches - almost half as long. Due to this, a more powerful V-12 fit in the same length.

As you understand, the problem with the length of the MTO is entirely. To which unit to make claims - the second question.

Well, you are supposedly writing about the hackiness of the Ford motor, although everything is in order with the dimensions and power.

[Negro]

Quote from: geraet4501

I didn't understand what you mean.

https://dzen.ru/a/X57ACbCeeXzrql5T

Quote from: geraet4501

Well, you are supposedly writing about the hackwork of the Ford motor

I am writing about the fact that the Ford engine was not well suited for tanks. However, the Americans of the 40s did not have engines that were well suited for tanks. At least in the series.
And when you consider the fact that Ford GAA was formed as a result of an attempt to make an unlicensed Merlin, the whole story seems even more rotten.

[geraet4501]

I'm talking about the same scheme. I don’t know where you found an engine in it, partially blocking the gearbox. All parts are connected to each other in series.

I am writing about the fact that the Ford engine was not well suited for tanks.

That's why I would like to know why. The engine of good dimensions (if you do not play with numbers, adding other nodes), gave out good power for Sherman. And that it is rather weak for Pershing, since initially the T20 began as a 30-ton tank, who knew how it would get fat. Pershing was put into series with the developments that already existed, and a new engine-transmission unit was installed after the war, which is logical.

[Negro]

Quote from: geraet4501

All parts are connected to each other in series.

In this case, the hydraulic transmission housing is shown close to the cylinder block. While the motor shaft should go far enough beyond the dimensions of the block.

Quote from: geraet4501

The engine of good dimensions (if you do not play with numbers, adding other nodes), gave out good power for Sherman.

Apparently, the position should be clarified.
If we're talking about an engine for a Sherman, then its loose layout and front gearbox made it possible to shove anything into it. From this point of view, there are no special questions for Ford.

If we are talking about the imaginary ideal tank engine of those years, then we will come up with a quadratic practical gut. Here, every centimeter that we can push back the fighting compartment will be important to us. Obviously, Ford's engineers were not interested in such considerations - that's why I blame them for the hacky approach to the problem. Actually, following the link to Pasholok, the post-war American ordeals with the engine are briefly outlined.

On the other hand, when making an engine for the M3 / M4, Ford engineers should not have been interested in the problems of the non-existent M26. That their engine was the best American tank engine of the war is also true. Here my claims are explained by the personal perception of the GAA as a "special" engine. While the Continental engine from an airplane, DD from two buses and Chrysler from five cars do not cause me any complaints: I blinded it from what was. Although the same DD with a working volume of 7,2 liters per six-cylinder section was even longer than Ford.

As for the T20, the idea is obviously unsuccessful for the reason described - unlike Sherman, there is no way to correctly assemble a tank of such a scheme on the existing aggregate base. It is a pity that the Americans, instead of developing the beautiful Sherman, took up nonsense.

[geraet4501]

In this case, the hydraulic transmission housing is shown close to the cylinder block.

So it's great that everything can be put together so tightly. On Ferdinand, the generators were also paired with the internal combustion engine so close, there was no need to fence the garden.

While the motor shaft should go far enough beyond the dimensions of the block.

150 cm - 115,5 cm = 34,5 cm. This is the difference between what you brought and what I brought. I hope it is obvious that the shaft of the internal combustion engine does not stick out by almost 35 cm in any case and there is no such constructive need.

If we are talking about the imaginary ideal tank engine of those years, then we will come up with a quadratic practical gut. Here, every centimeter that we can push back the fighting compartment will be important to us.

I completely agree. Maybach HL 120 length - 122 cm with a power of 300 hp Bedford length - 132 cm with a power of 350 hp. Length HL 230 - 115 cm at 600-700 hp So Ford here, though not a champion, but looks decent.

Actually, following the link to Pasholok, the post-war American ordeals with the engine are briefly outlined.

According to Pasholok, or rather, according to Hunnicut, it is clear that the Americans received the main increase due to new, shorter and well-arranged transmissions. The Patton engine is more powerful than the Ford Pershing, but also substantially longer. Fit it due to the new transmission. Bulldog engine for the same 500 hp. shorter than Ford by only 1,5 inches - less than 4 cm. I don’t see Ford’s hack work.

[Negro]

Quote from: geraet4501

I hope it is obvious that the shaft of the internal combustion engine does not stick out by almost 35 cm in any case and there is no such constructive need.

Oops.

Quote from: geraet4501

So Ford here, though not a champion, but looks decent.

Quote from: geraet4501

I don't see Ford's hack

OK. I already turned down the volume, but with different arguments.

Quote: Negro

If we're talking about an engine for a Sherman, then its loose layout and front gearbox made it possible to shove anything into it. From this point of view, there are no special questions for Ford.

The GAA was not a perfect tank engine because no one demanded a perfect tank engine from Ford. They demanded an engine of given characteristics, right now and in large quantities. Ford met these requirements.

[geraet4501]

Oops.

It's a clutch engine. You also add the length of the gearbox - then in general it will turn out to be utter trash. It's basically a numbers game.

Initially, the Americans put clutches on the engines, which was the best solution, given that radial engines were very short. And then, apparently, they decided to put the clutch on the Ford so as not to remake the gearbox.

[Negro]

Quote from: geraet4501

then, apparently, they decided to put the clutch on the Ford so as not to remake the gearbox.

I remember that they were also specially distorted there so that the shaft of the V-shaped engine remained at the same height as that of the Continental star. At the same time, the inclined shaft to the checkpoint was preserved. Like, not a bug, but a feature.

OK. I wanted to at least somehow praise the Kharkovites, but you don’t let me.

[LastPS]

Knipkamp liked this engine very much: “As for the engines of the Allies, in his opinion, the best engine for combat vehicles was the 8-cylinder V-engine of Ford with a capacity of 500 hp (apparently meaning Ford GAA) He considered it very practical development, especially in terms of production and service."

As far as I know, the Americans also liked this particular engine option and they kept such Shermans for themselves, and everything else went to the allies.

[geraet4501]

especially if you figure out at what speed the maximum power removal from the Soviet diesel engine and the German Maybach was achieved

It does not matter and is taken into account when designing final drives.

Will it not turn out that in 95% of cases the Germans drove the same 450 ... 500 hp? without "squeezing" everything out of their engines?

So it is, save the resource. This is a general point, not related to the type of motor.

[Sergey S.]

Negro

However, I think you are taking it too close to heart. The USSR was not the number one engine-building power in the world, unlike the USA

Starting with the advent of the V-2 diesel engine, it was the USSR that became the leader in tank engine building.
Arguing with this is unprofessional.
As for the variability of ideas and incarnations, before the end of the war, tank modifications of the V-2K, V-2, V-4IS, V-2, V- 44", "B-11".
In addition, derated modifications were created for tractors, as well as diesel engines for combat boats.
By the way, among the latter there was a motor in a cast-iron frame ...
After the war, literally the next day, marine diesels "D-6" and "D-12" appeared.
Actually, this story is the most outstanding world event in the diesel industry during the Second World War.

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey S.

Arguing with this is unprofessional.

I am not a professional political instructor, and not even a fan of this business.

Quote: Sergey S.

Starting with the advent of the V-2 diesel engine, it was the USSR that became the leader in tank engine building

The USSR has never been a leader in engine building. Whatever. With regard to WWII, the USSR chose from two bad decisions, M-17 and B-2. And this and that is not a gift, but the choice made almost led the USSR to a military collapse. Thanks to the American uncle, he helped with aluminum.

[geraet4501]

Starting with the advent of the V-2 diesel engine, it was the USSR that became the leader in tank engine building.
Arguing with this is unprofessional.

It's unprofessional to say that.

Actually, this story is the most outstanding world event in the diesel industry during the Second World War.

If you don't know about everything else.

In the late 30s, Daimler-Benz designed a line of tank diesel engines. Engineers in a short time presented three options, selected the most compact of them and received the MB 809 with 17,5 liters and 360 hp. Three years after the start of work, the engine passed bench tests, was installed on the chassis and then dashed off more than 6 thousand kilometers.

https://warspot.ru/6951-posledniy-ekzamen-serdtsa-tridtsatchetvyorki

In the meantime, the leaders: “The plant was set on September 15, 1937 as the final date for state tests of the B-2, which were later postponed to the beginning of 1938, but this deadline was not met either. Tests, the result of which was to be a decision to start mass production , again postponed to May 1938. The state tests of the V-1938 S-2 diesel engine that took place in April and May 2 ended unsuccessfully.

This is about the motor, which began to be made in 1931. But: "In 1934, a new engine-building building began to be built for an engine that had not yet been finished, with the expectation of producing 10 engines a year, and diesel developers received high government awards."

[Negro]

Quote from: geraet4501

If you don't know about everything else

WWII tanks really put one of the greatest internal combustion engines in history.

Of course, I'm talking about the Detroit Diesel 71 series.

[Bookworm]

It's just that there are people who do not own any information, except from newspaper articles.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Where can we keep up with specialists like you! Behind those that take a tank diesel from the T-34 for an aviation one, based on its length, volume and aluminum block. Comedians rest.

[sergej_84]

According to the legend, when the workers mastered the mass production of tanks, winter had not yet left Michigan, and a steam locomotive had to be driven into one of the unfinished workshops for heating.

There is nothing "legendary" in this fact, as in the entire history of the Detroit Arsenal. At the beginning of 1941, indeed, for several weeks, while the installation of energy communications was being completed, a steam locomotive was used to heat one of the workshops. It is not unusual to use a steam locomotive as an alternative source of thermal energy for space heating.

In the photo, just this moment - a steam locomotive heats the shop under construction at the Detroit Arsenal.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: sergej_84

In the photo, just this moment - a steam locomotive heats the shop under construction at the Detroit Arsenal.

He not only heats the workshop there, but gives steam to heat the hardening concrete structures - empty pipes without liquid will not burst, but the concrete will not harden, but freeze.

[geraet4501]

Concrete will harden even in water; it does not harden from drying. Humidity is needed for greater strength, for the same reason, freshly poured foundations are watered with watering cans.

[ycuce234-san]

And concrete cannot harden in winter, because the water in it froze (and the chemical hardening reaction stopped until spring) - it was for this case that a steam locomotive was used at a large industrial construction site - to heat up the concrete. Electric heating is being practiced now.

[sergej_84]

American folklore believes that it was in the Detroit Arsenal that the famous "Rosie the Riveter" was born, which has become a symbol of women's work in the defense complex of the United States.

American folklore has nothing to do with it. "Rosie the Riveter" was coined by the poet Redd Evans for a song he wrote in 1942. The song became a hit, and "Rosie the Riveter" became a symbol.
There are many candidates for the "real Rosie" - Adeline Rose O'Malley, riveter at the Boeing plant in Wichita, Rose Will Monroe, riveter at the Willow Run aircraft factory in Ypsilanti, Rosalind P. Walter and several other people.
As for the girl on the poster in the article, this is not a riveter at all. This is a Vermont resident, 19-year-old Mary Doyle Keefe, who worked as a telephone operator next to the house where Norman Rockwell, the artist who painted the poster, lived.

[rotmistr60]

The heroic image of a well-fed Rosie with a sandwich, embodied on canvas by artist Norman Rockwell, was supposed to encourage American women to go to factories more actively.

And at the same time they sarcastically criticized our "Girl with an oar", Stakhanovite Pasha Angelina (Praskovya Angelina). And when they themselves pinned down, they turned to the Soviet experience.

[Alien From]

Interesting article, thanks to the author. Photo material gut!

[BAI]

In 1979, a new hero enters the scene - the M1 Abrams main battle tank, which was launched at a factory in Lima, Ohio

I hope Soviet engineers have developed means to deal with it.
There is little hope for the present

[Fangaro]

Quote: paul3390

Don't think. You fall into the sin of liberalism, which believes that money is something like a magic wand. Like, it’s worth highlighting them - and tomorrow everything will already appear. No, it won't show up. From the allocation of the dough, turners, milling cutters, welders, OTKshnikov, tool makers, and other working people will not appear. And another 10 years - they will gain experience in order to achieve the necessary conditions .. Iosif Vissarionovich did not say in vain - cadres decide everything ...

But for all these professions - you still need to find those who want to. In countries where the position of a working person is extremely unprestigious - this inevitably turns out to be a problem. For in the public mind, a worker = a sucker, and a barrista or a dog hairdresser = a successful person .. Well, who will go to the factory to grumble in such situations?

I remember under Soviet rule - the engineer angrily bawled that they were like all of themselves with diplomas - but they get three times less than hard workers in the shop. Like - ay-yai-yai .. Why did the Bolsheviks do it - only out of the type of love for the proletariat? Yes, nevermind - they were realists, and they clearly understood that it was possible to drive a person to the machine only with a decent salary. But even this is not enough! It is necessary - that his profession is also considered extremely prestigious by society! Otherwise - everything will be as it is now, no one wants to grumble at the factory, even if for half the salary - but one hell of a manager in the office. For not kuzyavo - to be a locksmith. Girls don't appreciate it.

What am I all for? Yes, to the fact that they, and, alas, ours - everything is neglected to an extreme degree .. In all respects. No one to work. There are neither ready-made personnel, nor, most importantly, those who want to become them. To overcome the catastrophe of liberalism, it is necessary to radically change the entire system of social values. On this - weak in the knees that our type of elite, that theirs .. So - quickly no one will do anything. Even if you take it tight right now - I think at least ten years ..

I agree with you that only the flow of money will not solve such a problem as the lack of those who want to receive this money in exchange for a certain, prescribed result.
Shall we place a vacancy for a toolmaker, with a salary of 80 thousand rubles per month and a percentage of output in terms of quality and quantity relative to the planned one? Placed. 50 percent of the population of the settlement came. Just as there was no toolmaker at the plant, there is none. It will not be possible to find him in a stormy stream.

Maybe not look for a toolmaker, but a supplier of equipment that can solve the tasks that would be assigned to a person, and an engineer who can use this equipment?

Maybe you don’t need to look for 15 thousand milling operators, but look for 500 engineers and modern equipment?

[zenion]

Are the Americans to blame for the fact that the Germans did not bomb them?