Military Review

The ballad of the tank M3 "Lee / Grant." History of creation (part three)

52
In the previous two materials, we looked at history create tank M3 “Lee / Grant”. This article will focus on machines based on it, but before we begin to consider them, let's fantasize a little. And we will begin “our fantasies” with ... a motor. After all, any tank is a "gun cart". And the wagon itself is not lucky. This means that the good and bad performance characteristics of the tank are very much connected precisely with the engine. There is a good engine - there is a good tank, and vice versa. Many scold the M3 for its not very high performance, but the reason is precisely in the engines, giving a minimum of 340, and a maximum of 375 hp. Unsuccessful was its location - "on its side", and even with a slope. Because of this, servicing the cylinders below was inconvenient. But what would happen if the Americans were not in a hurry and would have thought about the location of this engine a little more? Similar engines would stand on the Soviet T-34, and the German T-III?


The ballad of the tank M3 "Lee / Grant." History of creation (part three)

Canadian officers on the background of the tank RAM Mk I

To begin with, installing the engine horizontally with a transmission drive through bevel gears, they would receive its convenient maintenance, uniform cooling, and - most importantly - it would reduce the height of the tank by at least 30, see. Less height - less visibility, less armor , less weight or thicker armor. Not much, but thicker. Why the Americans did not do so - is unknown. Technically it is quite feasible.



For a German tank, the installation of an American engine would be a gift of fate! At least 55 "horses" would be added, which would significantly improve the performance characteristics of this tank. And on the size of its installation would not be reflected in any way!

But for our T-34 installation of the American engine would be equal to the catastrophe. Of the benefits - only the displacement of the tower back and the transfer of the hatch from the frontal armor plate on a horizontal sheet in front of the tower. Well, even less pressure on the front rollers, improved aiming, increased accuracy of shooting, but all this is trivial. Because the power of our diesel and their gasoline engine were incomparable. The T-34 on 26 t weights - 500 hp or 19,5 hp / t and speed 54 km / h. With a power reserve of 380 km. At T-III - 20 t, 285 hp or 14,6 hp / t, 67 km / h and power reserve 165 km. And M3 - 27.9 (30) t - 340 hp 39 km / h With a power reserve of 193 km. With the American T-34 engine, the specific power of the entire 13 hp / t, that is, less than that of the German T-III, would have turned into a slow and slow-moving “iron” with a small power reserve and in addition also with high fire risk . That's how much depends on the tank engine, and how its performance characteristics affect the performance characteristics of the entire tank!

On the other hand, when there is a worn-out chassis, there is an engine that has been “used in” for it, and the production of all other “cubes” is well established, then ... a designer can make from one car ... a multitude of machines for various purposes, which is beneficial in all respects. The Americans did the same with the chassis and engine of the M3 tank. The tank itself was replaced with the M4, but the factories that produced the early model were redesigned for the production of the M7 self-propelled howitzer, produced from 1942 to 1945. The first two samples were assembled at the Baldvin plant in February 1942, and the main production was deployed at the American Locomotive company, Pressed Steel, and Federal Mashine & Welder plants, which made a total of 4267 machines. of this type, armed with a 105-mm howitzer.


М7 "Priest" ("Priest"). Aberdeen Proving Ground, United States.


"Priest" on the battlefield.

Americans paid much attention to engineering machines based on the M3. The first such vehicle was an experienced artillery tractor Т16. The armament was removed from the base machine, a winch was placed inside the hull, but it turned out that it was cramped inside. But the experimental machine Т2 went into the series. They also removed the turret from the tower, removed the guns, but then installed a crane boom with a load capacity of 10 t, a winch, and large boxes for spare parts and tools. They started producing these cars in September of 1943, and they were very helpful. They were designated as М31В1 (on М3А1 chassis) and М31В2 (on М3А5 chassis). In the English army they were designated as ARV I. Moreover, the British made their own car on the M3 chassis, which differed from the American one in that the crane boom was collapsible and was mounted on a hull side.


RAM ARV I

The M3 running gear came in handy and for the creation of mine-sweepers. The American model was named T1 and had a working device of dual disc rollers and a separate “crushing” roller for them. But he showed no advantages over the English version of the Scorpion, also based on the M3. The British went the other way. They removed the cannon from the sponson and placed here, but outside, two “tanks” for two “Bedford” engines, which rotated a drum with chains through the shaft, carried forward on two lattice consoles. They were located on the site of boxes for spare parts, and the shafts from them went along the sides of the tank, because of which the side hatches on it no longer opened. This was the “Scorpion II”, and it was clearly not the best engineering solution, since it became possible to climb into this car only through the top tower hatch. Therefore, they were replaced by “Scorpion III”, already with one motor on the right side of the sponson and one shaftline, which no one interfered with. True, chains, hammers on the ground raised such dust that the driver led the tank almost blindly. On the other hand, in the case of a massed attack and a rear wind, no smoke screen was required!


Scorpion III

Americans supplied the M3 tank to Canadians, and along with a complete set of drawings and all the other technological documentation - just take it and do it. But ... they did not like this tank. Therefore, they decided to make their own tank on its chassis, and already in January 1941 of the year issued such a task to Montreal Locomotive Work. First of all, according to the rules of English traffic, the driver was seated on the right. The upper part of the hull was made entirely cast, and the turret was also cast, and without the upper machine-gun turret. The hull became noticeably lower and acquired almost symmetrical outlines. “Almost” - since the tank turret was still set up by the tank gun, but to the left of the hull. In this car became like a tank "Crusader" of the first editions. The gun was also traditionally English, caliber 40-mm, but with the possibility of replacing the 57-mm gun and 76-mm gun with a short recoil of CS ("close fire support"). Hatches along the sides were preserved, but the driver did not have his own hatch.


RAM (Rem) Mk I

The car was ready in June 1941, received the designation RAM Mk I, was tested, but only 50 of such machines was made, and then the production of the Mk II began with an 57-mm gun. These were 1094 pieces, but the first ones went to training units. If Canadians had put a long-barreled 76-mm gun on this tank, they would easily have overtaken the Americans and would have gotten a better tank than the Sherman. And the prototype of the famous 17-pound was ready at the end of the 1941 of the year, and if you try, you could combine this gun and this tank. But this was not done then.


RAM (Rem) Mk II

But also, like the Americans, the British began to release their own ACS “Sexton”, but under their 25-pound gun and on the RAM chassis. The production of the machine was started in 1943 and completed in 1945. In total, 2150 such SAUs were produced.


SAU "Sexton" ("Ponomar") in the Museum of the Polish Army.


SAU "Sexton" in the museum in Liberty Park in Holland.

The M7 chassis and the English SAU were used for conversion to the Kangaroo armored personnel carriers. Weapons were removed from them, and the “cockpit” was reequipped in such a way that it now contained 16 soldiers. These were the first cars of this type, and they began to be used in the English army.


BTR "Kangaru" in a combat situation.


BTR "Kangaru." Monument to Canadian soldiers in Holland.

However, the most unusual machine based on the M3 became the M3CDL tanks or Channel Defense tanks.


"Matilda" CDL in Bovington.

And it was like this that back in 1915, the English army officer Oscar de Toren presented an interesting project, the essence of which was to blind the enemy in the dark with a powerful source of light. As the war soon ended, the government did not give him money. But in the 30s, he was resuscitated and began to develop again, with Major General Fuller himself, the largest expert in tank weapons at that time, being his technical advisor. He was financed by the Duke of Westminster, which also speaks volumes.

The first demonstration of the installation was held in 1934 in France, then in 1936, and then the British War Department showed interest in it. In England, the show was held in 1937 on a plain near Salisbury, and 10 days after the start of World War II, an order was given to immediately issue 300 of such “blinding” installations, which should have been mounted on tanks.


M3 CDL "Giraffe"

The tower, which was installed in this case on the tank, consisted of two compartments: in the left was the operator, in the right CDL device with a light power of 13 million candles! The current to power the two carbon electrodes gave its own motor. An extremely intense stream of light first fell on a parabolic mirror, and then reflected a special flat plate made of polished aluminum through a narrow (so that no bullets would fly) slot two inches wide and 24 inches in height (one inch is 2, 54 centimeter). Anyone who would look at this light in the dark, and even flickering to the same, would immediately go blind, like a man who looked at electric welding!

The device had to flash six times per second, which significantly increased the damaging effect of this installation. There was a machine gun for self-defense in the turret, and the "Matilda" infantry tanks planned to use them. The scattering angle of the beam hitting the tower had an angle of just 19 degrees, but tanks located at a distance of 30 meters from each other could cover the space in front of them at a distance from 180 to 900 meters with rays of light.


The device of the floodlight tower. Back view.

The CDL program was completely secret, and therefore the base where the tanks were reequipped and their crews trained was in Scotland, in the area of ​​the Lowther Castle. The living conditions of the personnel there were “just awful”, but no German spy would have got there, and the reconnaissance aircraft did not fly so far. And it was important, because the tests went at night, and the light was so strong that in the neighboring town of Penrith, it was quite easy to read the newspaper, although it was six miles away! And such a high illumination gave only some 16 tanks!

The life of local farmers also became completely unbearable, as the tanks destroyed the hedges and crushed the crops, but the government paid compensation to everyone.

The first large-scale test of CDL tanks was carried out on 5 in May on 1942, and then repeated for the Americans in the presence of General Eisenhower. He immediately ordered to put CDL towers on American tanks, for which another base was created in South Wales.

The experience of the First World War showed that it is necessary to use such equipment unexpectedly and massively. In addition, it turned out that on the sights of the German 88 anti-aircraft guns there is a special green sun filter, and it allows you to see the slot in the tower (!), And thus direct the gun at it!

Then they decided that it was most advantageous to put these towers on the M3, since the 75-mm cannon on it was preserved. In preparation for the “D-day”, part of the tanks was armed with these towers, but ... they were never used in combat. Because of their secrecy, nobody knew anything about them.


М3 CDL under Remagen.

True, the Americans used these tanks on March 1, 1945, to illuminate the Rhine after capturing the bridge at Remagen. Then, from March 23 to April 5, the British began to use these tanks, and this helped capture several German scuba divers who were trying to blow it up. One tank of the German artillery managed to be knocked out, and attacked other vehicles aviation, but the British did not have losses.


The same "Giraffe", but from another point.

Major General Fuller later wrote that "the greatest mistake of the war" was that these tanks were practically not used. In 1949, the use of CDL tanks, in his opinion, could give the Allies a chance to take all of Germany and prevent Soviet troops from entering, but even then it was not done. The British themselves spent millions of pounds on this 20 project, armed themselves with a “CDL system” around 1850 (!) Machines of various types, prepared 6 thousands of British and 8 thousands of American soldiers for their maintenance and joint actions, but it all ended in nothing!

In June, 1945, the 43-th Royal Tank Regiment with CDL tanks was sent to India, where in 1946, he and the police together participated in suppressing street riots in Kolkata. As police cars, CDL tanks proved to be very good, but of all tanks of this type, only one survived to our days, and today it can be seen in the Royal Tank Museum in Bovington.
Author:
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 18 July 2016 06: 37
    +2
    The beginning of the article is, well, just unscientific science fiction ... blurred the impressions of the whole cycle (. Thanks to the author nonetheless, it was interesting.
  2. igordok
    igordok 18 July 2016 07: 10
    +2
    Somewhat off topic. What is Sherman? Flamethrower?
  3. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 18 July 2016 07: 39
    +5
    The CDL tanks performed very well as police cars, but only one of all tanks of this type has survived to this day, and today it can be seen at the Royal Tank Museum in Bovington.

    But this is not true. In Bovington, there is only Matilda CDL, not M3. Plus, there are at least TWO of all CDL tanks left:
    The only surviving CDL-equipped Matilda tank is in the collection of the Royal Armored Corps at The Tank Museum, Bovington, Dorset, in Britain. One CDL-equipped M3 Grant is displayed at Armored Corps Museum, Ahmednagar, in India.

    I am attaching a photograph.
  4. V.ic
    V.ic 18 July 2016 07: 57
    +3
    to capture several German scuba divers, Posted by Vyacheslav Shpakovsky

    In March-April 1945, then the Germans had a "scuba gear"? This casts a shadow on Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnan, who elected him in 1943.
    1. Beefeater
      Beefeater 18 July 2016 08: 41
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      to capture several German scuba divers, Posted by Vyacheslav Shpakovsky

      In March-April 1945, then the Germans had a "scuba gear"? This casts a shadow on Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnan, who elected him in 1943.

      Oxygen autonomous devices existed before. Acted as combat swimmers of the IAU of Prince Borghese, in some cases riding on special torpedo transporters.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 18 July 2016 11: 34
        +3
        Quote: Beefeater
        Oxygen autonomous devices existed before.

        For God's sake! After all, I only caught on about "scuba gear", that is. concretized the type of apparatus invented precisely by two talented Frenchmen, allegedly close to Resistance.
  5. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 18 July 2016 08: 55
    +4
    Quote: V.ic
    to capture several German scuba divers, Posted by Vyacheslav Shpakovsky

    In March-April 1945, then the Germans had a "scuba gear"? This casts a shadow on Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnan, who elected him in 1943.


    The word scuba gear is a trademark in many countries around the world and refers only to Aqualung products, and only in the former USSR it has become common и denotes a class of breathing apparatus.

    In general, the Germans, like everyone else, had rebreathers with a closed breathing pattern.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 18 July 2016 11: 29
      +1
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      In general, the Germans, like everyone else, had rebreathers with a closed breathing pattern.

      Sorry, mb. not in the subject, but somehow about four years ago there was a TV program and there was something about the raid of our underwater special forces across the Gulf of Finland to the Finnish port (sort of like 30 km under water). If you know anything, then throw off the links "in a personal".
  6. AK64
    AK64 18 July 2016 09: 23
    +1
    This means that the good and bad performance characteristics of the tank are very much connected precisely with the engine. There is a good engine - there is a good tank, and vice versa.

    No, not like that: there were no problems with engines at that time: the Americans took just the old aircraft. This may not be the best solution - but quick.
    Practice shows that the most difficult part of the tank is the transmission.

    Many scold the M3 for its not very high performance, but the reason is precisely in the engines, giving a minimum of 340, and a maximum of 375 hp.

    And what? Normal dviglo. Great even.
    In 1941, the 12th, the one on the T-34, also issued 400 according to the passport. (This is according to the passport, but in real life ....)

    Unsuccessful was its location - "on its side", and even with a slope. Because of this, servicing the cylinders below was inconvenient.

    Shpakovsky, why are you? There stood a radial aviation star - you can’t put it there, anyway you won’t crawl to the lower cylinders. Just the slope and allowed to crawl to the candles and valves.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 18 July 2016 10: 36
      +1
      IN 2. power 500hp
      A small batch of tanks was with M-17T power of 500 hp.
      1. AK64
        AK64 18 July 2016 11: 02
        0
        IN 2. power 500hp

        Firstly, V-2 was of two denominations: with 450 (T-34) and with 500 (KV) mares,
        Secondly in 1941, the V-2 by passport there were 400 mares, and he didn’t give out earlier than 400. (Actually, I think, and that was not.)
        Do not believe - it’s your business: I will not prove.

        A small batch of tanks was with M-17T power of 500 hp.

        Quite a large (if the issue of 1941 is taken, and not the entire issue, all 80 thousand pieces, not "in general") the batch was from the M-17. And by the way, no one noticed the slightest of their "increased fire hazard".
        In fact, the M-17 was better.

        By the way, the transmissions on the M-17 and on the B-2 were the same ... This is so, by the way, for connoisseurs of "moments"
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 18 July 2016 17: 57
          +2
          About flammability is the truth by the way. You just do not forget that the fuel does not just appear in the tanks, and the supply chain itself becomes somewhat more dangerous, especially when delivered to the cutting edge. And in the tank itself, imagine for a moment that the fuel line is not very leaking - they won’t even notice it in a diesel tank (it may start badly, it will lose power), but in a gasoline the probability of a fire is simply enormous.
      2. AK64
        AK64 18 July 2016 11: 51
        0
        A small batch of tanks was with M-17T power of 500 hp.

        By the way, where did you get the possibility of M-17 centuries 500 horses?
        I specifically went rummaging: passport 400 mares

        By the way, the reasoning about "diesel vs carburetor"
        http://samlib.ru/l/lancow_m_a/marshal_m-17_b-2_fight.shtml
        (personally, I have already said here more than once that most of the "advantages of a diesel engine" are the fruit of the fantasies of a number of comrades in order to cover up selfish interest)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 July 2016 15: 13
          +3
          Quote: AK64
          By the way, the reasoning about "diesel vs carburetor"
          //samlib.ru/l/lancow_m_a/marshal_m-17_b-2_fight.shtml

          Tank Rubilovo at Lantsov? How can I remember, remember. smile

          The problem is that comrade Lantsov was very reluctant to consider diesel and aircraft engines in terms of fuel. But the transition from M-17 to B-2 is a departure from the expensive "aviation gas not lower than B-70 / KB-70"(prescribed for the same BT) for several times cheaper diesel fuel (in addition, the consumption of diesel fuel on a high-quality diesel engine is about half that of aviation gasoline with comparable power).

          In addition, this transition means the release of capacities for the production of aviation gasoline (as well as raw materials - for the T-26 and BT are prescribed "no worse than Baku or Grozny"), which can and should be re-profiled for the production of a higher-octane B-78. Because the B-70, which consumed these capacities, was largely retained in production precisely because of the army - in the Air Force only relics of the early-mid-30s flew on it ...

          Well and the third - yes, diesel fuel pairs also explode. But in transportation and refueling (especially in the field), diesel fuel is much safer than gasoline.
          1. AK64
            AK64 18 July 2016 16: 34
            0
            The problem is that comrade Lantsov was very reluctant to consider diesel and aircraft engines in terms of fuel. But the transition from M-17 to V-2 is a move away from expensive "aviation gasoline not lower than B-70 / KB-70" (prescribed for the same BT) to a much cheaper diesel fuel

            This is for aviation needs cool gasoline. And the tank can be derated (by reducing the compression ratio). Principle M-17T worked on "2nd grade" gasoline.

            (In addition, the consumption of diesel fuel on a quality diesel engine is approximately half that of aviation gasoline with comparable power).

            Well no - only 30% savings. But the same B-2 oil ate in two throats, and the oil required high-quality. The 34 T-1941 had a lower oil mileage than fuel.

            In addition, this transition means the release of capacities for the production of aviation gasoline (as well as raw materials - because for the T-26 and BT it is written "no worse than the Baku or Grozny"),

            Yes - but "2nd grade". And, in principle, there is an opportunity to deforce.
            Generally speaking, "T" in comparison with the original aircraft engine and derated (thus significantly increasing the service life). But it was also possible to deforce it.


            which can and should be redesigned for the production of a higher-octane B-78. Because the B-70, which was absorbing these capacities, was largely preserved in production precisely because of the army - in the Air Force only relics of the early to mid-30s flew on it.

            What about motor vehicles?

            Well and the third - yes, diesel fuel pairs also explode. But in transportation and refueling (especially in the field), diesel fuel is much safer than gasoline.

            Svirin (the Kingdom of Heaven) said that it was this argument that became decisive.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 18 July 2016 17: 16
              +2
              Quote: AK64
              This is for aviation needs cool gasoline. And the tank can be derated (by reducing the compression ratio). Principle M-17T worked on "2nd grade" gasoline.

              Yeah ... only you forgot the little detail: on aviation gasoline of the 2nd grade. smile
              Let’s take a look at the BT-7 tank service manual, 1941 edition.
              TTX, page 9: "Fuel for the engine ... Aviation gasoline of the B-70 brand"
              Chapter FILLING THE TANK clause 1.1, p. 338: "Filling the gasoline tanks of the tank is done 2nd grade Baku aviation gasoline (specific gravity 0.748-0.755 at a temperature of +20).
              Highlighted by me. As you can see, for a particular engine (in this case, M-17T), not only the fuel grade is given, but it is also clearly indicated that gasoline should be Baku.
              © VIF2-NE
              By the way, according to T-26, the fuel instructions are the same:
              For refueling a tank, light Grozny gasoline of the 1st grade is used (specific gravity 0,755 at a temperature of +15 shrad) or aircraft cracking gasoline.

              To supply T-26 tanks of new types, use only gasolines of the first and highest grades - not lower than Groznensky. It is strictly forbidden to fill motor gasoline in tanks to avoid the possibility of damage to the material part.

              Quote: AK64
              Generally speaking, "T" in comparison with the original aircraft engine and derated (thus significantly increasing the service life). But it was also possible to deforce it.

              And what kind of power will it have?
              Quote: AK64
              What about motor vehicles?

              And what does the production of aviation B-70 / KB-70 have to do with the production of motor gasoline with spare parts 59. smile
              1. AK64
                AK64 18 July 2016 19: 19
                +1

                Quote: AK64
                Generally speaking, "T" in comparison with the original aircraft engine and derated (thus significantly increasing the service life). But it was also possible to deforce it.


                And what kind of power will it have?

                This is the most serious question.
                I think (by analogy with Soviet automobile engines), power would drop from 500 to 400. If, while maintaining the compression ratio, somewhere around. 4 to increase the volume (it would not have been possible without a noticeable alteration of the unit, but somewhere around 10% is possible) then consider 10% of the power, i.e. 440.

                True, fuel consumption would also increase, and not by 10% extra. cylinder volume. It can be expected that somewhere in the range of 50-60% mileage on the same tanks would decrease.

                Do you remember how in the 70-80s peasants reduced the compression ratio in Muscovites in artisanal conditions (to pour a-70)? (For some reason, usually in Muscovites; I have never heard of this about Zhigi)
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 19 July 2016 10: 13
                  0
                  Quote: AK64
                  I think (by analogy with Soviet automobile engines), power would drop from 500 to 400. If, while maintaining the compression ratio, somewhere around. 4 to increase the volume (it would not have been possible without a noticeable alteration of the unit, but somewhere around 10% is possible) then consider 10% of the power, i.e. 440.

                  True, fuel consumption would also increase, and not by 10% extra. cylinder volume. It can be expected that somewhere in the range of 50-60% mileage on the same tanks would decrease.

                  440 theoretical bhp and a half-power reserve reduction? Sabotage! smile
                  Quote: AK64
                  Do you remember how in the 70-80s peasants reduced the compression ratio in Muscovites in artisanal conditions (to pour a-70)? (For some reason, usually in Muscovites; I have never heard of this about Zhigi)

                  And this was the case with Lada - transferred from the 93rd to the 76th.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 20 July 2016 00: 39
                    0
                    440 theoretical bhp and a half-power reserve reduction? Sabotage!

                    Well, you must understand that "440" is just a figure, and the dynamics of a vehicle (and a tank too) depends on a number of factors. (Transmissions in the first place.) 440 mares are quite comfortable 15 kabyls per ton - not every tank had that much. And the notorious B-2 in 1941 still did not give out so much.

                    In principle, if you go to some alteration (cylinders of a larger diameter) then the same 500 can be obtained.

                    Well, about fuel consumption, I did not speak out successfully. If on good gasoline and with a compression ratio of 5.6-6.0, fuel consumption is about a third higher for a carburetor compared to a diesel engine, then a reduction in compression ratio to 4.4-4.6 (in my opinion, it was so much in the then Soviet automobiles) while increasing the volume where something 10% would give an expense of 50-60% higher than diesel. It seems to me that this is within the acceptable range - especially considering the complexity, price, short life, difficulties with launching, etc. diesel ...

                    And if you consider that in 1941-42 the mileage of the T-34 was not for fuel, but for oil ... That is, the oil ran out earlier than the diesel fuel ...

                    And this was the case with Lada - transferred from the 93rd to the 76th.

                    About Lada did not hear. And in the Muscovites naturally turned out.
                    Power was falling, fuel consumption was growing. But due to the scarcity of the good 93rd people, it was quite fine with everything.
                2. Amurets
                  Amurets 19 July 2016 15: 48
                  0
                  Quote: AK64

                  Do you remember how in the 70-80s peasants reduced the compression ratio in Muscovites in artisanal conditions (to pour a-70)? (For some reason, usually in Muscovites; I have never heard of this about Zhigi)

                  Sorry for interfering. We put "BUTTERBROD" on both Muscovites and Zhigi. These are two standard gaskets and a millimeter one made of copper or aluminum. More often on Muscovites due to glow ignition, plus the Moskvich fuel consumption was higher. Not by 50-60%, but 15-20% for sure. The most effective way was in the Zhiguli tank "add 0.5L of methanol. But methanol was in short supply.
                  1. pimen
                    pimen 19 July 2016 16: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Amurets
                    Sorry for interfering. We put "BUTTERBROD" on both Muscovites and Zhigi. These are two standard gaskets and a millimeter one made of copper or aluminum. More often on Muscovites due to glow ignition, plus the Moskvich fuel consumption was higher. Not by 50-60%, but 15-20% for sure. The most effective way was in the Zhiguli tank "add 0.5L of methanol. But methanol was in short supply.

                    I didn’t understand about methanol, but on the Moskvich engine it was possible to get by with a little blood: I remember I increased the valve clearance to a larger one. The machine became a little dumber but the cocktail did not rattle
                    1. Amurets
                      Amurets 20 July 2016 05: 49
                      0
                      Quote: pimen

                      I didn’t understand about methanol, but on the Moskvich engine it was possible to get by with a little blood: I remember I increased the valve clearance to a larger one. The machine became a little dumber but the cocktail did not rattle

                      Methanol increases the octane rating. If you want to find out about high-octane fuels, I'll give you where to look. Beckman. Racing motorcycles and a link to methanol. And also, but google it yourself. Gasoline-alcohol mixtures of the E series
                      http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metanol-v-benzine
                      http://www.newchemistry.ru/printletter.php?n_id=4561
                      Basically, the Greens insist on switching to these mixtures.
                    2. AK64
                      AK64 20 July 2016 10: 59
                      +1
                      on the Moskvich engine it was possible to get by with little blood: I remember I increased the valve clearance to a larger one. The machine became a little dumber but the cocktail did not rattle

                      It looks like you also reduced the compression ratio a little ...
                      Only then it was only necessary to increase the gap at the inlet.

                      On the repaired "former aviation" ones, the ignition was also shifted towards the lag side: the power dropped strongly with the same fuel consumption. (After the overhaul, the aircraft M-17s that had developed their resource were designated T and put on tanks. But there were, a little later, and specially made, tank M-17Ts.)
                      It is precisely because of this barbarism that BT tanks often got tanned during launches and refueling. Well, how often? So much so that these fires were discussed in orders and instructions. That is, they were really a problem.
                  2. AK64
                    AK64 20 July 2016 10: 46
                    0
                    Sorry to interfere.

                    Sorry, this is an open forum! In order to write and listen to opinions.


                    We put "BUTERBROD" on both Muscovites and Zhigi. These are two standard gaskets and a millimeter one made of copper or aluminum. More often on Muscovites due to glow ignition,

                    Well, on this practical example: how much power fell and how much gas mileage rose? Does anyone here have such an experience?


                    plus Moskvich’s fuel consumption was higher. Not by 50-60%, but 15-20% for sure.

                    That is, "in general" is higher, or just in the "self-deformed alterations"?

                    The most effective way was to add 0.5 liters of methanol to the Zhiguli tank.
                    But methanol was in short supply.

                    I have not heard about methanol ....
                    And this is strange - why would he be in short supply? I think it’s like dirt now.

                    It’s clear that methanol has an octane rating of about 110, but what exactly did these half liters do? That is, why did they pour it? Did you increase the octane number?

                    (In general, Soviet gasoline ... On a personal sensation, it never corresponded to the stated figure, it was always worse. But maybe not worse, but already at gas stations. But nonetheless.)
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 July 2016 15: 01
        +1
        Quote: Dimon19661
        IN 2. power 500hp
        A small batch of tanks was with M-17T power of 500 hp.

        The problem is that this is tabular data. In real life, even on the pre-war T-34 V-2 its 500 hp did not give. SW M. Svirin presented the test results of three serial T-34s of March 1941 release - the power of their engines was from 465 hp. up to 485 hp
        ICH, when the power of the "three" engine was measured by the same method, we got 323 hp.
    2. mroy
      mroy 18 July 2016 12: 29
      +2
      Do not forget that the V-12 is a diesel engine, with equal power the diesel has more thrust. In addition, the Continental R-975 is an aircraft engine - that is, its maximum torque is shifted to the high-speed zone, and low-level thrust is important for the tank.
      With Belton, Cooper read how they tormented with Continental R-975 with candles, which when working at idle were covered with soot and failed.
      In his opinion, while Cooper was an officer in the battalion of the U.S. armored division, for a tank the engine still had to be searched worse.
      1. AK64
        AK64 18 July 2016 13: 01
        0
        Do not forget that the V-12 is a diesel engine, with equal power the diesel has more thrust.

        This is not true. More precisely, this opinion is based on modern engines.
        Here are the numbers from then:

        M-17 (different options):
        400 h.p. at 1650 rpm
        500 h.p. at 1650 rpm
        400 h.p. at 1650 rpm
        450 h.p. at 1400 rpm

        In-2
        400 h.p. at 1700 rpm
        500 at 1900 rpm

        As you can see, the maximum power in the B-2 was achieved at even higher speeds.

        In addition, the Continental R-975 is an aircraft engine - that is, its maximum torque is shifted to the high-speed zone, and low-level thrust is important for the tank.

        B-2 is also an aircraft engine.

        With Belton, Cooper read how they tormented with Continental R-975 with candles, which when working at idle were covered with soot and failed.
        In his opinion, while Cooper was an officer in the battalion of the U.S. armored division, for a tank the engine still had to be searched worse.

        Americans made M3 and M4 "from what was." That is, they made the most of those with components, with a minimum of additional components.
        For this approach, what they did is just sweetheart
      2. vadim dok
        vadim dok 18 July 2016 14: 23
        +2
        In addition, due to the extremely poor air filter and poor-quality production, the B12 engine was missing about 100 hp. The gearbox was very unsuccessful - the gears moved along the splined shafts, there was no synchronization (the so-called synchronization was achieved by pressing the gears). Three-speed gearbox it didn’t correspond to the engine! when switching from the second to the third stage, there was a so-called check of revolutions and the engine could stall. Therefore, the tattoos went into battle at 2 speeds, which reduced all the performance characteristics of the tank. In addition, the engine had a huge oil consumption. 2-3 times higher than the standard.
        1. pimen
          pimen 18 July 2016 14: 33
          0
          Quote: vadim dok
          In addition, due to the extremely poor air filter and low-quality production, the B12 engine was missing about 100 hp.

          and here there is a curious nuance, if you didn’t get enough because of the filter, then with the resource of that time at 100 hours, you should generally get rid of it. I’m just saying it on the basis of my own experience: without an air filter, the engine is noticeably faster, but on everyday trips it’s barely enough for half a year
  7. AK64
    AK64 18 July 2016 09: 33
    +2
    having mounted the engine horizontally with the transmission drive through bevel gears, they would have received convenient maintenance, uniform cooling, and - most importantly - this would have reduced the tank’s height by at least 30 cm. Less height — less noticeability, less armor, less weight or thicker armor . Not much, but thicker. Why the Americans did not do this is unknown. Technically, this is entirely feasible.


    Excessive torque transmission at 90 degrees? Engineers hate such things ... Yes, and check out the size of the gears - for some reason, in your picture, they turned out to be "vanishingly small" - but that won't work. I'm afraid that with a real size, not only will the height economy not work, but no matter how higher it will turn out.

    No, IMHO, the Americans set everything right.

    And anyway: Grants and Lee need to be treated exactly like palliativeto temporary and quick solution. And then it’s clear that all the Americans did optimal way.
    1. mroy
      mroy 18 July 2016 12: 22
      +2
      "Star" whatever you say, you can't put it in any other way. And then the Americans simply did not have another motor. Even Sherman was first put on it. Then they mastered production with a GM diesel engine and a gasoline V8 Ford.
      1. pimen
        pimen 18 July 2016 12: 34
        +1
        a horizontal star unloaded along the axis of the crankshaft (whether by suspension or by emphasis) would not have loaded either the crankshaft bearings (vice versa) or the horizontal bearing of the gearbox. A 1: 1 bevel gear is not at all a problem. But the gimbal that goes at the height of the crankshaft and the lower pots at the bottom is a song.
        Actually, they could reduce the overall height, possibly raising the height of the engine compartment (like the t-34). But they would get normal access to the pots and a normal horizontal fan above or below the engine, which, judging by the pictures, is still less along than across
        1. AK64
          AK64 18 July 2016 13: 42
          0
          a horizontal star unloaded along the axis of the crankshaft (whether by suspension or by emphasis) would not have loaded either the crankshaft bearings (vice versa) or the horizontal bearing of the gearbox.

          And the crankshaft in the engine on what will you hold on to? He is not actually made to work in this position.


          A 1: 1 bevel gear is not at all a problem.

          This is exactly what the problem is - if you want fast. If you have such a program somewhere ready in catalogs - then this is one thing. And if production needs to be started somewhere, then this is a problem.
          You solve it, but you need something now, or even yesterday


          But the gimbal that goes at the height of the crankshaft and the lower pots at the bottom is a song.

          What's the problem? Again: consider the time factor.
          Actually, they could reduce the overall height, possibly raising the height of the engine compartment (like the t-34).

          What for? How much did they care?

          But they would get normal access to the pots and a normal horizontal fan above or below the engine, which, judging by the pictures, is still less along than across

          It is without transmission it is "less along than across".
          Again the time factor.

          Understand - this is the Americans. They had no problems with the motors. They just took a suitable motor. The solution suited them. If it didn’t work, they would not bother with this add. transmission - they would just ... take another motor.

          Understand that this is not collective farm poverty. They did this not because of poverty, but to fast.
          1. pimen
            pimen 18 July 2016 14: 03
            +2
            Quote: AK64
            an horizontal star unloaded along the axis of the crankshaft (whether it is suspended or fixed) would not have loaded either the crankshaft bearings (vice versa) or the horizontal bearing of the gearbox.
            And the crankshaft in the engine on what will you hold on to? He is not actually made to work in this position.

            (all) the bearing cage (on which the balls run, it is wider than the diameter of the balls) is closed by a flange from below: the balls as they ran along the side surface will be so, but the weight of the engine on the lower half of the cage and balls in it will cease to act
            Quote: AK64
            A 1: 1 bevel gear is not at all a problem.
            This is exactly what there is a problem - if you want fast. If you have such a program somewhere ready in catalogs - then this is one thing. And if production needs to be started somewhere, then this is a problem.
            You solve it, but you need something now, or even yesterday

            if they slap the tank, then they would have mastered it, especially since the win would have been
            Quote: AK64
            Actually, they could reduce the overall height, possibly raising the height of the engine compartment (like the t-34).
            What for? How much did they care?

            It's not about the engine compartment, but about the overall height of the tank. By lowering it, they would receive either less weight or thicker armor
            1. AK64
              AK64 18 July 2016 16: 43
              +1
              (all) the bearing cage (on which the balls run, it is wider than the diameter of the balls) is closed by a flange from below: the balls as they ran along the side surface will be so, but the weight of the engine on the lower half of the cage and balls in it will cease to act

              Here, either I did not understand, or you.
              It seems to me that you did not understand the problem.
              Or I do not understand you

              if they slap the tank, then they would have mastered it, especially since the win would have been

              Solving a problem - takes time. Why create a problem for yourself and then solve it if it works?

              It's not about the engine compartment, but about the overall height of the tank. By lowering it, they would receive either less weight or thicker armor

              Lee \ Grant was originally a palliative. And in Sherman (which used the mechanical part from the M3, they reduced the height already.

              And 100 kg of weight .. Let not 100, even 500 kg (although this is unlikely) they apparently did not care much
              1. pimen
                pimen 18 July 2016 21: 09
                0
                Quote: AK64
                (all) the bearing cage (on which the balls run, it is wider than the diameter of the balls) is closed by a flange from below: the balls as they ran along the side surface will be so, but the weight of the engine on the lower half of the cage and balls in it will cease to act
                Here, either I did not understand, or you.
                It seems to me that you did not understand the problem.
                Or I do not understand you

                not the weight of the entire engine, but only the crankshaft with the piston, of course
                Quote: AK64
                if they slap the tank, then they would have mastered it, especially since the win would have been
                Solving a problem - takes time. Why create a problem for yourself and then solve it if it works?

                where did they drive? The enemy was already, as we have - at the gate ?!
                1. AK64
                  AK64 19 July 2016 08: 04
                  +1
                  not the weight of the entire engine, but only the crankshaft with the piston, of course

                  It seems to me that YOU are wrong at this moment: the bearing is not designed to hold the weight of the crankshaft. Not for this, he stands there.


                  where did they drive? The enemy was already, as we have - at the gate ?!

                  The events showed that they were "driven" correctly, that all their calculations were justified.
                  Well, in hindsight it can be seen that they were doing everything right, so what are these nit-picking for?
                  Even faster
                  1. pimen
                    pimen 19 July 2016 14: 45
                    0
                    Quote: AK64
                    not the weight of the entire engine, but only the crankshaft with the piston, of course
                    It seems to me that YOU are wrong at this moment: the bearing is not designed to hold the weight of the crankshaft. Not for this, he stands there.


                    this is what the piston rod R-975 looks like
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 19 July 2016 10: 23
                  0
                  Quote: pimen
                  where did they drive? The enemy was already, as we have - at the gate ?!

                  Where did they drive? So ... in Europe there is a war - in which the United States would definitely intervene until 1942 (already in the spring of 1941 an American commission traveled to Britain, choosing the location of future bases). But the army has no normal tanks.
                  So they drove the ersatz to fill the OSB with at least something. Plus, the explosive increase in the US Army required a lot of equipment - over 3 years the number of divisions increased by 20 times.
          2. Dimon19661
            Dimon19661 18 July 2016 18: 03
            0
            You want to say that our designers, collective farm poverty ??? In this case, you are a dumb, limited person.
            1. AK64
              AK64 18 July 2016 19: 00
              0
              You want to say that our designers, collective farm poverty ???

              Poverty. Collective farm.
              And the designers too

              In this case, you are a dumb, limited person.

              And you are a boor.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 July 2016 10: 36
              0
              Quote: Dimon19661
              You want to say that our designers, collective farm poverty ??? In this case, you are a dumb, limited person.

              Heh heh heh ... You need to be reminded how and why on BT they threw one transmission from the checkpoint?
              Or how were the designers forced to put the frankly unsuccessful 34-speed gearbox on the T-4 just because it could be done on existing machines, and so far the five-step gearbox could not be adapted to the existing equipment?
              Due to the presence of four gear ratios, the engine speed during acceleration varies from 600 to 1700 rpm, and the power varies throughout the characteristic. The engine in the process of acceleration runs only a small part of the time at modes close to maximum power and therefore, due to the small number of gears, engine power is not used. Correspondingly, fuel is consumed, the path and acceleration time increase, etc. Underutilization of engine power also occurs when driving on the ground, as to switch to a lower gear, which means that you can return to normal engine mode without difficulty shifting gears only with a strong decrease in tank speed.
              Switching gears from I to II and from II to III without the use of special techniques (gas leakage, etc.) is always associated with the danger of turning off the engine, as shockless shifting requires a reduction in engine speed to almost idle.
              (...)
              The gearbox is simple in design, manufacture, assembly and repair. However, this simplicity was bought at a high price. The gearbox is difficult to control, does not allow rational use of engine power and affects the combat qualities of the tank.
              Four forward speeds that the box gives are clearly not enough to get a quick acceleration of the medium tank. Switching to a lower gear is inevitably associated with a large decrease in machine speed.
              Each gear shift requires the movement of large gears in the plane perpendicular to the plane of movement of the wings, at a distance of more than 3 meters from it.
              Even with a backstage mounted directly on the box, shifting large-sized gears having a large moment of inertia reduced to them is difficult and requires caution and attention from the driver. These difficulties are exacerbated by the presence of a complex drive, pulling and sagging of the drive rods, jamming rods and vertical rollers.
              The need to squeeze the handle of the locking mechanism at each switch and fasten it with a special latch when driving backward further burdens the driver.
              © Report "Descriptions and comparative assessment of transmissions of modern tanks." GABTU KA. 1942, compiled by the specialists of the Research Institute of Armored Technical Equipment in the middle of 1942.

              Or constant torment with the power plant of light tanks and, especially, SU-76?

              And if you recall the aviation ... what had to be done to extrude more or less decent performance characteristics, having the extremely modernized Spanish-Suizu as a motor, and delta wood as a material for power structures.
              1. pimen
                pimen 19 July 2016 19: 56
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Heh heh heh ... You need to be reminded how and why on BT they threw one transmission from the checkpoint?

                interesting, enlighten, but without peeking back, I can only assume that with such a dvigl and weight of the tank - it was and is not needed on x-er
                1. AK64
                  AK64 20 July 2016 00: 41
                  0
                  interesting, enlighten, but without peeking back, I can only assume that with such a dvigl and weight of the tank - it was and is not needed on x-er


                  Yes, it didn’t work out, that's all ...

                  However, the Germans also went into 10 gears with a magnificent 4-speed gearbox ...
          3. mroy
            mroy 19 July 2016 11: 24
            0
            Quote: AK64
            Understand - this is the Americans. They had no problems with the motors. They just took a suitable motor. The solution suited them. If it didn’t work, they would not bother with this add. transmission - they would just ... take another motor.

            Understand that this is not collective farm poverty. They did this not because of poverty, but to quickly.

            I don’t agree with you - the Americans took what was because nothing was better. At the same time, knowing perfectly how the tanks and allies and opponents are arranged. When tested on the T-34 and KV at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, it was the diesel engine that was rated very positively, but noted an unsuccessful air filter. Although, of course, on many points, the Allies had comments on the majority of the case.
            In addition, in the USA at that time the fleet for boats took powerful diesel engines and the fleet was also the main consumer of diesel fuel. So they took from gasoline that they found more or less suitable.
            1. AK64
              AK64 20 July 2016 00: 54
              0
              I don’t agree with you - the Americans took what was because nothing was better. At the same time, knowing perfectly how the tanks and allies and opponents are arranged. When tested on the T-34 and KV at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, it was the diesel engine that was rated very positively, but noted an unsuccessful air filter. Although, of course, on many points, the Allies had comments on the majority of the case.
              In addition, in the USA at that time the fleet for boats took powerful diesel engines and the fleet was also the main consumer of diesel fuel. So they took from gasoline that they found more or less suitable.


              Yes, there were amers diesel.
              And they put just gasoline on the boats: "three 12-cylinder Packard gasoline engines 1500 hp each" - this is the usual engine installation of their PT-boat.

              It seems to me that they put gasoline on the tanks so as not to mess with the logistics - there was no other consumer of diesel fuel in the army. (But the price and quantity of fuel didn’t bother them much — they supplied Britain with excellent gasoline, and even the USSR sold over excellent Amer aviation gasoline.)

              They put diesel on tanks for the Marine Corps, in the Pacific Theater: the fleet supplied them with fuel, and the fleet had diesel fuel at least
  8. AK64
    AK64 18 July 2016 09: 44
    -1
    But for our T-34 installation of the American engine would be equal to the catastrophe. Of the benefits - only the displacement of the tower back and the transfer of the hatch from the frontal armor plate on a horizontal sheet in front of the tower. Well, even less pressure on the front rollers, improved aiming, increased accuracy of shooting, but all this is trivial. Because the power of our diesel and their gasoline engine were incomparable. The T-34 on 26 t weights - 500 hp or 19,5 hp / t and speed 54 km / h. With a power reserve of 380 km. At T-III - 20 t, 285 hp or 14,6 hp / t, 67 km / h and power reserve 165 km. And M3 - 27.9 (30) t - 340 hp 39 km / h With a power reserve of 193 km. With the American T-34 engine, the specific power of the entire 13 hp / t, that is, less than that of the German T-III, would have turned into a slow and slow-moving “iron” with a small power reserve and in addition also with high fire risk . That's how much depends on the tank engine, and how its performance characteristics affect the performance characteristics of the entire tank!


    The tales of the peoples of the world have begun ...
    / and spit evil /
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 18 July 2016 11: 22
      +1
      Quote: AK64

      No, not like that: there were no problems with engines at that time: the Americans took just the old aircraft. This may not be the best solution - but quick.

      The Americans had problems with engines. Otherwise they would not have combined Sherman with engines on the M-4. Until they created and brought a special Ford GAA tank engine, and then tanks with this engine went only to the US Army. no place on the tank. Still, a large volume of air is required to cool the MO. But otherwise you are right. I want to add. In addition to problems with the bevel gear, a vertically placed star will have problems with the crankshaft thrust bearings.
      1. AK64
        AK64 18 July 2016 11: 45
        +2
        The Americans had problems with engines. Otherwise they would not have combined Sherman with engines on the M-4.

        It seems to me that they put different engines (including, by the way, there was a 12-cylinder diesel engine) to increase the quantity.

        A radial star of air cooling, of course .. that’s another joke. But after all, the whole Sherman should be perceived as an improvisation of wartime - and with this view of him, Sherman becomes an amazingly successful tank.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 18 July 2016 12: 49
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          A radial star of air cooling, of course .. that’s another joke. But after all, the whole Sherman should be perceived as an improvisation of wartime - and with this view of him, Sherman becomes an amazingly successful tank.

          Yes, I agree. I consider the Sherman M-4A3E with the English 17-pounder cannon to be especially successful.
  9. RPG_
    RPG_ 18 July 2016 12: 38
    +1
    What the heresy? Why T34 and T3 radial aircraft engine? the more their own specially designed for the tank were much better and practice has proved it.
    1. AK64
      AK64 18 July 2016 16: 46
      +1
      the more their own specially designed for the tank were much better and practice has proved it.

      It was actually a "specially designed for airplanes" motor.

      They put it on tanks because the capacity of 500 mares in aviation at that time was already very, very small
  10. andrewkor
    andrewkor 18 July 2016 20: 05
    -2
    Lousy tankishko. I had to re-arm myself on "Shermans" that fought all over the world for many years.