Grandpa drove two tanks in the war, both M4A3's with the GAA. The second tank took him from Colmar to Innsbruck, he said it never let him down. Part of that time they had the T34 "Colliope" rocket launcher mounted, adding a decent amount of weight and he said it still performed well.

@izom

2 жыл бұрын

amazing- im austrian- to hear such storys- my uncle was a prisoner 3 years in the usa ! but he wasnt angry- he was lucky the russians didnt catch him- may they all rest in peace- greets ;-)

@lilpoison12

Жыл бұрын

@@izom Wie geht's! Always good to hear stories from the other side!

Q: "What engine do you want to put in the tank?" A: "Whaddaya got?"

@johndowe7003

4 жыл бұрын

pretty much, thats the beauty of the sherman design it can take any engine that fits, super important to be able to shove any engine in it and have it work. oh we can only produce 30000 GAA motors a year? no prob stick X into it and call it good

@Paciat

4 жыл бұрын

@@johndowe7003 Actually the Chrysler A57 multibank engine of M4A4 didnt fit, and US had to produce longer hulls. The large hatches for the driver and MG gunner didnt fit, so the later versions of M4 have more frontal armor with less sloping. The turret was changed in many ways, the suspension bogies are changed. And is Sherman hull cast or welded? Yes. Germany will learn that kind of modular design thinking from USA, when constructing Leopard.

@johndowe7003

4 жыл бұрын

@@Paciat yeah they had to tweak some things on the multibank pOwered Sherman's but essentially it was the same tank

@alorikkoln

4 жыл бұрын

The Diesel because of economic reasons, but I like the fluttering sound of the Radial.

@simplywonderful449

3 жыл бұрын

@@alorikkoln Diesels were less vulnerable to fires when hit, saving the crew; it wasn't because of "fuel economy" at all.

Your engine isn't good enough? Just strap 5 car engines together

@blackbird8632

4 жыл бұрын

As long as you don't have do sparkplugs on it..

@johndowe7003

4 жыл бұрын

Guess you haven't heard of the Chrysler multibank it's pretty much 5 250cid inline 6s all have separate ignitions and 6 or twelve different carbs if I'm not mistaken. I know it like 1200cid all together or something like that..

@johndowe7003

4 жыл бұрын

@@blackbird8632 30 plugs 😃, adjusting the ignition timing /carbs is the real pain in the ass

@men5crumm

4 жыл бұрын

Gun too big? Put it in sideways. No room for the radio anymore? Put a box on the back of the turret and put it in there

@treshmiranda699

3 жыл бұрын

but then the 17 pounder wont fit kzread.info/dash/bejne/fqF4r5eFob2sg9o.html

the 6046/twin 671 detroits are still fairly common to this day. Very common in genesets, buses, and boats. One of the most produced engines of all time. 1938-1995 and then continued by MTU

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

Its very ironic considering the that MTU is the same company as Maybach which made engines for the Tiger and other WW2 German tanks

@Darth-Nihilus1

Жыл бұрын

My fire department and many others in my county use 8v92ta’s and 6v92ta’s and a few big cam and small cam Cummins with a handful of 6CTA 8.3’s and ISC’s. There’s a bunch of ISL 8.9’s and a ton of 60 series from the 11.1, 12.7, and 14 liter. A lot of ISX15’s are making their way around and still a ton of CATs from the 3116, 3208, 3126, C12, C-12 505, C7, C7 ACERT, C9 and C13 ACERTs

@randymagnum143

5 ай бұрын

​@@sandervanderkammen9230the MTU 4 cycle engines are just as unreliable as their predecessors, too.

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

@randymagnum143 Is that why General Dynamics selected them for the next M1 Abrams???

@randymagnum143

5 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 probably because licensing was cheap. Remember, they are the same chodes who put the 6.5 in the hmmwv. Also, isn't the gov't still interested in the Cummins/Achates ACE?

Thanks! This was exactly what I was looking for. All the engines, plus info and sounds all in one place.

My uncle drove an M4 in WW2.It was powered by a Radial aircraft type engine.His tank was damaged by an anti-tank mine,whole crew was able to escape with minor injuries.Next tank was powered by similar engine,he drove it through rest of war.Of course it was repaired a few times. Also when I went into the Army I had the task of working on the M74 Tracked recovery Vehicle,which was based on the M4 Hull,powered by the Ford GAA.That damn thing was a living nightmare to work on.Shaft that ran from flywheel end of engine to input of tranny was way down in the bottom of hull,extremely difficult to work on.Machine was a blast to drive.

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer

4 жыл бұрын

The reason the shaft was so low was the tank was originally designed for the 9 cylinder radial which placed its higher. They had to make a lot of design changes to put the V8 in. What division was your uncle in? My dad was in 6 Armored Division. He was an E7 in his early twenties. Dad was originally 2nd Armored oh, but then he was pulled from the division to form the Cadre of the 6th Armored Division when it was formed

Damn, those old motors sound GOOD!!!

@jamesharrison6201

3 жыл бұрын

And no computer. Who's gonna Rock and Roll when the EMP hits?

Imagine when you have so many parts, you can start trying out different combinations. Germany on the other hand, makes a thousand different variants but most of them only look different.

Nice pictures & sounds, would be good 2 see pictures of engines

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

Barney You can see all the engines here on You Tube put the engine name in the You Tube search box at the top of the You Tube Page !!!!

I'm guessing the diesel was for the Marines.

@ComissarZhukov

5 жыл бұрын

And the Soviets.

@umt1cardiff

5 жыл бұрын

British used them as well

@fryingpan8943

5 жыл бұрын

Everyone in the allies basically

@JimFortune

4 жыл бұрын

The Marines took whatever they could get, as did the Brits. US Army preferred gasoline.

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

MakeMe and they were lend leased to the Russians also !!!

I drove a M109A2 self propelled howitzer. Detroit Diesel 8V-71T 2-stroke turbo diesel. 9.3 L (568 cu in) 440hp.

@Colt45hatchback

4 жыл бұрын

The sound would be lovely

@ratscoot

4 жыл бұрын

@@Colt45hatchback It doesn't have the deep sound of most tank engines but it has a high pitch sound. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fmqkutKPoJybo7w.html

@FaustoTheBoozehound

2 жыл бұрын

@@ratscoot Screamin Jimmie

nice vid one of the best vid for comps/names info and sound/video Quality! thanks

I liked them all! Cool production engineering by Chrysler on their 5 in 1 engine so to speak... wow!!!

@cdjhyoung

4 жыл бұрын

You can see one of the Chrysler 30 cylinder engines on display at Chrysler's Museum in Auburn Hills, MI.

@wildbill1726

3 жыл бұрын

The multibank is the reason why Chrysler has the pentastar logo today

Love the sound of all of them

@jamesjohn9460

5 жыл бұрын

ronnie cardy I

why didnt you show the motors?

@blackriflemensorganization6139

3 жыл бұрын

My question as well.

Great video !

Beautiful engines, for beautiful tanks.

The British were the only users of the M4A4 Sherman and they actually liked the multi bank engine it had. The British found it reliable. This is a comment on the state of British tank engines at the time that something the US decided was too complicated and unreliable for themselves the British decided was good.

@fraserhenderson7839

4 жыл бұрын

"Decided" is correct. Statically, multibank was very dependable, one of the most "available" Shermans built. It could play "hurt". Americans didn't subject it to serious testing. They couldn't turn it down as so many power plants were needed, but they sent them to allies as potentially troublesome. It has a bizarre exhaust note, instantly identifiable.

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

Not the only users- but received the majority.

@PatriotPaulUSA

5 ай бұрын

ha ha So true. Imagine having to do a tune up with 5 distributors to set points on, 30 plugs to gap, etc etc You should see a picture of it . That thing was a nightmare for the Army maintenance guys.

These are awesome but I always am a bit annoyed that the spec listed is always hp, but torque is the real impressive number of these engines. The engines are moving freaking tanks! They are going to have over a thousand ft-lbs of torque. I want to see that number! (Yes I did just look them up, but the point I hope has been made.)

@Tanksandmore

2 жыл бұрын

got your point! I'll try better for next time! ;)

@ian3166

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tanksandmore Thanks for the reply! Both is great becausein the end, only the petrol heads like you and me will know the difference, or that torque is even that significant lol.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

Tank engines and aircraft engines are generally listed only by horsepower because torque output is not a critical performance factor.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

@@Tanksandmore The most successful tank engines are aircraft or aircraft derivatives and the manufacturers simply won't list an official torque output spec.

@PatriotPaulUSA

5 ай бұрын

I do know the Ford DOHC All aluminum V8 was their 12 cylinder fighter aircraft engine that they cut 4 cylinders off of . It was redlined at 2600 rpm with a governor and made 500HP and just over 1000ft lbs torque. The amazing thing is that was all under 2600 rpm on gasoline! It was 1100 cu inches with no supercharger or turbo just 2 carbs. Some Army tank crews would disable the governors and they would get 3000 rpm out of them. @@sandervanderkammen9230

Nice, thanks!

OMG I was just staring at the screen and drooling. thanks.

Out of all those engines, the tankers that used the Sherman preferred the Ford GAA as it was the most reliable, and easiest to work on

One of those would complete my arsenal.

excelente informe!.

E for effort on this on fella!

Nice vid. Would have liked to see that pic that was the thumbnail in greater detail though!

@Tanksandmore

Жыл бұрын

Will redo it soon 😉

*Hi y'all, may I barrow just 1 tank so I can march on the Governor of Virginia's Mansion?* lol thanks!

@KI4HOK

4 жыл бұрын

I’ll drive for ya!

@highflyinryan76weezer25

4 жыл бұрын

Pretty soon it's going to be the white house.

@mikecorleone6797

4 жыл бұрын

Josh Rick bring it to California after so we can storm our governor’s mansion...

4 жыл бұрын

@@mikecorleone6797 Sure thing brother, we just need to make a couple pit stops; DC, Georgia and Kentucky then we'll be en route to California. Maybe I'll need to borrow 2 tanks and a fuel tanker.

@mikecorleone6797

4 жыл бұрын

Josh Rick we’ll just use a c130 to give us a ride to each destination. I mean why wear out the tracks?

The radial has the best sound out of all of them. The Ford V-8 sounded good too. That Chrysler I'm going to look into. Seems like it would be interesting

@289pinto

4 жыл бұрын

The radial sounded sweet but not so good for sneaking around unless its a new moon and foggy and hell. Wonder how loud and annoying it was to be inside one of those for months on end.

@painmagnet1

4 жыл бұрын

Another negative about radial engines is that they must be hand cranked after sitting a few hours since oil collects in the lower cylinders and must be pumped out before starting. Not so good when you're being shot at.

I once asked a curator, also who helped maintain all the different Sherman models/engines... who worked at an Armor Museum about the Chrysler A-57, me thinking it was a nightmare to work on....he stated that it was highly reliable, once the carbs were set...and to be honest, after some research...out of some trials at Aberdeen...seems the Chrysler beat them all as far as endurance. Ford, which took it's aircraft v-12...to make the GAA for the Sherman, Chrysler also had an aircraft engine in the works as well, but I don't think it ever went into production.

@peterson7082

5 жыл бұрын

I believe the last engine you refer to is the _A65,_ a 25.69L. (1568in.^3 ) 12-cylinder vee pattern which wasn't an aero-derivative nor aircraft engine.

@daltondickens1848

5 жыл бұрын

Nathan Peterson Here ya go Nathan...Yea...Chrysler was working on one. It was the grandmother of the later hemi's. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_IV-2220

@peterson7082

5 жыл бұрын

@@daltondickens1848 Certainly. But that wasn't a tank engine.

@raptor4798

5 жыл бұрын

To be fair Chrysler was the newest so that makes sense

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

Dalton Chrysler built the Wright R3350 for the B29 program, probably why it was so UNRELIABLE !!!!!

Thar blue smoke reminded me of my old Dodge.

Most (or all?) filmed @ Tanks in Town, Belgium. Beautiful event! 👌🏻

@Tanksandmore

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed

Read a book called Tank Action by David Render, who was a British tank commander. He had a big argument with his CO when he found his diesel engined Sherman had been replaced by a multibank engined Sherman while he was away. He said the multibank had a tendency to flood because half the engines were upside down. I think that's what he wrote; I think I took the book to a charity shop, so I can't check. He said his tank stalled and he and his crew had to leg it. His CO accused him of deliberately abandoning it so it would get blown up. I've read the diesel engine had good torque at low speed. I sometimes wondered why most these tank engines used petrol when usually heavy vehicles use diesel, but diesel was wanted for ships I think.

@adventure2073

5 жыл бұрын

During WWII most US motor pool vehicles were gas powered. The Army preferred the gas powered M4 variants because of the fuel commonality it gave entire divisions. The diesels were in many ways the superior models, however most of them were exported, or given to the Marines.

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

Kevein When war started they used what was AVAILABLE or what could be adapted to work !!! No time to develop an engine and diesel aside from the 2 cycle Jimmys there were no good powerful diesel engines AVAILABLE !!!! Most large truck engines then were gas !!! Hal Scott Had a 1100 cu in 6 cyliner truck engine. it was developed into a V12 marine engine for air sea rescue !!!

@johngilmer5721

4 жыл бұрын

The intakes weren't upside down

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

None of the engines were upside down- unless it was a radial then several cylinders would be such.

I never much liked the Detroit Diesel. But i still think this was the best option they came up with for the Sherman. Much more dependable design. Thanks for the video!!!!

@exxusdrugstore300

7 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, the Army also didn't like it. The few we did use went to the Marines and the rest went to whoever wanted them. You would think the US would have seen what a superior and safer fuel diesel is even then, but the Sherman was already pretty safe so I guess it didn't matter.

@PatriotPaulUSA

5 ай бұрын

The Army Tank Crews liked the Ford GAA Aluminum DOHC V8 engine the best, it was super reliable and the easiest to work on. They made approx 30,000 of them I have read. The 30 cylinder Chrysler was a nightmare they said. The radial was the original engine for those tanks its hard to believe , but it was. Not a great idea but it may have been that they had a huge supply of them at the start of the war, who knows. It sure isnt a practical or quiet engine that is for sure.

@deadon4847

5 ай бұрын

@@PatriotPaulUSA With the Ford, the crews found if they removed the governor they could more horsepower and higher rpm and make it go faster. The Chrysler engine could take a hit and still run with half of it knocked out. The radial had a habit of fouling the spark plugs on the bottom cylinders and usually at the worst times.

That Chrysler Multibank is ridiculous. But nice to get a chance to hear i8.

my grandfather worked on sherman fireflies, it sounded sweet

It's MUSIC!!

I got 1 x 251 in my Power Wagon. Wish it had 5x the power

I love the 9 cylinder radial.

At 1:50.....Throw some turbos on that 1100 CI beast.....lol

There was a unicorn Engine very few were made I think only as demonstration models. The Caterpillar D-200 which was a Wright RD-1820 used in M4A6 tanks. Also called Ordnance Engine RD-1820 as well. From the vague info available only 75 out of 775 were built. Very low numbers for the variant out of all Shermans. Even Jumbo Sherman M4A3E2 had way more built at around 250.

@misters2837

3 жыл бұрын

D-200, an RD-1820 Converted to Diesel By Clatterpillar. I have only seen them in maint. books.

Ohh wow I didn’t know that the big 3 made engines for tanks very cool

@corystansbury

4 жыл бұрын

Wanna really have your mind blown? The M1A1 is a Chrysler.

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

Captain ALL the auto makers went to war production for the duration of the war !!!! Packard built PT Boat engines and the Merlin for the Brits, Ford built the B24 and the PW R2800, Studebaker built Wright R1830 for the B17, Hudson built the Hall Scot 6 cylinder Marine engine, Nash Kelvinator Built the Hamilton Props, and Buick built fuselages for the Mosquito bomber built in Canada, Olds built the 37MM Cannons, Cadillac, Olds. Pontiac built various war products !!! This country has NOT seen a National mobilization like we saw in WW II !!!!

@gben7084

2 жыл бұрын

Heck they even made tanks too. Auto plants were made into wartime production of anything needed. Car production basically halted in Dec 1941 until the end of the war

The general motor 6046 I believe is two Detroit diesel 6-71 engines.

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

Yes it is !!!! Marines used them and also the Russians !!!! But its downfall was it was low on power !!!

@kurtmuzio3077

4 жыл бұрын

Yep. The Detroit 2 strokes have a distinct sound, even idling...they just didn’t make much power and you could hear em coming a mile away.

@twogun3949

4 жыл бұрын

Hard to compare gas and diesel power out put without the torque numbers. Fords eco boost truck engine has more hp then my Duramax diesel engine but no where near the torque. Not even in the same class when measuring the work it can do. Same with the 6046 versus any of the other engines, they have to rev to the redline to make this horsepower rating where the diesel gets it's torque way down in the power band. I have an old GM grain truck with a 6-71 Detroit that still pulls pretty good but no match for more modern 4 stroke turbo diesels. As for sound I know it's loud but these motors were all loud and for the gas motors to move the tank they had to rev higher then the GM. The Ruasian's loved there M4 Shermans.

Interesting how Radial Engines wound up in tanks and helicopters!!

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

Tanks and aircraft have very similar engine design requirements, truck and and tractor engines are simply not suitable for the demands of tank applications.

I need to get my grubby hands on one of those 18L v8s

Creating the Sherman Firefly: Mechanic: "Sir! The 17 pounder won't fit" Engineer: "Put it in sideways." Mechanic: "Radio won't fit" Engineer: "Cut a hole and stick it out the back" Mechanic: "Engine is no good" Engineer: "*GET 5 CAR ENGINES AND PUT THEM TOGETHER!*" (Not my original work, turned speech into text basically)

The second Sherman was an M4A2E8 aka Easy Eight

@Romanov117

4 жыл бұрын

No, it's an M4 *A2* E8

@ultramagapimpernel7992

4 жыл бұрын

@@Romanov117 yeah wasn't 100% sure about that part of number sequence.

@Chief_critic

4 жыл бұрын

M4A3E8 A3 !!!!!!!!

@ultramagapimpernel7992

4 жыл бұрын

@@Chief_critic M4A4E8, my father was the maintenance officer for the 11th Infantry Regiment, stuff that in your bong and smoke it! Oh, and STFU!

@predatorjunglehunter7332

3 жыл бұрын

@@Chief_critic nope, its an A2, a lot of people think is an A3 due movie fury, but that's just because the filmmakers couldn't get their hands on a real M4A3E8

The Chrysler 30 cylinder was an engineering marvel and the most reliable.

@73Datsun180B

Жыл бұрын

More reliable than a Detroit, you must be joking!

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

The A57 was the least reliable, albeit it's TBO was high because the engine produced so little power for its size.

The Continental radial R975 was the best :-) even on sound :-)

@Tanksandmore

6 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more :)

@randymagnum143

4 жыл бұрын

The twin detroits would have been a hell of a lot mor reliable

@charliegarrison9688

4 жыл бұрын

The R975 sounds like it's got rods knocking but it's just how it sounds. That being said I like hearing this motor lope

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

@@randymagnum143 It was reliable but a little low on power !!!

@randymagnum143

4 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 450 hp and over 1200 ft lbs of torque? Find a set of stiffer governer springs and someone who knew how to run the rack and more was easy. There was a shortage of 6-71's as they were in demand for *everything* Easily the best diesel engine of the war, on all sides. Between tge gaa and the radials, much time was spent trying to work out bugs. Surprisingly, the 30 cylinder Chrysler proved incredibly reliable by comparison

so the radial engine isnt mass production?

Chrysler Multibank - its madness8()

any backstory why they used radial engines instead of V or in line??

@franklinhadick2866

2 жыл бұрын

Its was available in rather larger numbers and had the needed(??) horespower.

Existiu algum sherman com motor a diesel?

The radial engines always seem to sound like they hate life!

Ford GAA V8 GASOLINE sounds like the Sherman tank in Battlefield V

Soo many automotive companies(except Continental) made engines for the Sherman...which one was more common though? Continental?

@pukalo

6 жыл бұрын

The most common Sherman variant was the M4A2 series with the General Motors 6046 diesel engine.

@brake4beaver

6 жыл бұрын

M4 and M4A1 both used the R-975, with a production total between the two of 17,111. Next was the M4A3 with the Ford GAA 12,850 produced. M4A2 with the GM 6046 had 10,968 built. M4A4 production with the Chrysler multibank totaled 7,499. So yeah the Continental was the most common engine.

@paoloviti6156

6 жыл бұрын

pukalo [CDN] I thought that it was the Continental radial engine that it was the most common!!

@peterpiper_203

6 жыл бұрын

Which was most reliable Did they not have the technology for multi fuel engines back then

@Mishn0

6 жыл бұрын

Continental did make automotive engines. The straight 8 in the Elcar was made by Continental.

At 0:00 Scania Wooo!

@harrimanfox8961

5 жыл бұрын

No it's not...

The multibank seems unecessarily complicated I am guessing engineers in the field did not look forward to changing out the 30 plugs but then again I read that the radial was a nightmare for them aswell because you could only get to the bottom ones by taking out the engine and they did have a habit of fouling plugs maybe because they were designed to spend most of their time running at a constant speed in an aeroplane.

@tinfoilhat38

4 жыл бұрын

The Chrysler flathead 6 was cheap, reliable, dead simple and most importantly readily available at the start of the war. The throttle linkages were probably a nightmare but other than that not too difficult to work on.

@mfree80286

4 жыл бұрын

@@tinfoilhat38 Difficult and tedious are two different values, of which the A57 had the latter in spades. Hop in, remove-clean-install 30 spark plugs, check 5 sets of points, 5 idle mixtures, etc. All easy as the everyday stuff you'd do on a 40's Plymouth, but 5 times over and a slightly more awkward.

@PatriotPaulUSA

5 ай бұрын

5 distributors 30 plugs you should see a picture of that monstrosity, it was hated by the army maintenance crews. I dont think they made many of them. @@tinfoilhat38

The Chrysler sounds most familiar to me.

They wanted to use the GM engine in the beginning but the army said they did not want to have 2 fuels to transport every thing else was gas so that's the way it went .

@doktorbimmer

6 жыл бұрын

*The Diesel engines were not produced for the US Army which required gasoline as its standard fuel type, these engines were produced for export countries like Russia and the USMC because the US Navy had adopted a Diesel fuel requirement.*

@doktorbimmer

6 жыл бұрын

*The U.S. Army did not switch from gasoline to Diesel fuel until the mid 1970's, and in 1991 DoD adopted the SFC (Single Fuel Concept) when all combat vehicles switched the JP-8 jet fuel.*

@peterson7082

6 жыл бұрын

+doktorbimmer The USMC had no Diesel fuel requirement. They used _M4's_ and _M4A3's_ in similar numbers if not more frequently. It was just what they had available in great numbers in '1943 and '1944.

@peterson7082

6 жыл бұрын

+soaringtractor Indeed they did, but that was coincidental. As the USMC had no requirements for Diesel. Yet they still used _M4A3's_ and _M4's_ in similar if not larger frequency than the _M4A2's._ The Army was also very much present in the Pacific Theater of Operations. And they used only gasoline powered tanks, aside from early _M3_ light tanks.

@bencejuhasz6459

6 жыл бұрын

In early 1942,the US Congress made a decision that every US Army Armed Force which does not operate in home territory,should use vehicles with gasoline engines.(Of course that was for logistical reasons.) That is the reason why the US Army used so few diesel M4A2s(they used a handful during Operation Torch,and in one particular Pacific operation what I cannot remember).

a 9cyl rad. aircraftengine in a tank is really amazing !? ;- () wasnt it aircooled ?? wonder bout overheating??

Nice video. Good shit👍👍 but the best tank engine sound ever over ever and ever. Is the Leopard 1 tank. Nothing beats that. Nothing. You cant tell where it comes from or how many. Very smart when it was made to present day.....😀😀😀😀😀. What was the best sherman engine and most poweful..?????

@Slaktrax

4 жыл бұрын

It's labelled in the video! 450-500hp Ford GAA V8.

@ratscoot

4 жыл бұрын

When i was in the army in drove a M109A2 SP but we also had a tank corps in the barracks next to us. When they started their Leopard A1's we could feel the concrete vibrate into our barracks.

@slikerdet

4 жыл бұрын

ratscoot I know. I have work on m109 the Norwegian model. Also cv9030 but most on leopard 1 and 2. They used several years to get the sound on leopard 1 tank. And it got many good features people don’t think about...

@ratscoot

4 жыл бұрын

@@slikerdet We also had the Alvis FV101 Scorpion as a reconnaissaince vehicle, the old model with Jaguar 4,2L petrol engine. This was my favourite tracked vehicle, this thing was very fast (80kmh) and manouvabrle.

Sound good engine.

@gregoryfuller1136

3 жыл бұрын

Ug like engine.

ther is olso the Cummins diesel engines for Sherman M-50 and the super Sherman M-51

Radial sound

Did I get this correctly: that one version had 'five' inline engines? 🤔

@Tanksandmore

4 жыл бұрын

yes!

@garyquail2347

4 жыл бұрын

@@Tanksandmore there's one engine that also powered the Sherman tank that was made by General Motors the Cadillac engine that wasn't shown in the video.

@Tanksandmore

4 жыл бұрын

@@garyquail2347 The twin Cadillac V8 you mean? No it was not in the Sherman, only in M5 Stuart and M24 Chaffee Light Tanks. However, what I did not show in the video was the Caterpillar D200A turbocharged, air-cooled radial multi-fuel engine, mounted in the M4A6 of which 75 units were built. Unfortunately, no one survived to these days.

@buckhorncortez

4 жыл бұрын

The engines are arranged in a star pattern so it's kind of like an inline radial engine.

@289pinto

4 жыл бұрын

@@buckhorncortez really?

0:21 sounds boss.

The Chysler Multibank engine was actually rated at 470 hp, not 375.

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

dave IF they could get it to run and keep it running !!!!

@muimasmacho

4 жыл бұрын

[dave rodkey] One more engine and the could have called it a SIX x SIX PACK.

The Ford GAA is my personal favorite, it is the engine sound effect used in Battlefield V

How was there room for the 30 cylinder engine?

@fraserhenderson7839

4 жыл бұрын

The engine banks are arranged in a rough circle around a common center. Wasp radial engines could be 9 cyl (1 row) or 18 cyl (2 rows)Think of a 5 cylinder radial but 6 rows deep. The whole package was roughly cube shaped and occupied similar volume to other Sherman engines.

@Slaktrax

4 жыл бұрын

They lengthened the hull on this model.

@fraserhenderson7839

4 жыл бұрын

@@guyincognito741 Gee Whiz. No **** Sherlock! Thanks for pointing that out. I guess if I read my own post, that would have been obvious. Or if you read it.

@fraserhenderson7839

4 жыл бұрын

@@guyincognito741 You seem to be looking for a fight. Are you familiar with the term "analogy"? I can't control the lack of perception you exhibit. If you can't read properly, that's not my problem. If you think that's what I wrote, too bad for you.

The multibank was great. It was 5 pretty much independent engines with garbage flat head design. No overhead cams to break. If one engine failed, the rest could keep it going.

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

You are joking right? The A57 multi-bank was so bad it was rejected by the US Army and given away to lend-lease in Britain and Russia.

Almost exclusively employed by Britain, the Chrysler multi-bank equipped Sherman was able to keep moving in spite of major engine damage due to serious system redundancy. several complete banks (engines) could be lost without total drive failure. It was popular with crews in wartime where the majority of vehicle losses are about equipment failure and loss of mobility.

@Slaktrax

4 жыл бұрын

"serious system redundancy. several complete banks (engines) could be lost without total drive failure....'' This is a myth and ''several'' means five to seven.

@fraserhenderson7839

4 жыл бұрын

@@Slaktrax Your comment is rather vague. 5 to 7 what? Cylinder banks? I don't think you know about this engine. Do you have evidence? I can find plenty of references to A57 durability. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

Detroit takes the cake by far.

@twogun3949

4 жыл бұрын

my 72 GMC truck has a 230 hp 6/71 Detroit sounds great from a distance no need trying to talk in the cab though

U are sure a GM 6046 in M4A3(E8) ? Because this engine use in M4A2 en M10 TD. The M4A3 use a Ford V8 GAA. 🤔

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

That tank show was an _A2._ Note the segmented exhaust louvers on rear. _A3's_ had a one piece

@JakeTheTankmaster

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterson7082 M4A2s also had a smaller engine deck cover than M4A3s

@predatorjunglehunter7332

3 жыл бұрын

if you are taking your info from movie Fury, then you are wrong, albeit depicted as a M4A3E8, the Fury is in reality a M4A2E8 here is an article about it from the official site of the musseum that owns the vehicle: tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/m4-sherman-fury

how do you only get 450 hp out of a 1100 CI twin cam V8 ?

@tays8306

4 жыл бұрын

Probably low compression too to run on shit gas.

@Bazerkly

4 жыл бұрын

Torque

@Miatacrosser

4 жыл бұрын

Who cares. That engine is an engineering marvel. A 60° All Aluminum DOHC 32-valve 1100 cubic inch V-8....in 1939! By an American engine builder? Are you kidding me? Lets take that baby and throw a supercharger on it and put it in something light(er).

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

ferrelx 1100 cu in engines do not turn very fast, 2500 RPM was close to tops but they were after torque and it was a beast !!!

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

@@Miatacrosser The original aircraft V12 engine was twin turbocharged and yes at 1650cu in displacement put out more HP than the Merlin !!!

The last one is a 30 cylinder power-plant.

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

KV a fukin nightmare and a crap engine !!!

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Not really crapm

M7 Priest is my biggesssssssssssssst love ever !!!!!!!!!!!

As I understand it, there was also a twin Cadillac setup.

@Tanksandmore

6 жыл бұрын

No, this setup was to be found on light tanks M5 Stuart and M24 Chaffee ;)

@samaguirre3283

6 жыл бұрын

William Rekow yes but only a couple of test tanks used it because of extremely loud noise and very easily overheated problems

@CarLos-yi7ne

6 жыл бұрын

Mgrg Also in LVT's

@CarLos-yi7ne

6 жыл бұрын

Sam Aguirre No, Twin Cadillac was just 2x 110hp.. Just not enough for a Sherman. Loud? Use a silencer. Overheat? Use better coolingsystem 🙂

@johnsiders7819

6 жыл бұрын

Yep I had one Stuart they had been removed put a 534 V8 ford gas truck engine in it .

30 CYLINDERS?

LS swap. Someone's got to do it.

@andriosz

4 жыл бұрын

M5A1 is asking for it. For 2 of them to be exact :)

The ford engined M4 became the biggest number of them because of power to weight and ease of maintenance not to say economical, one bank could be shut down to save fuel making it the best choice however the noise this motor made is a negative as you could never hide from your enemy ears!!

@peterson7082

6 жыл бұрын

No they didn't. The _M4A2's_ (with a Detroit Diesel Model 6046 twin-bank ) and _M4A4(75)_ (Chrysler _A57_ multibank 30-cyl. tank engine )were the most mass produced variants. And the most common engine was the _R-975C3._

@revolrz22

6 жыл бұрын

The primary model for the United States was the M4A3, with the Ford engine. M4s and M4A1s were of an auxiliary type by 1944, with production of those types switching entirely over to specialized configurations by the late production run. Only the M4A3 retained production of the 75-mm, 76-mm, and 105-mm models, making it the standard type. In terms of production numbers, going from the very beginning, we find the following: R-975C3: Total 18,096 M4A1 - 6,281 M4A1 (76)w - 3,426 M4 - 6,748 M4 (105) - 1,641 Ford GAA: Total 13,737 M4A3 - 1,690 M4A3 (75)w - 3,071 M4A3 (76)w - 1,458 M4A3 (76)w HVSS - 3,084 M4A3 (105) - 1,641 M4A3 (105) HVSS - 2,539 M4A3E2 - 254 General Motors 6046: Total 10,968 M4A2 - 8,053 M4A2 (76)w - 2,915 Multibank monstrosity: Total 7,477 M4A4 - 7,477 The way that these numbers are to be interpreted is that the M4 and M4A1 were the first to roll off the production lines, and were equipping both U.S. and foreign forces. The M4A3 came off the line soon after and, as you can see by the large number of variants, was largely the one the U.S. Army picked for itself. It was not much exported during wartime, like the other models were. The M4A2 was a weird duck in that while it had superior automotive performance to the M4A3, the U.S. Army had already fixated itself on the M4A3 and its gasoline engine (commonality with other vehicles in the pool.) As such, it was slated for lend-lease, with the largest recipients being the British and Soviet Union. The United States Marines, who was given second pickings on tanks after the Army, drew from M4A2 production to provide itself with medium tanks. The M4A4 was entirely Lend-lease, and almost (if not absolutely) entirely to Commonwealth forces. It was by far their most numerous available tank by the later campaigns, and was also the lowest performing in terms of automotive metrics. I firmly believe that this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the British had more contact with German armor to contribute towards their vitriol towards Americans and their rust-bucket tank in post-war literature. Interesting note on the M4A2: It included a number of improvements to its internal and external layout which were later incorporated into late production M4A1 and M4A3 hulls.

@peterson7082

6 жыл бұрын

+Revoltz22 > *_"The primary model for the United States was the M4A3, with the Ford engine. M4s and M4A1s were of an auxiliary type by 1944, with production of those types switching entirely over to specialized configurations by the late production run._* No they were not. The _M4A3_ wouldn't be in appreciable numbers in Europe until early '1945. > *_"The M4A4 was entirely Lend-lease, and almost (if not absolutely) entirely to Commonwealth forces."_* It was not until 1943 that distribution changed to U.K./ Commonwealth forces.

@revolrz22

6 жыл бұрын

The first M4A3s were accepted into service in June of 1942, with the final acceptances (of the early type M4A3) in September of '43. Are you going to say that they sat in a warehouse for three years? Do you have some evidence of this, given that we have photographic evidence that they were in-theater as early as late 1942? As far as the M4A4: According to R.P. Hunnicut in Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank, the British received 7,167 samples of the tank. The soviets received 2. 274 tanks are slated as having being sent to "Other." In total, this accounts for 7,443 of the 7,477 total tanks of the type produced. Nice try, slick.

@peterson7082

5 жыл бұрын

+Revoltz22 Sorry for the delay college came up, as well as not being notified of your response. > *_"The first M4A3s were accepted into service in June of 1942, with the final acceptances (of the early type M4A3) in September of '43."_* Keeping in mind this is solely referring to the Ford Motor Company produced _M4A3(75)'s._ > *_"Are you going to say that they sat in a warehouse for three years?"_* Nope. I have no doubt some numbers saw combat before this time period, but I was referring to appreciable numbers. As it appears most were stateside until that time as training tanks. Much like the _M4A4._ > *_"As far as the M4A4:"_* My point being that they were not listed for Lend-Lease until '1943. While the U.S. Army never used them in combat they were solely used by the U.S. Army until that point stateside, as training tanks. Which explains why many more of these exist intact until today than the typical _M4_ or _M4A1._ As much fewer of the 1,690 or so produced actually saw combat.

Can it run with Nissan GTR engine?

@Slaktrax

4 жыл бұрын

If a GTR engine could ever make the same amount of torque, maybe. Torque is needed to move heavy vehicles. Why do you think 450hp truck engines make over 1,000ft/bs of torque at less than 2,000 rpm. Tank engines make at least that and more.

It’s crazy to think the v8 in my truck is more powerful than these old tank engines that carried wayyy more weight

@gregoryfuller1136

3 жыл бұрын

One should look at the torque output of these engines before making a blanket statement like this. They would then realize that it is even crazier to think that the v8 in their truck would be able to power these tanks in any meaningful way.

@tangydiesel1886

2 жыл бұрын

In the time period, the 1942 ford f6 with its flathead v8 made about 95-100hp. So this was a big step up.

@calincampbell5637

Жыл бұрын

These tank engines also make over 1000 ft-lbs of torque.

Chevy and Chrysler both have their inline 6 Motors but when Ford put their V8 in the tanks they were out performing the German tanks

@doktorbimmer

6 жыл бұрын

*The Germans were outperforming with their V-12 engines... and still do.*

@CarLos-yi7ne

6 жыл бұрын

doktorbimmer No, because they made their tanks to heavy and unreliable 😉

@doktorbimmer

6 жыл бұрын

+Car Los *Like the M-26 Pershing?*

@doktorbimmer

6 жыл бұрын

+Car Los *In case you have forgotten? the best tank engine available in the world right now is a German V-12 engine....*

@CarLos-yi7ne

6 жыл бұрын

doktorbimmer Yes it is: 1500hp 🙂👍🏻

Ford GAA 500HP best !

@GrasshopperKelly

4 жыл бұрын

520* :D

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

infidel Yes it was !! BUT it was built for the Sherman tank !!!! The engine was developed from a V12 Ford designed to compete with the Merlin and Allison, that NOBODY was interested in so when the call went out for a tank engine Ford cut 4 cylinders off the V12 making a V8 and 500 HP !!!!

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer

4 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 aluminum block and heads. Double overhead cams. "It was a beautiful engine", per my Dad. E7 6th Armored Tank commander.

@GrasshopperKelly

4 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 well only the first few hundred were 500hp, by the time they were fitting them in A2's and A3's they were upgraded for 520 hp :P

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I never said it wasn't !!!! I have always thought it was a great engine considering ford was only making flat head engines 4 6 8 cylinder and to come up with this was genus !!!

1:51 Sounds very similar to Battlefield V

Gasoline? Is that diesel or petrol?

@atfyoutubedivision955

3 жыл бұрын

Petrol.

30-cylinder engine is medness

5x4 Inline 6 made by Chrysler...interesting

if only the Ford GAA was a Diesel with 500hp instead of petrol it would be perfect for the sherman.

@ABC21129

6 жыл бұрын

Diesels are good but it would have complicated logistics had more diesel engines been used in M4s

@roberth.goddardthefatherof6376

6 жыл бұрын

+mcjagermech why would have Diesel been more logistically complicated than petrol.

@ABC21129

6 жыл бұрын

+Robert H. Goddard because the jeeps, trucks, cars and tanks all used gasoline, if your tanks are now using diesel you'll have to ship that along with the gasoline. of course diesel Sherman tanks were used but mostly in the Pacific and in the eastern front with the Soviets.

@ABC21129

6 жыл бұрын

+mcjagermech not to mention the USA refined much more gasoline than diesel

@roberth.goddardthefatherof6376

6 жыл бұрын

very true,

And did you know that Tesla have developed big 30m long trucks for heavy loads and long mileage driving?? - i think it could be used for tanks with some conversion

@buckhorncortez

4 жыл бұрын

Then you know absolutely nothing about tanks and how they're used. There aren't any charging stations on a battle field and you don't have time to wait around for batteries to be charged.

@MrKeys57

4 жыл бұрын

@@buckhorncortez you dont have any fuelstations out in Gobidesert either! - knucklehead! - dont you understand yet?? - you do the same logistics as you would with normal ,"gas" tanks, do you get it?? - it just means you have to CHANGE the logistics a bit so they fit tanks with electric drivingsystems!

I read the Chrysler multi bank wasn’t very popular to the troops and was often swapped for the continental radial. Troublesome, prone to breakdown due to the complexity. Also the non-vertical sixes weren’t designed to be running horizontal or upside down and had lubrication problems.

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

Not really the case

@gregoryfuller1136

3 жыл бұрын

"Can someone run over to the supply depot and grab me one of them radial engines? I got a little extra time before tomorrow's battle and want to swap out this Chrysler thing. It should bolt right in and shouldn't take long."

A bácsi jól mondta hogy haragba ellendugattyús diesel motor van!

I think continental R975 9 cylinder radial is the best.

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

The Ford GAA was the preferred engine with more horsepower and no issues with hydraulic lock like the R975.

The Ford sounds like a flathead Briggs with more cylinders

@doktorbimmer

6 жыл бұрын

*Interesting considering the Ford GA's lay-out and design specifications are curiously similar to the R-R Merlin engine.*

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

@@doktorbimmer Ford designed his V12 aircraft engine in place of the Merlin , same CU In But NOBODY was interested, so when a call went out for a tank engine he cut 4 cylinders off to get a V8.......and it was all Aluminum, with 4 valves per cylinder, overhead cam. the aircraft engine was TURBO charged and put out more power than the Merlin or Allison !!!

@wilburfinnigan2142

4 жыл бұрын

Herpy The V8 was a 60 degree engine, most V8's are 90 degree and to make it work a flat pane crank was used why the firing order sounds strange !!! BUT it worked and most all the engineering was already done on it !!! Ford built over 26,000 of those engine and about 50+ thousand Sherman were built !!!

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer

4 жыл бұрын

That's odd considering it was a double overhead cam V8. Yeah you read right double overhead cam. Aluminum was used in the construction to save weight as stated by other responses it was originally an aircraft engine. Ford cut off four cylinders and then detuned the engine to 500 horsepower. This reduced the octane required for the engine to operate and it reduce the heat generated by the engine.

Sherman:mierda sobre valorada!!!!!!

@haywoodyoudome

4 жыл бұрын

Español, el idioma para las personas que se llevan las pollas a la boca.

1:37 thats an m7

@GrasshopperKelly

4 жыл бұрын

yes, and it's fitted with the Ford GAA, which some M4A3's were also fitted with. Because that's the chassis the M7 was based on.

@0:55 That is a M4A3 76W which had GAA or Radial. NOT GM 6046.

@Tanksandmore

3 жыл бұрын

No that's a M4A2E8. So GM6046. And the M4A3 only had GAA. NOT Radial.

@CarLos-yi7ne

3 жыл бұрын

@@Tanksandmore Well, I see a M4A3E8(76)W not a M4A2 which had the older model turrret and 75mm canon. Or it must be retro fitted with the late turret (76mm gun) and the E8 wide tracks. 💁🏼‍♂️

@Tanksandmore

3 жыл бұрын

Please do some research on the internet to find out how to really recognize a Sherman and to know more about the different versions that exist

@CarLos-yi7ne

3 жыл бұрын

@@Tanksandmore I know where I am talking about. So maybe you can show your expert knowledge to proof me wrong. In that way I can learn even more about the Sherman.🙂

@Tanksandmore

3 жыл бұрын

As you seem not to be able to do a quick google search, here it is for your lazy ass tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/canada/m4a276w-hvss-sherman-easy-8/

The horse power on the GM twin set 71 can't be right. Should be around 476hp . One 6-71 is 238hp so you do the math.

@simongilbert2704

Жыл бұрын

yes , they got the sound wrong too , in the uk and other parts of the world hp is a different measure , a modern 6,71 is about 215 - 220 , an 8,71 in the usa is classed as a 318 , here it is 285 to 290 for the same motor .. also the early engines were only 2 valve per cyl, , which may also explain the lower power output .

How much torque? That's what matters. An LS-1 from 1998 has 305 hp but 380 ft/lbs of torque.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

Torque doesn't matter in tank applications.. Horsepower to weight ratio performance is all that matters.

@widescreennavel

Жыл бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Torque will get you out of the ditch, though.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

@@widescreennavel *Tracks* and the right transmission gear ratio is what gets you out of a ditch... *Horsepower* is what gets you up a hill or across a muddy field with enough speed to not be a sitting duck for the enemy gunners!

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

@@widescreennavel What most people don't understand is that tanks are not trucks.. or dragster. Aircraft engines are ideal for tanks because they produce very high continuous horsepower, are very low weight and have good fuel efficiency. Tanks have very similar operating requirements to aircraft, are very different from trucks or tractors.

Imagine they had to take on the Russian T-34 directly after the war....