Sherman engine comparison 

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

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..

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

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

but then the 17 pounder wont fit ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LmDM5LqZFSw.html

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 ;-)

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

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

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@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?

I’ll drive for ya!

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

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

@@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.

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

And the Soviets.

British used them as well

Everyone in the allies basically

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

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

My question as well.

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

"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.

Not the only users- but received the majority.

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.

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

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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 !!!!

The sound would be lovely

@@Colt45hatchback It doesn't have the deep sound of most tank engines but it has a high pitch sound. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L6pXpVp95sY.html

@@ratscoot Screamin Jimmie

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

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

ronnie cardy I

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

To be fair Chrysler was the newest so that makes sense

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

No, it's an M4 *A2* E8

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

M4A3E8 A3 !!!!!!!!

@@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!

@@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

Couldn't agree more :)

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

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

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

@@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

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you mean every front. The Soviets used the Sherman in large numbers, it was used in North Africa, in Italy, in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. Also used in the Pacific, as well as Burma. Only tank of the war to see such widespread use and was in service with 40 countries

2 fronts? What do you count as the second?

Japan...

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.

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 !!!

The intakes weren't upside down

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

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.

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.

@@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.

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

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.

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...

@@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.

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.

520* :D

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 !!!!

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

@@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

@@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 !!!

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._

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.

+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.

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.

+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.

KV a fukin nightmare and a crap engine !!!

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Not really crapm

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

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

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

Probably low compression too to run on shit gas.

Torque

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).

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 !!!

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

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

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

@@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!

@@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.

More reliable than a Detroit, you must be joking!

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

It wouldn't make any difference. The idea that gas engines lit more than diesel is a complete myth. British Shermans burnt more readily early on because the crews were stuffing them with extra ammunition.

*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.*

*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.*

+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.

+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.

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).

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 .

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

@@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.

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

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

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

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

doktorbimmer Yes it is: 1500hp 🙂👍🏻

Will redo it soon 😉

yes!

@@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.

@@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.

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

@@buckhorncortez really?

No it's not...

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.

@@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!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

@@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 !!!

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 !!!

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.

Petrol.

Indeed

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

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

+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.

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

very true,

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

Chuck G It was a nightmare to work on and the least reliable of the Bunch !!!

Wilbur Finnigan what a surprise !

The British made an improved version of the a57 and put it in the firefly.

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.

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.

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

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

? It was nothing at all to do with the GM, the engines in Russian tanks are four stroke V12s.

The Soviets had some experience with International Harvester and Caterpillar diesels, but the Kharkiv V-12 diesel, with its 48 valves, gear-drive DOHC, and articulated conrods had more to do with the excellent Mikulin AM-38 aircraft engine. The T-34 was the best medium tank of WW2 and probably the overall best tank in the world at the time. Engineers in the USSR were the equal of any other nation and, with the T-34, designed an excellent tank which was built in the tens of thousands. I'm no fan of the Soviet political system but I've always admired their clever engineering, willingness to get their hands dirty, and brass balls. Give credit where credit's due

Would last 10 hours @ 400 hp rating 🤣 Automotive engines run at rated horsepower 1% of the time. Put it in a 60k lb vehicle, and it would die quick.