A better use for a round engine (56K Beware)

[Warhawk]

Since my last thread on this topic went the way of the off topic board I will repost here and now. The following videos were taken by me at the 2007 (50th anniversary) Stowe Antique and Classic Car Show. The subject is a 1942 American Car and Foundry manufactured M3A1 Stuart light tank.

Initial Start and Warm Up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr-GdGRI_Ac

Roll Out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrgeXC-b7E

Roll In & Park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOf-Ff761t8

This tank has been fully restored over a period of 20 years and I have watched the entire process over that time. Today (as the owner is so proud of saying) the only things not operational on this fine machine are the grenades in the grenade box.

Last edited by Warhawk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

[bugazon]

That is on e fine machine. It looks like a class act restoration. I for one would like to see more pix please. I would love to own a half track one day.........but its not likely to happen anytime soon.

[rwdfresno]

If he is ever looking for a spare engine or two I still have a couple left to sell or trade.

[muddyboots]

Tankers hated those radial engines. They were too tall and made the tank siluette taller than they wanted. And you couldn't run them at idle or the plugs got dirty too fast. There was a major supply operation involved just in getting the plugs sandblasted. In normandy they just sifted beach sand I think. It took well into the war before deasil operated in line engines were made to fit them. Only reason they used the aircraft engines was they were in ready supply. Which probably killed thousands of GI's of the course of the war.

[rwdfresno]

Tankers hated those radial engines. They were too tall and made the tank siluette taller than they wanted. And you couldn't run them at idle or the plugs got dirty too fast. There was a major supply operation involved just in getting the plugs sandblasted. In normandy they just sifted beach sand I think. It took well into the war before deasil operated in line engines were made to fit them. Only reason they used the aircraft engines was they were in ready supply. Which probably killed thousands of GI's of the course of the war.

I hadn't heard that particular account that tankers didn't like the radial engine because it made the vehicle too high profile however, I suppose there could be some truth to it being that the drive shaft travels under the turret basket. Assuming the the drive shaft angle could be reduced with a v or inline engine the basket possibly could have been lowered 8 or 10 inches. Interestingly the M5 Light Tank has a very similar profile to he M3 Light Tank (above) and is the same height despite having Cadillac flathead V8s. It has a redesigned hull and was the next iteration of the light tank. The largest complaint of the light tank by far was the lack of firepower. The 37mm gun was worthless against most armor in the ETO and shifted use to the PTO against the equally ill equipped Japanese tanks and gun installations.

M5 Light Tank


The M3 Medium Tank (General Lee) which had R975 had a very high profile but it had little if anything to do with the engine and was the result of the strange armorment configuration that had the turret mounted 37 mm on top of the already high profile hull that made room for a flexible mounted 75 mm gun. They didn't see much front line action after North Africa when the M4s came on the scene.

M3 Medium Tank


M4 Medium Tank


The M4 Medium Tank (General Sherman) also had the R975 engine and had a reduced profile from the M3. The perhaps could have been reduced slightly by inches perhaps if the drive shaft angle could have been reduced giving the turret basket room to be lower however subsequent models employing V or inline engines were all similar in height, although that could have been due to the desire to keep the hull similar in design for parts, although there were already several hull designs.

From the documentation I have read it appears that both the British and the Americans considered the R975 and R670 engines reliable. The biggest complaint about armored vehicle engines in general is that they took 80 octane gasoline as opposed to the 68 or 70 octane that you could use in a jeep or 2.5 ton truck. I'm also am not sure that the aircraft engines were used because they were in ready supply as the main reason the M5 Light Tank was required to use a non aero engine was due to supply issues. It was also one of the reasons for the redesign of the M4 to the M4A3 to use a Ford V8 besides the additional power. It was probably due to limited engine designs at the time that could reliably and somewhat efficiently generate enough horsepower. One thing I can confirm is that the use of gasoline engines was a serious problem as any serious hit would turn into an inferno. Unfortunately, not enough M4A2 and M4A6 with diesel engines made it into combat.

The American tanks were under armored, out gunned and tiki torches compared to the German tanks however our hydraulic turrets, sheer manufactured numbers, gasoline and ammo supply lines, and some brave young men were enough to keep us in the lead.

[muddyboots]

darn Ryan! You kow your stuff! All I really know is what I heardr from old tankers. The M3 was too tall--great gun but your could really only shoot it from a defensive position, and that was NOT hull down because the gun was IN the hull. The British actually got most of the diesel engines through lend lease they lost their first crop to Rommel as replacements for their cruisers, which they of course charged al la Balaclava and lost en masse.

Gas a major reason they got the nickname Ronsons, but the compensation of only one fuel type compensated I think. The 37's weren't as bad as all that when they were introduced. They, if used on lights and in flanking maneuvers, could hole earlier German armor (Tunisia they got heavier) but we didn't have the tactics to handle them yet.
I actually think very highly of the Stuart.

Height is subjective. If you are hunting an enemy who is 12 foot tall and you are 14 foot tall, are you going to like it? I feel that way about the Braadly. Taht's why I got out of Mech as soon as I could. They should never have lcapped that turret on it. But that's the way the Pentagon works. You take a highly usefull piece of equipment and by the time every assshat has added his gizmo to it it can fly, cross a desert, swim an ocean, and burn a half dozen men to death in seconds because it has no armor.

[Warhawk]

A selection of random images taken across the years.

[Obergrafeter]

So what tank used the Guiberson diesel? Wouldn't this have been a radial also. Only airplane I know it was installed in is the Stinson V-77. Didn't work out too well. Maybe just before its' time.

[T33driver]

What's the price range on M3A1 or M5 Stuarts fully restored/running?

[rwdfresno]

What's the price range on M3A1 or M5 Stuarts fully restored/running?

I have seen M3s and M5s ranging from running - pristine asking 75K - 150K. There was recently one on ebay for sale that was fairly complete but not running in need of restoration that got up to 43K but it didn't meet the reserver.

[rwdfresno]

darn Ryan! You kow your stuff! All I really know is what I heardr from old tankers. The M3 was too tall--great gun but your could really only shoot it from a defensive position, and that was NOT hull down because the gun was IN the hull. The British actually got most of the diesel engines through lend lease they lost their first crop to Rommel as replacements for their cruisers, which they of course charged al la Balaclava and lost en masse.

Gas a major reason they got the nickname Ronsons, but the compensation of only one fuel type compensated I think. The 37's weren't as bad as all that when they were introduced. They, if used on lights and in flanking maneuvers, could hole earlier German armor (Tunisia they got heavier) but we didn't have the tactics to handle them yet.
I actually think very highly of the Stuart.

Height is subjective. If you are hunting an enemy who is 12 foot tall and you are 14 foot tall, are you going to like it? I feel that way about the Braadly. Taht's why I got out of Mech as soon as I could. They should never have lcapped that turret on it. But that's the way the Pentagon works. You take a highly usefull piece of equipment and by the time every assshat has added his gizmo to it it can fly, cross a desert, swim an ocean, and burn a half dozen men to death in seconds because it has no armor.

Muddy,

It may have been confusing since I was discussing the M3 Light Tank and the M3 Medium Tank at various times. The M3 Medium Tank had all sorts of issues, the least of which was the flexible 75mm cannon in the hull. The armor which was riveted would blow apart when struck by a high velocity round. They never saw much front line action after North Africa.

As with any historical event there is often a disconnect between what is remembered, what is told, and what was real. Oftentimes veterans will remember things differently than history supports.

[bugazon]

Jaques Littlefield is down the road from me and I have some friends working on an invite to see his collection. I have been once before and found it to overwhelming of how much equipment he has. I will get photos as soon as I get them.

[rwdfresno]

Jaques Littlefield is down the road from me and I have some friends working on an invite to see his collection. I have been once before and found it to overwhelming of how much equipment he has. I will get photos as soon as I get them.

The Military Vehicle Collectors of California, of which I am a member arranges a semi-annual tour of Littlefield's Collection. His collection is impressive.

[Warhawk]

So what tank used the Guiberson diesel? Wouldn't this have been a radial also. Only airplane I know it was installed in is the Stinson V-77. Didn't work out too well. Maybe just before its' time.

The M3 and M3A1 Stuarts both used Guiberson Diesels in as well as Continental W-670-9A engines. I don't know how many units had one and how many had the other though. From the information I have seen the M3A3 used the Continental engine exclusively.

The New England Air Museum had two or three Guibersons donated to them (I can't remember the exact number, it was a long time ago) and my friend aquired them (again a very long time ago) for this tank, but decided against rebuilding and installing one. For that I am very glad.

Here is one last picture. This was not taken by me and I was reluctant to post it earlier because I have not been able to ask the photographer if it would be ok. I don't think he would mind however as it was taken for our clubs website. I will remove it if asked to do so though.

This was taken during the summer of 2003 and was the tanks first outing after it's restoration was completed.

[Chris Brame]

In 1977 my high school urban studies class took a field trip through Chicago's South Side, seeing old gangster sites. We passed a junkyard and I saw several radial engines stacked on racks. When I mentioned them to Earl Reinert later, he told me they were tank engines. Has anyone heard about this stash? I saw 6-8 of them.