Shifting gears.

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
I know this sounds a bit trivial, but it's a simple question, I know the concept of paddle shifting in a 458 Italia....

But how the heck do you shift in a Modern MBT?.... Simple question,and can you play around and get better shifts on turns and different surfaces?

I know the odds of an M1A2 showing up at Virginia International for some hot laps are slim (probally be a few trashed guard rails).

Just wonder if you can hot rod it if your a good tank driver, and one last question, does it take a engineering degree to be a good driver? Or is it as easy as riding a bike?

Note, I am only asking about driving, so anything to do with the weapons or armor onboard, other than the weight effects on performance I guess would be irrelevant.

Also im not looking for anything that would conflict with OPSEC. Just asking out of curiosity.

Thanks,
Yo,
 
Last edited:
I do believe that US MBTs have had automatic transmissions since Korea. Others more knowledgeable may correct me. And do believe what makes driving a tracked tank more involved is the fact that turning is done by braking the tracks independently. Israelis have reported that driving old soviet captured tanks was like driving a tractor compared with US tanks. They did not have auto transmission back then.
 
Last edited:
I figured, from what I dug up, Soviet tanks particularly after WW ll with their low silhouettes ( close to the ground) makes them cramped and Soviet Tankers tended to be shorter for that purpose.

But the manual transmissions, where they like that on a diesel truck? Or a slighty different concept? What I do know, is that on U.S. tanks today, I think that they employ a high power durable gas turbine engine, not a diesel, thats probably why they go better with an automatic transmission.

Diesel on the other hand, is probably more useful with a manual, tankers are not driving Audi luxury sedans after all, and you would think that on the battlefield the tank driver would have to drive so the crew can fire and maneuver a great deal.

As for seamless comfortable shifting, its a war machine, so the absence of such luxuries is completely obvious.

As for various tracked IFVs, I'm still not sure, don't a majority of them use diesel engines?
 
Last edited:
Israeli tankers said that driving M48 and M60 tanks was like driving a US car. You just put in drive and go. I actually think that M26s had Allison manual transmissions with planetary gears and fuid torque converters. They were like autotrannies but manual shifting instead of autoclutches. I read that british Centurion tanks in Korea were better climbing mounds with their manual mechanical trannies than the M26 which their fuid trannies, as they tended to slip at the torque converters against the inclines. Of course the early M26s had same gasoline Ford V8s as fitted to late model Shermans.

Tranmissions in tanks incorporate also the track steering systems, not just gears, therefore they are not taken from diesel trucks. A buldozer system would be a more alike. The tranny on a Centurion was a 5-speed Merrit-Brown designed specifically for track laying vehicles.

The main reasons for the turbine engines (helicopter engines actually) are their superior power/weight ratio, few mechanical parts, and low noise. The big drawback is its voracious apetite for fuel. Basically, if you are going to war with turbine powered MBTs you have to garantee control of the air to protect the long caravans of supply trucks following the tanks. Only the US and the Russians have embraced the concept. In short, you'd better be a superpower, otherwise, get a diesel.
 
Last edited:
So a tank transmission has a complex differential system for the motion of the treads? To turn the tank, literally on a dime like a bulldozer?

It's all about exchanging fuel for horsepower and transfering it from the engine to the treads for go power?

Except the transmission must be lighter, and work well at speed, not break neck speed, or even breaking the speed limit but hey, 40mph is fast for 35 plus tons.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like friction clutches did not work out that well. I wonder how the Soviets changed their transmission in the T 34 into a more effective unit for the cross country traveling and combat faced on the eastern front during the War.

However the T 34 is always praised as being a simple but effective trump card the Soviets had in the course of armor. A good tank produced in large numbers, while the Germans had a few excellent tanks that were over engineered and produced in small numbers.

Back to the transmission topic, with a new air filtering system that did not allow dirt and debris into the engine basically prevents the root cause of engine lock over time, with more power now coursing through the engine which would be operating at a higher capacity now with sufficient airflow into the intake.

The Transmission would HAVE to be reworked in order to accommodate more power, shifting in Soviet tanks in those days seemed liked what the drivers faced in the first Indy Championship in the early 20 century, shifting was big deal as for the crude transmissions and early engine designs of the day changed performance drastically and took a helleva arm to perform, thus....

Shifting gears then was like getting into a totally different machine with a whole new engine.

I wonder however, how did the Soviets change their tank transmission designs drastically for a war with NATO?

Great info by the way, kind of makes me wanna help restore a WWll fighting machine.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top