What were the Cadillac engines used in during WWII (The Big One - according to Archie Bunker)?
Tanks? Which one(s)?
What else did Cadillac contribute to during the war?
Quote from: chrisntam on December 02, 2017, 09:56:33 PM
What were the Cadillac engines used in during WWII (The Big One - according to Archie Bunker)?
Tanks? Which one(s)?
What else did Cadillac contribute to during the war?
Our trusty 346 Flatheads, of Course!!! ;)
Bobby
Used in M5 Stuart and M24 Chaffee tanks and I think some landing crafts.
Quote from: chrisntam on December 02, 2017, 09:56:33 PM
What were the Cadillac engines used in during WWII (The Big One - according to Archie Bunker)?
Tanks? Which one(s)?
What else did Cadillac contribute to during the war?
More things than you can imagine. Apart from the M5 and M24 Chaffee as already mentioned they did indeed power landing craft. Twin engines for the LVT3. Cadillac also produced a range of motorized gun carriages. The M8 M37 and the M19A. They also produced engines for the GMC T18E2 and built parts for Allison aircraft engines.
As a side note. The motorized gun carriage engines were the easiest to retrofit to the car with hardly any crankcase modification. Interesting link below.
http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General%20Motors/cadillac.htm
Here's what they looked like installed.
Our very own CLC member Jeff Shively wrote a book titled "It Came Out Fighting!: Cadillac Motor Car Division's rise to dominance of the luxury car market after World War II" which may be of interest. Available at https://www.amazon.com/Came-Out-Fighting-Divisions-dominance/dp/1434348342 (https://www.amazon.com/Came-Out-Fighting-Divisions-dominance/dp/1434348342) and on eBay.
This picture shows one of the marine engines in the landing craft
Cadillac also published a very nice prestige brochure in 1943 about its war effort. It had stiff covers and 50 pages with lots of good photographs. I sold one a while back from my Cadillac Lit listings in the For Sale section. These come up from time to time on eBay. Fascinating reading!
John Emerson
1952 Cadillac Sedan 6219X
...and some 1946 Cadillacs too!
Despite management having frowned upon the practice, a certain number of '46 Cadillacs left the factory with the tank engine installed. It was generally more robustly built than the civilian 346 but I cannot comment on specific differences. Many engine parts are not interchangeable.
Maybe this will help ;)
http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General%20Motors/cadillac.htm
I had already linked that Mr Gomez :)
Quote from: Steve Passmore on December 03, 2017, 03:44:23 PM
I had already linked that Mr Gomez :)
:o did not read all post just scrolled down to the last one..! :D
Steve,
What a great read - so far only got through the GM - Cadillac Section - I mean WOW what an effort.
Was this an accumulation of many many contributors, or the single work of David D Jackson.
Thanks for the reference materials.
Have fun,
Steve B.
I have a Frank Burrel dual carb intake that was proposed for the 346 tank engine but was later adapted by Frank as a post war hop up accessory.
I’d love a pair of the tank heads with the Cadillac writing. Anyone in oz got some old tank bits?
Great post and it also verified that there was a bottom exit in some tanks. I love the movie Fury and it ends with an escape through the lower exit that I figured was probbaly just fiction.
Gary,
If I'm thinking of the same movie, I also doubted the exit.
But, what a luck young GI when the young "krout" looked under the tank and let him live - only in the movies I would guess.
Have fun,
Steve B.
Actually a highly decorated British soldier had a clear chance to shoot Adolph Hitler in WW-1. That was also depicted in a movie and I cross checked it and found it to be true. I call points like that turning points and in that case the world suffered greatly due to him not taking the opportunity at that potential turning point.
I had a friend in junior high school whose father was a tanker in Patton's army. He told me that his dad said that they used the hatch to dispose of the used rounds and that sometimes Germans would lie under the tank to shoot when they opened the hatch. He said they had a sidearm ready in case that happened.
Could they have been disposing of duds? Scarey to be in iron enclosure with a dud?
1911-45 caliber semiautomatic was normal weapon for tankers. I was affiliated with them in 1961.
Quote from: Quentin Hall on December 04, 2017, 05:05:20 PM
I have a Frank Burrel dual carb intake that was proposed for the 346 tank engine but was later adapted by Frank as a post war hop up accessory.
I’d love a pair of the tank heads with the Cadillac writing. Anyone in oz got some old tank bits?
Quentin,
There were two types of Cadillac flathead brought to Oz in WW2 - the G1 version (a modified car engine) and the G3 version - purpose buit for military use and HUGELY different to the G1. They were used in the "Sentinel" Cruiser Tanks built here by the Oz defence supply mob (three 346 flatheads - two for forward and one for reverse) until more plentiful tanks became available from the US later in the War. One of these tanks, the "Thunderbolt" (there is one in the Oz War Memorial holding centre in Canberra) had what was called a "Perrier" Cadillac engine - three (3) 346 flatheads arranged around a common crankcase (see attached photo if it works). Had over 700 hp apparently.
They also marinised lots of these engines into launches etc. etc. and I have a GMH manual for these engines that I will try to post a bit of too. In short, if they could be fitted to anything that would help the War effort, they were. Hundreds of them ended their days as irrigation pump motors and country town cinema generator motors here. They still turn up, now and again. I have a fully restored G1 (3F ---- engine number) from my '37.
Quote from: Quentin Hall on December 04, 2017, 05:05:20 PM
I have a Frank Burrel dual carb intake that was proposed for the 346 tank engine but was later adapted by Frank as a post war hop up accessory.
I’d love a pair of the tank heads with the Cadillac writing. Anyone in oz got some old tank bits?
The flysheet from the GMH manual....
Quote from: Quentin Hall on December 04, 2017, 05:05:20 PM
I have a Frank Burrel dual carb intake that was proposed for the 346 tank engine but was later adapted by Frank as a post war hop up accessory.
I’d love a pair of the tank heads with the Cadillac writing. Anyone in oz got some old tank bits?
Here's a link to an excellent film on M24 tank trials carried out by the Oz Army for the British War Office on Bougainville Island in 1944 or 5:
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C190469
Quote from: tozerco on December 06, 2017, 06:39:24 PM
....... "Perrier" Cadillac engine - three (3) 346 flatheads arranged around a common crankcase (see attached photo if it works). Had over 700 hp apparently.
No wonder the tanks were so heavy.
Did they use Dry Sumping to control the oiling problems with the lower cylinders?
Bruce. >:D
Chrysler did the same thing, taking 5 six cylinder flat heads and tying them together around a single crankshaft for a total of 30 cylinders for a tank motor. I don't recall what it was used in but it was an advertisement in a wartime edition of time (I think) magazine.
Greg Surfas
[quote author=tozerco link=topic=147735.msg378538#msg378538 One of these tanks, the "Thunderbolt" (there is one in the Oz War Memorial holding centre in Canberra) had what was called a "Perrier" Cadillac engine - three (3) 346 flatheads arranged around a common crankcase (see attached photo if it works). Had over 700 hp apparently.
.
[/quote]
That is a very interesting picture, John. That would seem they used independent crankshafts somehow mated to a forth for the drive all in a shared crankcase. Amazing. I would love to take one of those apart and study it.
Looks like the three crankshafts are geared together, and run through a completely contained transmission/gearcase, and then the driveshaft passes forwards through trhe guts of all three.
Bruce. >:D
We are getting far afield with this thread, but I just went and looked up the Chrysler motor I mentioned. apparently it too has separate (5) crank shafts geared together for the mput. It is kind of interesting that all 5 of the front dampers have starting crank devices on them.
Apparently this as developed in 1941.
Greg Surfas
Quote from: tozerco on December 06, 2017, 06:48:55 PM
Here's a link to an excellent film on M24 tank trials carried out by the Oz Army for the British War Office on Bougainville Island in 1944 or 5:
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C190469
Tozerco:
Thank you for posting that film! I watched it and it was really interesting.
I didn't realize that the M24 was such a capable vehicle. The two Cadillac
engines surely helped. The torture testing through all the various was quite
impressive!
Thanks again,
Mike
That is a very interesting picture, John. That would seem they used independent crankshafts somehow mated to a forth for the drive all in a shared crankcase. Amazing. I would love to take one of those apart and study it.
[/quote]
Steve,
There are only two of these tanks still in existence and I believe one of them is in a tank museum in the UK. I might try and find a source for you.....
Sorry Steve,
The tank in the Bovington Tank Museum is an AC1, not the AC3 "Thunderbolt" so it has the three flatheads arranged in a clover-leaf pattern (similar to the M24 but the M24 has two flatheads) mounted flat on the chassis - two + one. It appears the only AC3 with the Perrier Cadillac is here in Canberra so you'll just have to take advantage of Brexit and all that money you have and come down here to see it!!!!
....that should have read 400 hp!
No wonder the tanks were so heavy.
Bruce. >:D
[/quote]
Actually more than 4 tons lighter than a Sherman, Bruce.
Quote from: "Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364 on December 07, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
...... It is kind of interesting that all 5 of the front dampers have starting crank devices on them.......Greg Surfas
Just who in the tank crew would be tasked with cranking the lot if the batteries failed.
Bruce. >:D
VERY good question.
One marinised version....
Great info John. The mechanic beside my shed is Ray Tozer and he says he has a John Tozer relative that he hasn’t met. .??? I’m gonna be coming to Melbourne in the new year to collect some of my stolen 53 Eldo stuff. Maybe we can catch up.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on December 07, 2017, 06:03:50 PM
Just who in the tank crew would be tasked with cranking the lot if the batteries failed.
Bruce. >:D
As each crank has a starting facility it may be that they each can be disconnected by a clutch of some sort at the rear? A man could then wind one up to start and use that like a 'donkey' engine to start the others?? Just guessin. Makes me want to take one apart even more.
Mr Tozer: I have a 39 61 CCP that had a US NAVY 1945 marine engine installed, during restoration, in 1971. The engine was sourced from a Detroit salvage facility, in Cosmoline. It has the red USN tag, wired on. Your picture is the first I have seen, that shows a marine setup. Terry Wenger did the installation, and it is a sweet running engine. There was some extensive machine work involved. I hope Terry gets on the forum & adds to the conversation. It was not a reverse rotation engine, as some tanks used.
C Chleboun # 20099
About the military engines: We bought three in 1971, the navy ones that C. Chleboun describes above. They had the test tags on them from 1945.
When we bought them they were new, but very dirty from storage in crates.
We removed the manifolds, heads and other parts, as these were to be replaced with civilian versions.
These engines did not have the hole in them for the oil fill pipe and we had those bored at a machine shop. The pistons had a chamfer around the top to lower the compression ratio I assume.
All three got civilian heads manifolds, carb, oil pans etc. One went into a '41 60S and I put one into my '39-61 convertible that C. Chleboun has owned for many years. The third engine was installed into a '41 60S in the early seventies which I own now, and is just now being broken in 72 years after its manufacture.
Terry Wenger #1800
In the fifties, Cadillac recommended that these military engines not be installed in passenger cars. I will say that make a nice installation and they sure run nice as they are a new engine.
I agree with you Terry. I have always said I don't think you can match a 'New' engine from the factory. I had 3 military engines here at one time.All grubby from decades of storage. Sold one to a rodder. I didn't feel so bad about letting that one go as it had already had two rebuilds by the Belgium army. The other two, however, had never been used and to see all that bright new internal metal was a joy. One has been purring sweetly in my car for the last 7 years and the other with all its original tank appendages I reluctantly let go to a man in Spain restoring a Chaffee tank that was missing its engines. Regret it? yes, but it did go to a worthy cause.
Quote from: Bobby B on December 02, 2017, 11:29:40 PM
Our trusty 346 Flatheads, of Course!!! ;)
Bobby
They also had Hydra-Matics attached to them.