Send the primary soruces for the Mk.10 then, you keep talking about them lmao, but so far you’ve sent a vague source for “all Cheiftains” and one for the MK.5 only
It was made by leyland.
Leyland torque was a publication of the history and archives of the leyland company before they collapsed.
Everything in that source is just directly from Leyland. It even went into so much detail they told you the composition of some of the sealants.
2 Likes
Doing gods (gaijins) work
3 Likes
A heavytanker post is always a goldmine of poorly educated takes lol.
3 Likes
Okay, then can you find a Source that says 840hp, WHEN MOUNTED IN THE TANK. and not just the engine on a stand, with the governors disabled.
Someone needs to teach him the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources
2 Likes
That once again is not how gaijin does things, they used the actual engine power, rather than installed horsepower
Please do some research on how this stuff works, you’d also need to provide proof of governers
1 Like
Yes I can even tell you the name of the MOD trials “Dark Morn” where they uncovered issues in the O-rings leading to the development of the MK.11A
1 Like
And the GAZ 18L V8 when using modern fuel injection and turbos can make 1000+ hp.
You need the CONTEXT of when and how the power was made.
Sure the engine is CAPABLE of making that power, But was it used in a tank with that much power?
That is the main issue here.
Look at the Meteors. those engines when uncorked, and running on proper Avgas and everything were capable of 800-900 hp. Yet they limited them to 650 for longevity sake.
Would think the people that have read the manuals would know better eh?
But no, guy with no actual sources and only hubris is right
2 Likes
I’m listening to the mass information across the internet AND MY OWN BOOK COLLECTION, from Multiple sources and everything, and not some random magazine made by a dying car company trying to keep their head afloat.
Btw the TN12 transmission is rated for well over 1000 horsepower
The magazine came after lol it’s an archive
Mhmm the big book of tanks is absolutely a better source than the technical manuals and 1st party brochures myself and the others in the thread telling you that you’re wrong literally own
2 Likes
Yea the gearbox wasn’t the issue once they stopped Leyland workers putting sand in them.
1 Like
I can’t find any source that says it was governed at all, let alone because the transmission couldn’t keep up with the strain.
The transmission was one of few parts of the Chieftains that was never upgraded, even during the multiple engine swap outs and power increases.
Not to mention, there were upgraded versions of the TN12 transmission that were used in the Chieftain 800/900 programs, and the only real difference there was the fact that they were fully automatic. Nothing at all to do with strengthening them to deal with the increased engine power of those versions.
If it was ever governed down, it would have been entirely because the engine itself couldn’t handle the strain. However, Project Sundance was largely about improving engine reliability and longevity. Why would they, as part of a progam to improve reliability, uprate the engine to a horsepower it couldn’t withstand?
3 Likes
It never really was lol.
Just the engine in the beginning was rubbish due to the multi fuel requirements.
But on the cool side it can run on anything from vegetable oil to petrol.
3 Likes
I put TTD to the 10.3 line up. Got uptiered all the time to face BMPTs
statshark had the mk10 at 49% wr in the past year, 53% recently before it got moved up. Can’t wait to see how it fairs when at the same br as the ztz96. Utterly moronic to move it up.