The way I heard it, the 30 cylinder was a stopgap to get over a shortage of tank engines. Different companies made the Sherman tank including Ford and Chrysler. Originally, Chrysler was supposed to make tanks equipped with giant V8s made by Ford. But Chrysler got the tanks in production 2 months early while Ford's engine was 4 months late. To complete the tanks Chrysler quickly put together this power plant by combining 5 of the engines they were already making for trucks and stationary power plants i.e. generators, air compressors, water pumps etc. Once better engines became available they dropped the 30 cylinder. But, it did the job and proved reliable in service.

As someone who owns a 1949 Chrysler with a 251, I can tell you, they are extremely reliable.

I have a 230 in my '56 Dodge truck. Rebuilt it myself. They were used in all kinds of equipment, fork lifts, street sweepers, wood chippers. pumps. Cool motor.

The A57 seems complicated, but it was a straightforward combination of 5 very simple flathead sixes that were understressed in this application and as were reliable as could be. It would be as if one built an engine by combining five Briggs & Stratton single cylinder engines-seemingly complicated but not really. The A57 was an unorthodox solution to this early-war problem that worked very well. Nice video on an interesting subject.

Warms my heart, my grandfather was a Sherman mechanic in the war and if it wasn't for him crashing into a ditch test driving one he would have been cannon fodder at the battle of the bulge.

Props to the engineers at Chrysler who put this beast together. Sounds like they did a hell of a job.

Anyone who deep dives the Chrysler multibank tank engine deserves my thumbs up, and a subscription. Thanks. What a weird engine. What a crazy time.

That engine fired 15 times per one main crank revolution. That is crazy and very cool. Just some of the cool and weird stuff from the war. Once again Vizoracer you found another gem of an engine. Keep up the good work and God bless you brother

Although it might be complicated in shape. The parts that would be needed to replaced, were common and the mechanics were familiar with them. the center casting merely held held 5 common truck engines.

Although most historians don't say this Roosevelt knew the US was going to get dragged into the war when Stalin and Hitler signed a nonaggression pact in 1939. After that US industry was fast prepared for military production and men began to be recruited for the services, all of which went full scale in December 1941. Great video.

An ingenious solution by Chrysler engineers during trying times. Thanks for the video.

A very large number of Shermans equipped with the multi-bank engine were used by the Canadian Army's tank units. My uncle was a senior officer of a self-contained formation built around a central force of Shermasn; other arms were attached to give them both independence and mobility. Among my uncle's many full-time jobs was Logistics and Supply - which included spare parts, fuel, ammunition, etc. He was also tasked with evaluating intelligence, and producing maps for all sub-units every day, showing the locations of allied and enemy units. He remarked many times that the crews just loved the multi-bank engine. Partly this was because of its reliability, but also because many of the Canadian troops included "farm boys," and they all knew the basic engine well, and were very adept at repairing and maintaining it. Interestingly, in addition to the mass of the multi-bank, it required a longer chassis than other variants of the Sherman, so there were more track links and suspension parts as well. The concept of a 30-cylinder "lash-up" was poo-poo'd by some non-Canadian units, but when it was time to do servicing or repairs, the fact that all banks used the same parts, and that those were readily available changed their views sometimes. The 6-cylinder flathead had already been produced in quantity before WWII, so designing new production tooling, etc. wasn''t required - they just made "more of the same" True, there were parts that were unique to the multi-bank configuration, but they were pretty straightforward in design, and (relatively) simple to make. The head of Chrysler at the time, K.T. Keller, was both a mechanic and an engineer, and he had a lot of first-hand experience working on engines, as well as on manufacturing production lines. Keller's name is frequently overlooked, but he was truly an amazing engineer as well as an innovator. In one biography, Keller described his introduction to building tanks. He and a few of his engineering staff were taken to an Army test site, and then were given an afternoon to watch the prototype in operation. At the end of the day, Keller was handed an enormous roll of drawings and blueprints, and was told as they were driven to the train station that he had 3 months to get the production line for tanks assembled and operating. I don't know how long it actually took, but given Keller's "roll up your sleeves" approach to almost every problem, it was probably done as quickly as possible, but also made to turn out something rugged and reliable. Since Chrysler were already at work on several other very large production projects, taking on the job of building tanks from scratch probably required a lot of long days. Keller was well known for getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He relied on skill and a wealth of hands-on experience including many types of production-line jobs (described in detail by one biographer), rather than relaying on being a "name" with an ego and sense of his self-importance. It's a shame he is not remembered as well as some - his contribution to engineering and production was second to none. Even today, people read about the 30-cylinder multi-bank engine and wonder how on earth it was ever made to function at all. The trick, of course, was that it was based on an engine that was thoroughly tested and widely used, and known for its reliability. Bolting five of them together does not seem quite so outrageous after all. The success of the multi-bank was due to that proven reliability and low maintenance requirements, as well as to the many tank crew members who all lent a hand, since many also had already become very familiar with maintaining and repairing the basic 6-cyliner inline Chrysler engine. Thanks for putting this together - it's one of the more unusual aspects of Sherman tank production.

I've heard about this engine many times, but this is the best explanation of it I have ever seen. Great work!

Finding a clip of an actual clip of a bonafide A57 engine running in an M4A4.. must have taken some digging ! Thanks Viso

I used to have a 1939 Hobart Brothers welder with a 215 (I think) flathead Chrysler six cylinder engine. Ran like new and sounded awesome when it was under load.

What a cool and unique engine. I love the fact they thought (out side the box) & used what they had. It turned out to be a great tank engine. Nobody in the automotive world now a days would do that! Calk up another win for Visio Racer, great video!

Always loved this engine. IMO it was an utterly ridiculous design that was made to work very successfully.

That is a really cool engine. I can see a tractor pulling team get a hold of one of these and install EFI and multiple turbochargers

5 water pumps 😯 Very complicated, but actually genius for using already proven engine architecture. I remember reading somewhere years ago that there was a 10 litre V-twin tank engine used by (I think) the Germans which broke clutches regularly because of it's huge firing pulses.

I am quietly bemused by the absolute obsession by some with horsepower, engine speeds & ground speed. What is important in a tank engine? Reliability, serviceability & TORQUE. Horsepower barely rates. Combat terrain was not even remotely like a paved road & at times, even 10mph/16kph was taking your life in your hands. More important was the ability to climb out of a hole, ditch or creek embankment, & unadulterated pure grunt [AKA Torque.] is what is needed to get the job done. The multibank, with a firing stroke every 24 degrees of output shaft rotation had all the torque needed to do just that. Low compression handled a fuel octane that bore a close resemblance to kerosene & low rotational speeds kept wear & stress down to a level that the technology of the day could comfortably handle. Serviceability? Got a multibank with a damaged engine bank? Hell, that shot up Dodge power wagon/ambulance or gun carrier on the battlefield will be a useful source of parts, something that tanks with other engines could not do. The multibank was the right engine at the right time, which was, .. back then, .... RIGHT NOW, using existing, proven technology & materials that had been in continuous production for almost ten years. Long may the multibank live. [With Chrysler reliability, it will probably still be around when the sun grows cold.]

This engine required the M4 chassis to be lengthened, hence the M4A4. You can tell by looking at the spacing between the bogeys. All Firefly Vc's were built on the M4A4.

Very familiar with the Chrysler 251 Industrial from 1950s Massey Harris and 1960s Massey Ferguson combines. Would run 12 hours in the dirtiest, nastiest conditions and not miss a beat.

Being a flathead and being as sturdy as the engine was rumored to be it would probably have been a great candidate for a Supercharger. A very mild boost would have done a lot for that engine if they had the octane fuel that they needed. You can't raise compression without having higher octane fuel or you risk detonation.

My dad loves these old obscure engines.. I love how easy these are to watch.. Especially the engine ratings on screen and stuff, very nicely engineered videos thanks.

I always look forward to one of your videos, such well curated content.

Great idea, no overhead valve gear to tangle with shrapnel etc. - just easily replaced spark plugs. I like flatheads : )

This engine is a testament to engineering ingenuity. Today you see multiple components in all facets of industry from multi CPU computers to multi Motor and air pump compressors.Even electric cars with two or more motors. Imagine even if one 6 cylinder engine completely locked up, one could remove that drive gear and run on four instead of five engine blocks. Also using standard parts from greater America was is the smartest thing ever. Today We use every excuse to create unique one-off designs that have to be 3-D printed laser cut , custom metallurgy etc. meaning number one it’s expensive and number two, once the engines lifetime is past, it’s impossible to get spare parts.

Great video! The early M4s had an air cooled Wright Whirlwind (Continental built) 9 cylinder radial aircraft engine which in itself is pretty cool but this 30 cylinder beast takes the cake!

Thanks for the very interesting video. I had heard of this engine but I hadn't looked into the details. When I heard "L Head" that explained a lot about why it was so reliable - it wasn't the best design for high power-to-weight but it was simple without the need for a complicated cylinder head, the exhaust valves operated in a cool environment, and it would be robust. I had always assumed the banks were arranged like a radial. 72 degrees apart, but it wasn't. No inverted bank means no oil pooling in the heads (and you wouldn't be able to drain the oil with a L head... ). Great way to make use of something that you had already with the bugs thoroughly sorted out.

That's just crazy. Basically 5 engines bolted together.

My father was in the REME during WW2. British Army. His take on this engine: a complete nightmare.

What a lovely old side-valve engine, thanks for the very interesting video.

Nice job in this video. I have always been a motorhead but never knew about this Sherman engine! Thanks for another great vid. 🤓

One of my favorite KZfaq channels you should do episodes on the world's best transfer cases

I remember seeing one of these in the Chrysler museum at the Tech Center here in Auburn Hills before they converted the building to Alfa/Maserati office space. I love how resourceful the design is, using so much existing tooling and production to create a tank engine with very few tank-specific parts. Although it might have helped those Shermans get up and go a little easier if they'd used five of the 310 cubic inch sixes instead of the 251s!

Very nice video again there! Interesting approach on how to get something working in a hurry.

always wanted to see one of these monsters in person , I own several chrysler 251 engines ,,all of them run 2 are on water pumps and 1 is in a generator/welder the other really cool engine used in the sherman was the ford GAA and i have one of those too although not currently running yet,,i found it at a salvage yard about a decade ago

Don't know how many of you picked it up but in the closing frames, you can hear the driver shifting gears as he drives off. Easy to forget today when everything is automatic that nearly everything back then was manual shift.

Imagine this engine supercharged in a tank! Flatheads really wake up with boost. The sound of 30 cylinders firing is so nice, I could listen to that at night to fall asleep.

Thanks for including us in your video! Excellent content. 👍

those engineers didn't have much to go off of and still managed to make such a sophisticated machine, without help from calculators or the internet... truly a marvel of human ingenuity

Crazy! Chrysler actually made something reliable.

I've been fascinated by this engine ever since seeing one at Chrysler's Museum a number of years ago. The engine block draws you included were great and really reveling of how this unit came together. Excellent video once again.

Brilliant! This is what we got to work with, let's make it work and help end this war.

The flathead 6 , 230 is an amazingly tough and reliable engine. I had a 59 D200 powered by one .

Cool. Thanks. I never saw the connection between the 251 being a flathead and the multibank's success. Then I saw your vid and ... Duh, a flathead is less tall so a smaller diameter multibank. Don't know why it took me so long to make that link. Thanks again.

Wow really a great breakdown of this engine. Super interesting design.

Man, your channel has really grown and you're making some great content

I love the new style to explain the engine, awesome!

Every time I watch one of your videos, I learn something! Thanks very much for this video!

I love seeing a development video of the A57! A unique solution to an important problem, and along with the Ford GAA and GM 6046, classic examples of wartime ingenuity. I'd love to see videos on other interesting engines of that era, like the DB605 inverted V12, Rolls Royce Merlin/Meteor, or the Maybach V12s that powered the Panzers. Great video!

The British loved them as it was far more reliable and easier to work on than anything from their own tanks. Because the multi bank was so large, the hull had to be extended to accommodate this behemoth. I want to say Multibank variants were 10” longer that other Sherman’s.

A 30 cylinder engine?! That’s crazy. Never heard about what type of engine they used but that’s definitely interesting.

It was amazing what we could accomplish when innovation wasn’t stifled by “conventional thinking”.

This was a great video! thankyou alot I had no idea...cool share!

That was really interesting, thanks for the video. 👍

Wow....i always wondered how they did that....good vid

Wild design that worked well enough. These multiple piston engines whether radial or this are mind boggling.

Great video. Thank you for sharing

Great vid, great sound clip at the end too. Like dessert.

I’ve learned to respect Chrysler engineers when I bought my 2007 RAM pickup. It had a really sophisticated system of damping weights in the front & rear suspension to eliminate shudder and wobble to give it a car like ride, yet the 5.7l Hemi pulled my 6500lb RV easily. I never had a bit of trouble with it, I swore off Chevys for life!

Interesting idea that worked well.Another engine you look into is the Commer opposed diesels from the UK.

Fantastic Video, Necessity is the Mother of all Inventions they say. Never heard of this engine until now.. Good Stuff Bro.

I saw that 30 cylinder engine at the Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills, MI, when the museum was open. A massive engine!

The multibank was the heaviest of the sherman engine packages, with basically the worst fuel economy and slowest performance as it also required a lengthened hull which was heavier still. The later M4A6 (of which only 75 were produced before the war ended) kept the lengthened hull of the A4 variant but switched to a diesel version of the Continental 1820 9-cylinder radial engine and would have replaced the A4s eventually had the war continued as it gave the M4 far greater range. Post war Canada adopted a fleet of new build M4A2(W)76s with HVSS that had never left the factory to replace the tanks they left behind in europe because again, the diesel engines had proved quite reliable with the USMC and gave better acceleration and fuel economy than the gas engine versions (due to the much greater torque in a tank that weighed less than the M4A4s).

Idk how Visio does it but he did it AGAIN

Too cool! Thanks for the videos, cheers!

Good job, this was the best description of how it works, thank you

My grandpa drove a Sherman in WWII he talked about this type of engine because it was such an odd design But the one he drove has a air cooled radial air plane engine

The multi bank engine would have had features familiar to any qualified mechanic of the day so they would have taken to it very quickly. Compare that to the complex Continental radial engine and Ford V8. Derived from aero engines. Aluminium casting techniques were not as well developed either making them very oily and leaky. A lot of emphasis is given to performance on paper in modern times that lacks important details.

I know these engines well, in both 23 inch and 25 inch versions. Very good design. The weakness inroad vehicles (non-military) was use of an open draft tube for crankcase ventilation. Over time and with deferred maintenance, grit would get into the oil and kill the rod bearings (exacerbated by a bypass oil filter). Also, the aluminum pistons were soft and so ring lands could open up, leading to broken rings. Installation of a PCV valve and use of good oil can keep these motors going forever. (Military versions had a PCV valve.)

Thank you, I had not heard of this engine before.

That is amazing, I never heard of it before. Wonder what the fuel mileage was,2 MPG?Oh wait, it's the army nobody cared(: thanks for the video I enjoyed it.

Cool engine for sure butttt… Ford GAA engine for the win I think, just my opinion. Love the video!

Great work as usual.

I came here to see if it used a single crank. Such an informative video! Thank you viseoracer!

That might be one kind of cylinder deactivation system I would tolerate. Just have a few small displacement engines running a common shaft and decouple and shut down one or more depending on load demands. Not sure of the frictional loss compared to current cylinder deactivation systems. Thanks for the interesting video.

Only America could have made an overly complicated engine and make simple and reliable 80 years ago. Look at german cars today overly complicated and unreliable.

Nice work!

thank you for the very informative video! Amazing ingenuity "before the computerage".

Would be good to include the weights and powers of other engines .. Good video and have to admire the creativity of the Chrysler engineers

I do believe the most famous variant of the Sherman that used this engine was the Firefly with the 17 pdr. It was probably the most lethal variant against German armour including Tigers.

Super interesting! Thanks!

Great video!!!!

Cool video! I am a new fan of Chrysler products due to my new to me 2004 Crossfire. Especially the Mercedes derived Karmann built build quality. It's only drawback is the cheap Chrysler made plastic crap that you mainly see or touch.....

... V8 , V10 , V12 , V16 , Pineapple30

I saw one of these at the Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills Michigan. Only in Wartime would anybody think to hang that many six cylinders, off of One Transmission.

'So how needlessly complicated can we make this engine?" "Yes"

Putting a radial engine in the Sherman tank just was putting the apostrophe on the most abysmal tank America ever put in the field

Chrysler from its origins in the 1920s to the early 1970's had a very good engineering reputation making a broad range of stuff from cars to rockets. During WWII, they became a licensed manufacture of Curtiss-Wright aircraft engines. Their engineers made massive improvements to those engines to make them far more durable and reliable. It is interesting to note that Chrysler - Jeep part of Stellantis is starting production of a new in-line 6 cylinder engine for use in some larger Jeep vehicles and Ram light trucks due to their NVH and other advantages over V-6's and V-8's

Awsome, thanks for the knowledge 👍

Great video and very cool engine. I've been and engineer for 25yrs and never knew of this radial flat 6 design. My father had an old Dodge pick-up with a flat 6 and manual 3 speed on the steering column.

Amazing engines! The skill in getting this to work astounds me.

Great video. Thanks.

The way it had redundancy built it probably was really nice. A hit to the engine didn’t necessarily mean catastrophic failure, just less power.

The Chrysler A57 is a beautiful piece. It is in my bucket list of engines I want to rebuild. Mechanical science is my religion and the A57 is one to be worshipped😊

Got to love redundancy. I learned a few things thanks to your video! Thankyou!

That's really cool, can't believe I never knew about this engine.

Wow this is the best explanation of this engine. My father was in Italy and France and told me about this tank and never explained the engine.

I never knew this engine existed,thanks for the history.