Centurion Tank

World War II British Military
#41

Talking BARVs, the last M3 Medium in service anywhere was probably a BARV version with the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, used (for training) until 1972.

Talking Centurions and WW2, yes, some made it to troop trials, but then again would anyone argue that troop trials constitutes service?

Seeing how the Brits were just able to get some - not a huge number - of Comets into service, and kept Comets in service until 1962 in Berlin and Hong Kong in ‘trip wire’ units, that is just good enough to have to be knocked out, but also good enough so that if they are knocked out it means the enemy is serious; the Comet was really the ultimate Brit tank of WW2.

If they had really wanted to expend the energy and effort they could have gotten Black Princes into combat in Europe, and these would have been useful for the slogging through Japanese home island defences if armed with a 94mm howitzer rather than the 17pdr.

#42

Some is a little bit of an understatement. 11 armoured was fully equipped with them as well as a number of other regiments if not the complete div.

#43

HELLO

My name is Wayne and I was with the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps in the 60s and 70s. I was a Driver Gunner and Radio operator/loader on the Centurion tanks both in Canada and in Europe during the Cold War. I have first hand knowledge of performance and capabilities of the Beast.

Wayne

#44

Is this epigraph true ?

seems hard to believe, more than ten hours to change an engine. :shock:

centurion.JPG
centurion.JPG823×763 80.1 KB

#45

I think you mean 12 in a garage and 18 in the field…

That does seem lengthy, but I think she rarely needed such care…

#46

Sounds like awfully long time, surely more than a Panther and 10 times more than a modern MBT, actually I believe that the diesel engine in a Leopard II could be changed in less than an hour.

#47

I dont know how the time frame will line up, but the M-60 series, and maybe earlier american tanks too, were a quick change set up. the 60, took about45 mins. to remove, change the oil, (23 gals.) and re-install if one’s nose was to the grindstone.(and no one screwed up. ) Basically, there were two large bolts at the rear of the pack, (engine -transmission) that held the two in. there were 2-3 electrical connectors, and the brake/steering linkage,fuel disconnect, and the final drive splines. The bottleneck was getting the M-88 driver to come over to do the lifting work for the deck, and the pack.

#48

I can believe it - British machines of the time were rarely designed with maintainability and ease of mass production in mind. Some aero engines for instance apparently had metric, Imperial and Whitworth bolts in the same engine…

#49

I have an interest in this sort of thing actually, and I wonder what kind of oil those things would have taken…

15W40?

#50

Welcome Wayne,
I am new to the forum also and have been looking in books and on the internet for information on what I think to be one of the greatest tanks ever.
The Centurion has been in use in some form or other for 63 years so it must have been pretty good tank to start with. Looking forward to asking you and others on this forum alot of questions and learning alot.

#51

Should take no more than 30 minutes, that’s imho the bundeswehr Richtwert (benchmark). Basically all you need to do is unscrew and use the crane of a bergepanzer to lift the whole block out of the chassis (and vice versa). It’s not just the engine but also the gearing in one box, so no fiddling there.

#52

New to this forum. I don’t see any posts from ex Centurion crews. Your quite right about using the co-ax as a ranger although this was not used that often. I was a Centurion Mk 5 gunner in the Middle East around Suez time. The reasons we loved this tank were…reasonably comfortable, well armored, reliable and one thing that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned it was the first tank in the world to be able to fire really accurately at speed by it’s gyro stabilising system…Loved it.

#53

I stand corrected there are obviously a couple of posts who have experience life with the Cent. Perhaps I should have said Brits?

:tank:

#54

From a tank gunner’s point of view I believe at the time the contemporary American tanks used a range finder whereas we relied on simple gunnery techniques. At the time this was superior and in trials we always hit the enemy quicker than anyone else. We would have laid down three apds rounds before anyone else had opened fire and providing the lateral lay of the gun was good you had a hit. The technique was to open up at 800yards immaterial of what the range was then up 200 drop 400. This had three rounds traveling at 3650 fps 6ft, 9ft and 12ft. Simple but very effective.

One little anecdote thinking of what someone wrote earlier about tanks in Korea shooting infantry off each others tanks…I was on the ranges in N.Africa doing live firing on the move with the co-ax when the stabiliser system failed, the tank did a quick turn and because I couldn’t traverse fast enough and I was still firing I sprayed the Colonels tank, only a few rounds but he was not amused.

:tank:

#55

Though this has been a very intresting thread about the best post war tank, (and probably the best of all time to date) we shouldn,t forget that the best tank also had the best tank gun of its day; the L7 105 mm which at one point was the main armament on all the leading NATO tanks in Europe.

#56

Ye-e-es … I have info from another board I subscribe to, in which posters remarked on the anomaly of most NATO armies in the 1960s scrambling to fit the British L7 105mm to their tank designs, whilst the Brits themselves were anxious to press their L11 120mm gun into service. Apparently, the performance figures for the L7 on which these sales were based, came from Israeli experiences against Soviet-supplied armour used by their Arab opponents. The Sovs appear to have sold the more lightly-armoured “export model” to their Arab clients. Testing of the L7 post-Cold War against Russian tanks, revealed serious deficiencies in penetrative power. The Brits must’ve known this for years. Why else would they hurriedly field a totally unreliable tank like the Conqueror - followed by the seriously underpowered Chieftain - just to see the L11 in service? None of which detracts from my belief that the Centurion was just about the best tank ever made - and definitely the best-looking.

Cheers,
Cliff

#57

Regarding shooting enemy off each other’s tanks, I worked with a bloke who was in an Australian Centurion in Vietnam who had shot several enemy off another Centurion with canister at fairly close range. He said there was virtually nothing left except bits of flesh and shreds of clothing.

Images of Centurions in Vietnam here, including crane on engine exchange and close up of ranging MG. http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/SVN68/SVN68.htm

More on Centurions in Australian service here http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/centurionph_1.htm

#58

Well … You get that, from time to time … Long as you get back to tell the story - that’s all that matters. He did a bloody good job.

Cheers,
Cliff

#59

Centurion…Best tank in the world?..Yes I would agree and it was generally acknowledged as such at the time…The Conqueror, oh my gawd…when it worked it was OK but that’s the operative question “when it worked”. Do you remember the self unloading system?

#60

Australian Centurion in Vietnam.

No sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEMKiwxSsE