Talk:Centurion tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centurion tank article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Centurion's Suspension

Tank Design responded by extending the long-travel 5-wheel suspension used on the Comet with the addition of a 6th wheel and an extended spacing between the 2nd and 3rd wheels.

This is incorrect. The Centurion had Horstmann supension and the Comet a strengthened Christie suspension system, which is of a levered-arm type. The Christie system was approaching it's limit (due to weight) on the Comet and so it wasn't used on the next 'cruiser' tank - the Centurion

The actual Horstmann suspension on the Centurion consists of six, two-wheel bogie assemblies, that bolt-on to the hull allowing easy replacement if damaged by mines.

Horstmann suspension was earlier used on the Bren carriers and also went on to be used in the later Chieftain.


82.111.65.142 20:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the article accordingly. Next time, don't hesitate to improve text yourself! After all it's Wikipedia: Be Bold. :o)

--MWAK 11:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdote about Australian Centurion during the Korean War

Someone wrote: "During the Korean War, an Australian Centurion, covered in North Korean soldiers drove through a house to get them off." I removed this temporarily since I really don't know where to put it. Could the person who added this please cite a source as well? Maybe we can put an amusing anecdotes section or something. --Edward Sandstig 16:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Challenger page has a trivia section, which seems the ideal place to put such anecdotes. I nearly added one here for this story, but thought better of it, at least until we get some opinions. Chris 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
posible in theory but I would need to see a source for it.Geni 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This might be difficult if it's from first-hand information and never published. --Edward Sandstig 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Then it runs into WP:NOR.Geni 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it's rubbish anyway, Australia didn't operate any Centurions in Korea to begin with, the first time the RAAC deployed it's Centurion tanks overseas was Vietnam. In Korea the Australian units there relied on US and British units for tank support, although the Kiwis arranged for some tanks in British units to be crewed by New Zealand personnel Australia had no such deal.
Well, although this might be a bit late, I found a similar anectode to the one mentioned above while doing research on the Battle of the Imjin River. On p. 264 of Max Hastings:The Korean War, London 2000, it says: "Sergeant Jack Cadman drove his tank through a Korean house, to dislodge a Chinese battering on his turret hatch." The tank belonged to the 8th Hussars and the action took place during the retreat of 29th Brigade from the Imjin river.--PINTofCARLING 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK variants - Roman numerals?

Just curious if Roman numerals were used in the UK when specifying which Mark a Centurion was. I'm pretty sure I've see Mk 13 written as such most of the time, but I've seen some source write Mk III and Mk X for Mk 3 and Mk 10 respectively. Were Roman numerals used in the UK? --Edward Sandstig 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were. Originally all UK vehicle and aircraft variant/Mark numbers were written as Roman numerals but the UK changed to using Arabic numerals in about 1948 - see Supermarine Spitfire variants.
Unfortunately, published works (including some 'official' ones) are not always consistent on this, so you may see either, or sometimes, both. In the Centurion's case, when the initial Marks were developed Roman numerals were in use (Mark I, II III, etc.) but later on in the tank's life they changed over to Arabic numerals, however, sometimes even the official paperwork 'forgot' this, and still wrote the Marks as 'Mk. XIII', etc. Ian Dunster 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be more consistent in its nomenclature? Chris 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 105mm gun

The article states that the 105mm L7 was in service from the Mk 5/2 (?) but Stevenson Pugh's Fighting Vehicles and Weapons of the Modern British Army (1962) says the 105mm was only initially fitted to Mks 6, 9 and 10, although it does also say that Mks 5, 7 and 8 were later reequipped with the 105mm. The two aren't necessarily contradictory, but I was wondering if it was worth clarifying. Chris 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The #Source I listed below has more detailed information. It seems the main Mark 5 series still had the 20-pounder, but the Mark 5/2 had the 105. Tanks with both guns continued to be produced until 1960 or so, and older tanks were also upgraded with the new gun.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-14 19:05 Z

[edit] Operators

Should we note that it has been replaced in most of the armies listed? --Edward Sandstig 12:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When?

The only date mentioned in the article is 1943, but I suspect that the Centurion Marks I, II and III all started production somewhat later. Would someone please fill in the blanks? (And which mark does the infobox data refer to?) —Michael Z. 2006-08-20 04:48 Z

The article on the Royal Ordnance L7, mentions the Centurion Mark 5 as entering service in 1959. Have requested someone to cite a source for that though. --Edward Sandstig 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Some scans of a few references are available at [1]. There's lots of information there which is lacking from the article.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-14 19:02 Z

[edit] Skokiaan modification

A South African modification of the Centurion tank was called Skokiaan[19]. DocDee 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combat Record

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, over the course of 30 hours, two damaged Israeli Centurions fought against 160 Syrian T-62s, the equivalent of an armoured division, and destroyed 60 of them, the equivalent of an armoured brigade.

An awesome claim, but can we please get sources for it? If no one sources it, I shall remove it. 24.80.49.112 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This never happened.--MWAK 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't think so. Good to see someone put some usefull info up instead. Thank you! 24.80.49.227 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I removed this section. If it's bullshit, it should't be there. Better to leave a blank space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.74.148.206 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
It was put back again, so now I removed it. ;) 195.98.64.69 10:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centurion Marks/Versions (more detailed list)

I've got a copy of "Janes Main Battle Tanks Second Edition" by Christopher F. Foss, copyright 1983, 1986, printed in 1986, that gives a detailed listing of Centurion variants (more than is currently in the article), as well as armor estimates for the Mk 5 and Mk 13 that call into question a couple of details in the article. The variants are:

  • Mk 1 - developed under designation A41, armed with 17-pounder, out of service by 1983
  • Mk 2 - developed as A41A, uparmored from A41, armed with 17-pounder, out of service by 1983
  • Mk 3 - armed with 20-pounder, most upgraded to Mk 5 standard and remainder out of service by 1983
  • Mk 4 - was to have been close support model armed with 95mm howitzer, never entered production
  • Mk 5 - designed by Vickers at Elswick, armed with 20-pounder
  • Mk 5/1 - uparmored Mk 5
  • Mk 5/2 - Mk 5 upgunned to 105mm L7 gun
  • Mk 6 - Mk 5 uparmored and upgunned to 105mm gun with extra fuel at hull rear
  • Mk 6/1 - Mk 6 with IR night vision equipment and rear turret stowage basket
  • Mk 6/2 - Mk 6 with ranging MG for 105mm gun
  • Mk 7 - designed by Leyland, designated FV4007. Has 20-pounder with fume extractor, carries 61 main gun rounds.
  • Mk 7/1 - Mk 7 uparmored, designated FV4012
  • Mk 7/2 - Mk 7 upgunned to 105mm L7 gun
  • Mk 8 - developed from Mk 7, has resiliently mounted gun mantlet without canvas cover, commander's cupola is contra-rotating, commanders hatches can be raised umbrella-style for overhead protection to permit viewing without exposure
  • Mk 8/1 - Mk 8 uparmored
  • Mk 8/2 - Mk 8 upgunned to 105mm
  • Mk 9 - Mk 7 uparmored and upgunned, designated FV4015
  • Mk 9/1 - Mk 9 with IR equipment and rear turret stowage basket
  • Mk 9/2 - Mk 9 with ranging MG
  • Mk 10 - Mk 8 uparmored, upgunned, carries 70 rounds for the main gun, designated FV4017
  • Mk 10/1 - Mk 10 with IR equipment and rear turret stowage basket
  • Mk 10/2 - Mk 10 with ranging MG
  • Mk 11 - Mk 6 with ranging MG, IR equipment, and rear turret stowage basket
  • Mk 12 - Mk 9 with ranging MG, IR equipment, and rear turret stowage basket
  • Mk 13 - Mk 10 with ranging MG and IR equipment

Janes lists the Mk 5 glacis as 76mm and Mk 13 as 118mm, in contrast with the current article which states the Mk 2 already had the 118mm glacis. This leaves me wondering about the relationship between the Mk 5 and earlier marks. Was the Mk 5 designed to the A41/Mk 1 armor standard, or was there another set of armor specs used on the Mk 1 that we lack information on?
Is the version information above worth incorporating into the article? --Psminson 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we have at least two different design centres, and several production lines, I think the plain numeric order of Marks could be misleading. Guessing here, but it's possible that the Mk. 5 and Mk. 7 production could have overlapped. And were the upgrades a change on the production line, overlapping with other Marks, or tanks returned to be refitted? I can certainly see a Mk. 5 being replaced in service by a 105mm gun-tank, and being upgraded. Is there a consolidated set of dates published anywhere? Zhochaka 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a very interesting question :o). It seems that Jane's is simply wrong here: the 118 mm is the traditional Mark II estimate for the hull. The confusion stems from the first 1976 edition where the same data are given without referring them to any specific mark but simply as those of "uparmoured vehicles", without indication which actual standard is meant and there were at least four candidates. That a mistake has been made is also at once obvious from the relative weights between both marks: 50,728 kg versus 51,820. The Mark III had 25 mm stronger turret armour. The Mark 5/2 etc. had an inch appliqué on the hull, thus having about 143 mm. The Mark 8 had a new mantle design, probably also a bit stronger. It's indeed strange official numbers have never been given, even though many vehicles are now in private possession.
The table is of course very useful but still needs some further rewording to avoid copyright problems. A rewrite might also make it less confusing: e.g. a Mark 7/2 can also be up-armoured. What is then the difference between it and a Mark 9? :o) --MWAK 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
After I wrote the above, I had some nagging doubts, so I took a ruler and measured an uparmoured Centurion Mark III myself. The appliqué is in fact some four cm. This suggests very strongly to me that the stronger armour of the Mark II was not on the glacis but merely on the forward hull sides and that the armour was indeed reinforced in the mid-fifties from 76 to 118 mm. Indeed the documentation speaks of a "five inch" protection. But the weight difference should also account for a heavier gun and a longer hull, so the 50,728 kg number most likely refers to a Mark 5/1. An alternative explanation would be that the glacis armour was brought from 118 to about 160 mm but that seems less likely.--MWAK 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been wondering about whether or not the 165mm AVRE was a Mark 5 or 6. Everywhere I look Mark 5 is claimed but I also know that the 165mm AVRE had the additional rear fuel tank of the Mark 6. I seem to think that I remember the 165 as being a Mark 6 but I just can't remember for sure anymore despite driving 165mm AVREs in Germany for several years! Can anybody take a look at the plate in the drivers compartment of a privately owned 165 AVRE to clear this up?

[edit] FV 3805

I recently learnt of this version of the centurion, apparently a SPG version that never went beyond the prototype stage as far as I can tell. Does anyone have any info, and if so do they reckon it's worth mentioning? here is a link to a picture (source unknown though) http://revenge.cncguild.net/dday/other/FV3805.jpg

Daft, 17:05, 30th April 2007

SP mount for the BL 5.5 inch, developed in 1950s, never entered service. Yes, it's worth mentioning. Bukvoed 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re WWII

The first para says they arrived ‘several months’ late to participate in WWII. Kenneth Macksey’s “Tank Force” (Pan/Ballantyne c1970) says that: “as the last shots were being exchanged between Allied and German armour ….. five tarpaulined shapes were being carried by ship and tank-transporter across Europe to the fast disintegrating battlefield” Were 5 pre-production prototypes produced, and how close were they to use in WWII? Hugo999 12:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we add something into the infobox?

I read somewhere that the Centurion tank's main gun was capable of depressing down to -10° (maximum angle of elevation: +25°) versus only -4°/+15° for a Russian made T-54/T-55 or T-62 tank, thus explaining the reason why it was easy for the Centurion tanks of the Israeli armoured divisions to pick off the Russian tanks while presenting much a smaller target when dug in the hull down position during the Yom Kippur War. Note: it is relevant today because if we compare the M1 Abrams with the T-90, the same scenario emerges: Abrams -9° versus T-90 -5°. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)