Jump to content


Photo

Centurion Turrets And Armor...


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 MikeKiloPapa

MikeKiloPapa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2017 - 1231 PM

Leo1 not much faster in real conditions than Chieftain for example, brits were testing Leo1, and not much smaller...

Looking at the raw data its hard to see how it wouldnt be......the Leo has a huge advantage in power to weight ratio .....The Chieftains P/W ratio was somewhere around 11-13 HP/Tonnes depending on version, while the Leopard boasted 19-20 horsepower per tonne...That is a pretty massive difference. When the Leo 2 went from the 55t A4 to the 60t A5/A6, the resulting drop in P/W ratio from ~27 hp/t  to <25hp/t made the upgraded Leos noticeably slower , particularly in acceleration.
 
Factoring in the more than twice as large difference in P/W ratio between the Leo1 and Chieftain and the formers superior transmission, suspension and running gear it would practically be impossible for the Leopard not to be much faster.


#42 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 20 August 2017 - 1632 PM

 

That said, legend has it that Centurion could go places Abrams couldnt in 1991 because of its manual gearbox, so its a bit of a mixed picture.

Please, would you mind catching me up on this "legend?"



#43 Coldsteel

Coldsteel

    Romanes eunt domus

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests:Tanks. What were you expecting, Underwater Basket Weaving?

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0344 AM

FV432 was trialled head to head against the M113 in Australia. The M551 was also trialled in Australia. The Centurion replacement trial was between the Leopard 1 & the M60. I'd differentiate between "looking at" and "trialling" - to the best of my knowledge, Australia never seriously considered - or trialled - the Chieftain.

Before they settled on one of either the M60 or the Leopard, I'm pretty sure the Chieftain was on the short list of vehicles to be considered, along with the AMX 30 I think. Data was supposed to be sourced on a Japanese tank, for comparison purposes only, given the time frame probably the Type 74.



#44 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0821 AM

Before they settled on one of either the M60 or the Leopard, I'm pretty sure the Chieftain was on the short list of vehicles to be considered, along with the AMX 30 I think. Data was supposed to be sourced on a Japanese tank, for comparison purposes only, given the time frame probably the Type 74.


http://anzacsteel.ho...leopardph_1.htm

"During the period March to May 1971, RAAC officers visited the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany to review developments in armoured vehicles. Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) that were reviewed by the group included M60A1 (USA), Chieftain and Vickers (UK), AMX 30 (France) and Leopard (Federal Republic of Germany). The review of these armoured vehicles was the first step in the programme to investigate the replacement of the Centurion as the Australian Army's Main Battle Tank."

You're right the Chieftain was "reviewed" - as I mentioned. Just not trialled (as stated by Stuart). Having seen what vehicle trials look like (& participated in many aspects of them) in the context of the Australian Army, I sought clarification.

#45 Rickard N

Rickard N

    Swedish ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden
  • Interests:photography, ice hockey, motorcycling

Posted 21 August 2017 - 1457 PM

I've been told that Sweden was looking at the Chieftain for possible upgrade for our Centurions and it was deemed "not enough of an upgrade to buy" so the Centurions were upgraded instead with the diesel and new fire control system.

Not sure of how true it is though.

 

/R



#46 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 22 August 2017 - 2229 PM

ySKooMp.jpg



#47 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 28 August 2017 - 0247 AM

ThnNupQ.jpg

from this book

51BUvwrZfUL._SL250_.jpg



#48 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 28 August 2017 - 1058 AM

 

 

That said, legend has it that Centurion could go places Abrams couldnt in 1991 because of its manual gearbox, so its a bit of a mixed picture.

Please, would you mind catching me up on this "legend?"

 

 

Salvage Squad, where they restore Fosgene, the Centurion. It was a Centurion AVRE and actually interviewed the commander of it whom opened one of the berms in the Iraqi border in 1991 for the Americans. He claimed they could go through terrain Abrams couldn't. The interview with the commander is at the 42minute mark.

 

The remarkable thing is, with the dozer on, the era on the turret and the side uparmour, it must have had far higher ground pressure than an ordinary gun Centurion, such as when it was a Mk5 and led the way at Suez. They might even have been carrying fascines, which were a traditional role for AVRE's in the British Army

 

No, I dont understand why it would be so either. Like the ability of the Churchill's to climb mountains, it defies easy explanation, unless extremely low gear ratio's in both cases were an explanation.



#49 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 28 August 2017 - 1059 AM

 

Before they settled on one of either the M60 or the Leopard, I'm pretty sure the Chieftain was on the short list of vehicles to be considered, along with the AMX 30 I think. Data was supposed to be sourced on a Japanese tank, for comparison purposes only, given the time frame probably the Type 74.


http://anzacsteel.ho...leopardph_1.htm

"During the period March to May 1971, RAAC officers visited the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany to review developments in armoured vehicles. Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) that were reviewed by the group included M60A1 (USA), Chieftain and Vickers (UK), AMX 30 (France) and Leopard (Federal Republic of Germany). The review of these armoured vehicles was the first step in the programme to investigate the replacement of the Centurion as the Australian Army's Main Battle Tank."

You're right the Chieftain was "reviewed" - as I mentioned. Just not trialled (as stated by Stuart). Having seen what vehicle trials look like (& participated in many aspects of them) in the context of the Australian Army, I sought clarification.

 

 

Fair enough. The point is they did indeed try it out, even if it was in Britain.



#50 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 28 August 2017 - 1102 AM

 

Leo1 not much faster in real conditions than Chieftain for example, brits were testing Leo1, and not much smaller...

Looking at the raw data its hard to see how it wouldnt be......the Leo has a huge advantage in power to weight ratio .....The Chieftains P/W ratio was somewhere around 11-13 HP/Tonnes depending on version, while the Leopard boasted 19-20 horsepower per tonne...That is a pretty massive difference. When the Leo 2 went from the 55t A4 to the 60t A5/A6, the resulting drop in P/W ratio from ~27 hp/t  to <25hp/t made the upgraded Leos noticeably slower , particularly in acceleration.
 
Factoring in the more than twice as large difference in P/W ratio between the Leo1 and Chieftain and the formers superior transmission, suspension and running gear it would practically be impossible for the Leopard not to be much faster.

 

 

Part of the reason was that the L60 was designed to be a multifuel engine, and the engine in the Leopard 1 was not. I seem to recall the West Germans developed an APC (i forget which one) which also had a multifuel engine, and had untold reliability problems and low power output from it. We eventually canned the multifuel capablity and it was more reliable, but it never had a bit power output from it. I can only assume there were too many design compromises.



#51 MikeKiloPapa

MikeKiloPapa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 August 2017 - 1643 PM

ThnNupQ.jpg

from this book

51BUvwrZfUL._SL250_.jpg

Oh....you got it from Haynes......well it must be true then  :rolleyes: .....frankly the entire paragraph reeks of bias and sour grapes....you can definitely tell its a British publication.

......Honestly that comparison table is bollocks!.....that a Cent mk 5 is only supposed to be marginally slower in acceleration than a Leopard 1 is plainly ridiculous.....i have tried it myself and the Leo would beat the centurion with a huge margin .....hell it could probably even do it in reverse too. 

 

I will remain sceptical that a chieftain would somehow be able to traverse difficult terrain where a Leo couldnt......though the cent did have some advantages in certain types of terrain due to its steel tracks.. What kind of tracks did early chieftains use ? ......i doesnt appear to have greater contact area or lower ground pressure than the Leo so its difficult to see where the superior off road capabilities is suppose to come from.....The Leopard 1s only weakness was/is that on a very soft/boggy surface it would sometimes sink and get stuck due to suction caused by the flat belly .....the Chieftain might be better in that regard.


Edited by MikeKiloPapa, 28 August 2017 - 1643 PM.


#52 MikeKiloPapa

MikeKiloPapa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 August 2017 - 1701 PM

 

 

Leo1 not much faster in real conditions than Chieftain for example, brits were testing Leo1, and not much smaller...

Looking at the raw data its hard to see how it wouldnt be......the Leo has a huge advantage in power to weight ratio .....The Chieftains P/W ratio was somewhere around 11-13 HP/Tonnes depending on version, while the Leopard boasted 19-20 horsepower per tonne...That is a pretty massive difference. When the Leo 2 went from the 55t A4 to the 60t A5/A6, the resulting drop in P/W ratio from ~27 hp/t  to <25hp/t made the upgraded Leos noticeably slower , particularly in acceleration.
 
Factoring in the more than twice as large difference in P/W ratio between the Leo1 and Chieftain and the formers superior transmission, suspension and running gear it would practically be impossible for the Leopard not to be much faster.

 

 

Part of the reason was that the L60 was designed to be a multifuel engine, and the engine in the Leopard 1 was not

 

I simply dont know where this myth comes from ? i must have heard that claim from a dozen different (British) armor enthusiasts and it simply isnt true....The MTU MB 838 CaM 500 engine is very much a multi fuel engine : 

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Leopard_1

(sorry....i cant find a better english language source right now )

 

.....and so in fact is the 873 series engine in the Leo 2 ( albeit less so) 



#53 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 29 August 2017 - 0157 AM

 

ThnNupQ.jpg

from this book

51BUvwrZfUL._SL250_.jpg

Oh....you got it from Haynes......well it must be true then  :rolleyes: .....frankly the entire paragraph reeks of bias and sour grapes....you can definitely tell its a British publication.

......Honestly that comparison table is bollocks!.....that a Cent mk 5 is only supposed to be marginally slower in acceleration than a Leopard 1 is plainly ridiculous.....i have tried it myself and the Leo would beat the centurion with a huge margin .....hell it could probably even do it in reverse too. 

 

I will remain sceptical that a chieftain would somehow be able to traverse difficult terrain where a Leo couldnt......though the cent did have some advantages in certain types of terrain due to its steel tracks.. What kind of tracks did early chieftains use ? ......i doesnt appear to have greater contact area or lower ground pressure than the Leo so its difficult to see where the superior off road capabilities is suppose to come from.....The Leopard 1s only weakness was/is that on a very soft/boggy surface it would sometimes sink and get stuck due to suction caused by the flat belly .....the Chieftain might be better in that regard.

 

 

 

Well Im not sure we have said that, but there is evidence it could go places even a Centurion crew bogged in. I can find the relevant passage but its in the Ian Allan Chieftain book by George Forty, I think it was a Trooper in the 4/7 Dragoon who was trialling it saying there were places on Soltau where they could pass Centurions bogged in, and Chieftain in low gear would cruise pass them. Doesnt mean it was as capable cross country as Leopard1, just that it was better in this regard than Centurion, which as you say already had a fairly good reputation. I suspect crew skill probably played a roll as well. Supposedly it would bog in if it turned when in the mire, rather than running straight through. Might be worth looking  up the report on Chieftain Mk4 trials on Yuma salt flats to see more on it I guess.

 

Chieftain tracks were the metal triangular ones that were like widened Centurion ones. Im not sure what they were using on Pre Productioin ones, ive never thought to take the trouble to look. A number of them did have smaller than usual road wheels though.

 

Actually Haynes productions are rather good for the most part. I cant say ive read the Chieftain one, but the one they got on Challenger 1 is well worth reading.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 29 August 2017 - 0159 AM.


#54 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 29 August 2017 - 1445 PM

Oh....you got it from Haynes......well it must be true then  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

you can try to search report about exercise "VERITAS", it must be in some archive :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users