Talk:Centurion (tank)

things which need edit

"The 20 pounder gun was used only for a short time[dubious – discuss] before the Royal Ordnance Factories introduced the 105 mm L7 gun."

this sentence has been labelled dubious, I think we need to at least have a time period, short time could be anything from six months to years (given long service life of vehicle)

the 20pdr was used from at least 1950-53 from Korea war era photographs and old film reels I have seen**, when the Hungarian uprising coming along in 1956 a great onus was put on upgunning the tank due to a captured T55 which could not be penetrated at a reasonable distance by the 20pdr, so the earliest the 105mm could have been adopted is 1956(surely?). Alas I can find no reliable sources about the service length of the 20pdr.

• • this video dated 1950 shows a 20pdr fitted to an Centurion: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/tank-factory-1/query/centurion+tank

watch from 1:48, the distinctive muzzle of the 20pdr can be clearly seen

[[[User:Fdsdh1|Fdsdh1]] (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)]

A 1952 Pathé News item on gun stabilisation on the Centurion's 20 pdr here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.231 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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 suspension 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.

• [Horstmann History]

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)

Nuclear tests

Sorry about messy links,I wrote about 169041 quoting from memory then found good info online. Anyone think this tank deserves its own wiki page?Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The section on nuclear testing first refers to this tank as 168041, and later as 169041. I am assuming that the single instance of "8" is a typo, since it is listed with a "9" in three places, so I'm editing it to be "169041". Eastcote (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is I think speculation to say that "had it been manned, the crew would probably have been killed by the shock wave". Some Japanese survived despite being at such distances from larger nuclear explosions.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Australia was the first overseas customer for the Centurion but the Korean War broke out and so vehicles earmarked for Australia were instead supplied to the British Army and the Australian order fulfilled later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

The israelis bought their centurions second hand from England and they didnt all have 105mm guns which is something most got reequiped with in time for the 67 war.

If you look at tank guns up to and including the 60s most western equipped armies hadnt made a full switch to 105mm guns at all. Not just the centurion line look at its american rival the M48 for instance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.61 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The 105mm L7 was in effect a bored-out 20 pdr and so was interchangeable with the normal 20 pdr mounting albeit with some adjustment to the gun sighting system to allow for the differing trajectories of the projectiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Operators

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

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)

Source

Some scans of a few references are available at [2]. There's lots of information there which is lacking from the article.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-14 19:02 Z

Skokiaan modification

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

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)

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?

All the AVRE's I drove were Mark 5's, the additional fuel tank was one of the many modifications in it's conversion to AVRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.112.7 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Some additional info: apparently 2 prototypes were made in 1956, development was ended in 1960. 81.107.41.221 (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC) (source: Wargaming) 09:26, 19 March 2015

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)

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)

IN COMBAT c1991 states the tanks participated in the last few weeks of WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.149.197 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Gun depression matters little in prepared positions, actually dug-in T-72/80/90 might have a size advantage here because of much smaller turret.

The Centurion's ample gun depression was highly valued during the various India/Pakistan wars where the Centurion was able to fire down on the opposing Soviet-made tanks when on higher ground such as in mountain passes. Conversely, the lesser gun depression available to the Soviet-made tanks rendered then unable to reply when in a similar situation. This is one of the reason why the Indian's chose the Vickers Main Battle Tank as their new MBT when it came to to replacing the Centurion, as it had similar gun characteristics. That and being of lower weight than the Chieftain, which was needed due to the limitations of many Indian road bridges at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.70.250 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The only "Soviet-made tanks" in the Indo-Pakistani wars were on indian side. As for chinese Type-59s used by Pakistan, there are no accounts of them facing Centurions.

tone and wording

theres is an over use of words like extremely, drastically, highly, very high etc. which do not offer that much information and comes across as opinionated. it would be nice if there were performance/ballistics reports or verified combat history to convey the same point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.231.160 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well it doesn't have much combat history against other tanks except in the hands of isrealis where it picked up rather a good record.Geni 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Any introduction dates at all

Does anyone have sourced dates for the introduction of any Centurion marks, or the service years for any countries? This article doesn't have a single one, although I guess it's safe to add “1945” for the Mark I and II. —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 16:13 z

I do have the dates and no it isn't. I plan to do some serios expansion/refing in a couple of days.Geni 14:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

.50 caliber coax machinegun

The Australian Centurion 5/1 did have two coax machineguns; one fifty and one thirty caliber. The .50 was actually a spotter for the main gun (in lieu of a range finder); but was used in combat as a coax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.11.66 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No Centurion Vietnam War Combat Photos Allowed?

That was an excellent "action" shot of an Australian Centurion in Combat; photographed in Vietnam. And yet a editor removed it and retained a boring unidentifiable group of Centurions clustered together amongst a group of Australian tankers sitting in the foreground, apparently recieving a class from an instructor!

The editor's justification was "Image lacks fair use rationale and a satisfactory PD alternative is already in the section." Wikipedia readers would probably want you to remove the "class room" photograph (or at least leave them both in, as they originally were) and return the combat photograph of the Centurion tank in action. The GERMAN TANKS get to use combat photographs for their Wikipedia websites...a few examples follow:

• The Wikipedia website of Panzer I has TWO COMBAT PHOTOS.
• Panzer III had about 7 COMBAT PHOTOS.
• Panzer IV had at least 4 COMBAT PHOTOS.
• Panther tank is allowed to have at least 10 COMBAT PHOTOS.

And an editor Removes the Centurion tank in Vietnam's ONLY combat photograph!? If the Centurion tank must meet those standards; then those German Panzer websites must also comply with those standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.64.56 (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The pictures do seem a little boring at the moment. The first two are almost identical also. I think it is appropriate that the lead picture is the current one, but I'm sure we could find a spot to put a few photos of the tank in action, as all the ones now just seem to sitting at museums not doing much. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wars fought in

I have removed this so I can have a stab at rating the article as B-class. If you have a reference that can substantiate the clainm then re-insert it by all means, but with an in-line citation!!

  The Centurion served in more wars than any other western tank.

An excellent article on a superb tank.Petebutt (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to a recent sourc to add more citations, I may try again later.Petebutt (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian Centurions in Vietnam

The article states that the Australian Centurions in Vietnam had 84mm guns (20 pounders). There is a citation to a book that makes that statement.[3] But the photograph in the article, and the photographs of Australian Centurions in Vietnam on the Australian War Memorial site[4] show them with 105mm guns. (You can easily tell 105mm and 20 pdr Centurions apart - look at the gun barrels.)--Toddy1 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The 20pdr was also fitted with a fume extractor on the Mark 5 giving it a similar look to the L7. And the Osprey book identifies the Mark 5/1 (Aust) in Vietnam. But that's about its total coverage of the subject - perhaps a preponderance of sources is needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark 5 vehicles up-gunned with the 105 mm were designated Mark 5/2. Mark 5/1 signified an up-armoured Mk 5 with the 20 pdr gun. Earlier vehicles that had been up-armoured received a "/1" suffix to the designation.

... earlier vehicles up-gunned with the 105 mm received a "/2" suffix to the designation, e.g., Mk 7/2. Type B 20 pdr barrels have a fume extractor mounted concentrically, the 105 mm has it mounted eccentrically. Type A 20 pdr barrels, i.e., the initial type, lacked a fume extractor however some had them later retro fitted.

The pictures linked above are all now dead but a quick Google search for Vietnam Centurions all show Centurions Mark 5/1 with the 20 pdr and the later Type B barrel with fume extractor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Mixed references

There are two references in the article called "Centurion" (<ref name="Centurion">):

• Antill, P. (23 February 2001)). "Centurion tank". historyofwar.org. Retrieved 23 October 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Norman, Michael (1967). Centurion 5. Armour in Profile. Vol. 23. Great Bookham, Surrey: Profile Publications.

Only the first one is showing. The references to <ref name="Centurion" /> might be to either one of the two. I don't know the book nor the article, so I can't tell. Can someone make order in the references?

The references to "Norman p. #" are definitely to the book by M. Norman, but one of them was broken. I don't know what page it's supposed to reference. I assume p.9 (the one named <ref>) and I will change it to that, but please check if it's correct. — Marvin ^talk 02:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Seems overly focused on Israels usage of the tank. Thoughts? ★★RetroLord★★ 06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the centurion/Shot certainly has seen the most real tank v tank combat and its excellent reputation has in some respects been down to its extensive IDF combat usage in 3 major wars. Israel has used, modified and improved them the most. Seems fair enough. Irondome (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A rather laconic 1952 New Zealand Army report on the Centurion's performance in Korea here: [5] - BTW, the 'Mr. Wu' mentioned (i.e, the Red Chinese) is a reference to the George Formby songs, "Chinese Laundry Blues" and "Mr. Wu's A Window Cleaner Now".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

An excellent read, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Very much of it's time. Very authentic. Thanks for flagging it up. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A searchable Pathe News site with some films of various news items including this one that might interest some of you: [6] - ignore the captions, the first vehicle is a Comet and it is followed by a Centurion Crocodile. The rest are 20-pdr Centurions. A Charioteer also makes a (hull-down) appearance, as does an AEC Armoured Car and several Daimlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Error regarding Swedish replacement tank.

The article states that the Centurion was replaced with Stridsvagn 122 in Sweden. This is incorrect. Several decades before the 122 entered service the Centurion was replaced with Stridsvagn 103 (AKA S-Tank, a rather strange turretless creation). Some one more used to Wikipedia than I am ought to correct this. Btw, there is an article om Wikipedia on Stridsvagn 103. 83.227.54.81 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Article on 'S Tank' here: S Tank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The stridsvagn 121 and strv 122 replaced both the S-tank AND the Centurions, which were BOTH in service with different units having either one of them.BP OMowe (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

FV4005

The text of the article says that this tank destroyer was dismantled in August 1957, the article also contains a photo of it at The Tank Museum, very much intact, that was taken in July 2010. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It was decommissioned and dismantled in the '50s or '60s, but the turret and gun were kept and ended up on the ground in Bovington. Years later they placed it on a spare Centurion hull (but not the original hull), which is how it still is. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Transmission capabilities

Does anyone know if this thing could pivot steer? I have, up to now, spent about two months trying to figure this one out on my own, as I'm building a radio controlled 1/35th scale Mark V and wish to have it be able to maneuver in any way the actual Mark V could. I cannot, for the life of me, google up any information on this gearbox other than the name of it. 2602:306:83C4:6680:CC7F:5AA8:7D3F:CC41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Any vehicle using the Merritt-Brown triple-differential type of steering can pivot steer. So, yes, the Centurion could. The 'Merritt' comes from Dr. H. E. Merritt, Director of Tank Design at Woolwich Arsenal, the 'Brown' part of the name comes from David Brown Ltd. Henry Merritt wrote a reference text book on gears entitled "Gear Engineering".

AFAIK from the Churchill on, it was used in all subsequent British tanks up to and including the Chieftain.

Info on types of tracked-vehicle steering here: [7] - the one you want is the last one.

... having said this, I could be wrong. But IIRC the Centurion could pivot steer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.169 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Centurion 'turning on the spot' at 6:41 here: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Development

Reference to British Rail anachronistic, I think. Notreallydavid (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centurion (tank). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160218072202/http://www.sphf.se:80/Axvall/emil.htm to http://www.sphf.se/Axvall/emil.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

FV 4005

User:Andy Dingley thinks that the FV 4005 was destroyed in 1957 and can still be seen at the Tank Museum. I think this must be the result of some advanced physics on his part. Where can I vote to give him the Nobel Prize? --80.146.191.154 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It was dismantled in 1957, but they kept the turret. What's on display today is that turret, put back onto another Centurion hull (Hulls are hardly rare). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ars gratia artis.

There was a Centurion battle tank placed upside down on the grounds of Venice Biennale in 2011, with a runner on a thread-mill placed on top of it, for a mobile sculpture experience. Nobody understood why a british-made Centurion tank was used, considering that the entry belonged to the american pavilion. As silly as that sounds, the Venice Biennale is a big event among the snob elites and global media, so maybe the display is worth a mention in the article? 79.120.166.197 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Allora & Calzadilla, https://universes.art/venice-biennale/2011/info/usa/

https://www.npr.org/2011/06/02/136897424/a-tank-an-organ-and-smart-power-at-the-venice-biennale They wanted a US Abrams, but couldn't get hold of one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This tank is not experimental

On the sho't tank page, It says that the centurion tank is experimental. I heard that the centurion had numbers of production from 570 to 1200 or more. Below, talk if your are agreeing or explain why it is experimental. (174.60.116.143 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Suez newsreel doesn't mention or show a single Centurion.

Or any other tanks of any sort, for that matter. While it's certainly interesting to watch, it would be a lot more appropriate on the article on the Suez Canal Crisis. This is an article about the Centurion tank, and the only tenuous relation that newsreel has is that it talks about the British Fleet being de-mothballed to go to Suez, which happens to be a conflict the Centurion served in. I don't think a newsreel clip about the Pacific Fleet leaving Pearl Harbor would be appropriate on the M4 Medium article merely because the M4 Medium happened to serve in the same war being discussed in the newsreel.

64.222.158.24 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and the newsreeel is already on the Suez page. Requen (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Double agreed, I came here after noticing this as well. I'm going to be bold and remove it. I've taken a brief look around and wasn't able to find a photo of a Centurion during the Suez crisis, but I haven't searched exhaustively. Would be nice to have something else in that spot that is related. 142.112.141.60 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspension

"The Department produced a larger hull by adapting the long-travel five-wheel Christie suspension used on the Comet with the addition of a sixth wheel, and extending the spacing between the second and third wheels. The Christie suspension, with vertical spring coils between side armour plates, was replaced by a Horstmann suspension with three horizontally sprung, externally mounted two-wheel bogies on each side. The Horstmann design did not offer the same ride quality as the Christie system, but took up less room and was easier to maintain. [17] In case of damage by mines, individual suspension and wheel units could be replaced relatively easily. " What? They "adapted the Christie suspension by adding a sixth wheel, then removed the entire part of the system that made it a Christie suspension and replaced it with something superior". Then they didn't "adapt" the Christie suspension, they replaced the five wheel Christie with a six wheel Horstmann. Period. Just because both lack return rollers doesn't mean the second row has any relation to the first type. Neither does the T-55 suspension have any relation to the Christie type in the T-34. 2600:1000:B111:ACBC:0:4A:9300:C501 (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Location of the 'Atomic Tank'

I believe the Atomic Tank number 169041 has been relocated from Robertson Barracks to RAAF Base Edinburgh near Adelaide. —BillC ^talk 13:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Dubious statement only a handful of Mk I Centurions

Only a handful of Mk I Centurions when the Mk II replaced it on the production lines. I have marked this as dubious. According to Dunstan, Simon (1980). Centurion (Modern Combat Vehicles: 2). p. 19. 100 Mk I were produced, and the Mk II seems to have been produced in parallel with the Mk I. Someone needs to look at whatever the source was for the "handful" statement and see what it actually says. Mk I and Mk II tanks were in production at the same time, so the statement that the Mk II replaced the Mk I on production lines seems unlikely.

The article uses Munro, Bill (2005). The Centurion Tank. as a source. Some of the reviews on Amazon for this book say that it has a lot of errors.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)