Talk:Centurion (tank)

message: "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)
replies: text: A 1952 Pathé News item on gun stabilisation on the Centurion's 20 pdr here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.231 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: things which need edit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Centurion's Suspension 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nuclear tests

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  When? 

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

message: <I> 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. </I> 
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)
replies: text: This never happened.--MWAK 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  It was put back again, so now I removed it. ;) 195.98.64.69 10:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Record 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FV 3805 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Re WWII

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  tone and wording 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any introduction dates at all 

message: 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)
thread_title: .50 caliber coax machinegun

message: 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)
thread_title: No [[Centurion]] [[Vietnam War]] [[Combat]] [[Photos]] Allowed?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wars fought in 

message: There are two references in the article called "Centurion" (<ref name="Centurion">):
*
*
Only the first one is showing. The references to  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)
thread_title:  Mixed references 

message: Seems overly focused on Israels usage of the tank. Thoughts? ★★RetroLord★★ 06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A rather laconic 1952 New Zealand Army report on the Centurion's performance in Korea here:   - 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)
replies: text:  An excellent read, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Very much of it's time. Very authentic. Thanks for flagging it up. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A searchable Pathe News site with some films of various news items including this one that might interest some of you:  - 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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 NotifyOnline 10:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Article on 'S Tank' here: S Tank  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error regarding Swedish replacement tank. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FV4005 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FV 4005 

message: 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)
replies: text: It doesn't say that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This tank is not experimental 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suez newsreel doesn't mention or show a single Centurion. 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Suspension 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Location of the 'Atomic Tank' 

message: I have marked this as dubious.  According to  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  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)
thread_title:  Dubious statement only a handful of Mk I Centurions