Canadian Centurion tanks question

[Dan Martel]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

My list shows 52-81008 as a Mk 5/2 MBT ECC 118109 that was surplused out of CFB Montreal in 1978.

ECC 118109 is for a Mk 5/2 fitted with IR and an RMG. This according to Equipment Characteristic Sheet serial 40-4-6, dated Sept 1970, published by the DG Ordnance Systems.

A Mk 5 had an ECC of 118105.
A Mk 5/2 had an ECC of 118107.
A Mk 5/2 with IR alone had an ECC of 118108.

I would think the vehicle part (What is the correct term for the non-turret part of a tank?) is from a Mk 5 or Mk 5/2. The only change for the turret not to be a Mk 5/2 with IR and RMG is the 20-pdr barrel, which, as Mike has pointed out, is a quick switch as both it and the L7A1 105-mm barrel were compatible.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say it is a Mk 5/2, but with a replacement barrel. I would think that at the time it was thought keeping an L7A1 barrel on a gate guard would be wasteful, as 105-mm guns remained on Canadian tanks even after the Centurion was replaced.

Now, how do we Fedex a Type B barrel to Oshawa?

Cheers,
Dan.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Dan Martel

I would think the vehicle part (What is the correct term for the non-turret part of a tank?)
Cheers,
Dan.

It's called the Hull.

[Mike Cecil]

So the Canadian Army (like the Australians) had series of mod suites all their own, divergent from the British standard. Interesting: I've learnt something new about Centurion, thanks to the knowledgeable Canadian contributors to this thread.

Given the above, I agree with Dan: this appears to be a Mk5/2 with IR & RG, but fitted with a 20-pdr instead of the L7 105-mm. Other than that change, it fits the description of ECC118109.

A Mk5/2 fitted with IR and RG is, in effect, a British Mk11 without the applique armour. With the rear armoured fuel tank added, the Brits added the suffix 'LR' to the nomenclature - was that the same in Canada?

So, if I understand the previous posts correctly, all the museum would need to do to bring the tank back to the Canadian build standard 118109, is switch the 20-pdr barrel for an L7 105-mm?

As an aside, was there a Canadian ECC for a Mk5/1 (a Mk5 with applique armour)?

Mike

[Dan Martel]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

With the rear armoured fuel tank added, the Brits added the suffix 'LR' to the nomenclature - was that the same in Canada?

Yes. Remember that the Canadian Army's main focus during the 50's and 60's was NATO, and the Canadian Brigade Group was assigned to the British 2nd Division, so British nomenclature in terms of the Centurion was axiomatic. Also, third line maintenance for the tanks was undertaken at the British Base Workshop in Wetter, so commonality in parts description was preferable to having a British and a Canadian designation for the same thing.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

As an aside, was there a Canadian ECC for a Mk5/1 (a Mk5 with applique armour)?

Not that I've found. The document I quoted only lists the ones I provided, other than the command version of the Mk 5 which is 118203 and the Mk 5 fitted for IR which is 118205. It doesn't appear that uparmouring was a Canadian Army priority for the tanks stationed in Canada.

In the "Staff Data Handbook (Interim)" dated March 1975, it shows the Mk 11 ECC as 118305 and the Mk 11 command version as 118306. The Centurion bridgelayer was 118401 and the Centurion ARV was 118801.

For those unaware, the command version of a tank was exactly the same as a gun tank, but with a different radio set-up. In the case of the Centurion, a gun tank had two radios. A command tank had at least three, some four, radios.

Tony, yes, the hull. I knew that. I blame old age.

Malcolm, is your version fitted with the 100 gallon auxiliary gas tank at the back? It would look like the photo posted by Ed Storey at the beginning of this thread.

Cheers,
Dan.

[Malcolm Towrie]

Originally Posted by Dan Martel

Malcolm, is your version fitted with the 100 gallon auxiliary gas tank at the back? It would look like the photo posted by Ed Storey at the beginning of this thread.

Cheers,
Dan.

Dan,
Yes, it is. At the risk of offending the purists, for phase 1 of the restoration (get it driving) we are considering NOT installing the two large fuel tanks in the hull and using just the rear tank. This will give us better access to the engine for maintenance and repair, at least until we put a few miles on it and gain some experience. Keep in mind the engine we bought was rebuilt by Scottish Aviation in the mid-70's so, despite its good condition due to the excellent storage procedure, hoses, belts, and elastomers are 40 years old.
I am also considering not installing the auxiliary engine initially, and relying on warm weather, four 12v batteries in place of the original four 6v batteries to provide massive starting capability and using the 45 amp generator on the engine to keep them charged. One puzzle I have is our Mk 11? tank does not seem to have the voltage/current regulator dedicated to the engine mounted generator. Anyway, that is another topic for another thread.

Malcolm