Centaur and Cromwell Mk VI CS, what are the differences?

[3DStewart]

Hello folks

I've just got the Cromwell and Centaur book by Ian Carter and I'm trying to work out what the differences are between the Centaur and Cromwell Mk VI CS.

The obvious differences I've found are:

Centaur

No hull MG; early wheels with 'drilled' tyres (but I note two preserved examples in France don't have them); sighting box on turret.

Cromwell Mk VI CS

Hull MG; later wheels with solid tyres; no sighting box on turret; spare wheels often mounted on turret rear.

I expect they're other differences, but I can't spot them. Can anybody help?

Thanks

Stewart

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

If I remember right, the Centaur had a Liberty engine and the Cromwell the Meteor....

thanks

Mike

[fatfingers]

Hi Stewart,

The Centaur had the Liberty engine and the Cromwell had the Meteor engine. Some Centaurs that were re-fitted with RR Metoers were renamed 'Cromwell IV's'

Regards,

Steve

[SleeperService]

Well you've got most of it above. Otherwise there is;

Internal track tensioners on Centaur uprated external type on Cromwell. There are two small plugs near the headlights on the Centaur and a large hockey stick adjuster on the engine deck side for the Cromwell only.

The sight box was only used AFAIK by the RMASG Centaurs (same vehicles later used by 6th Airborne, Canadians and French. This is because they were to be employed as mobile artillery rather than as a support tank. In the British Army that's a huge difference!

Both types landing on D-Day and soon after have two angled brackets on the upper rear plate to tow a Porpoise sled with.

As built you are correct about the road wheels but the solid and perforated were interchangable and often were! The preserved Normandy tanks have been partly fitted with Centurion wheels as they were available in the Army Workshops who restored them for display.

The Cromwell had a different gearbox as well which needed a small rectangular access plate on the lower hull rear angled plate to access the gear change linkage.

Most Cromwells wore 15.5" tracks (very like Panzer III/IV types) with a different drive sprocket the Centaur always AFAIK had the earlier 14" type. As the NWE campaign went on the 14" tracks on Cromwells become rarer.

Finally the Cromwell could be fitted with the British all round vision cupola whereas the Centaur never got them.

I think that's it

[Shermaniac]

Hello folks

I've just got the Cromwell and Centaur book by Ian Carter and I'm trying to work out what the differences are between the Centaur and Cromwell Mk VI CS.

The obvious differences I've found are:

Centaur

No hull MG; early wheels with 'drilled' tyres (but I note two preserved examples in France don't have them); sighting box on turret.

Cromwell Mk VI CS

Hull MG; later wheels with solid tyres; no sighting box on turret; spare wheels often mounted on turret rear.

I expect they're other differences, but I can't spot them. Can anybody help?

Thanks

Stewart

The No Hull MG was a characteristic specific to the Centaur 95 CS, ordinary Centaur Gun Tanks (not used in anger) had the Hull MG

SleeperService pretty much nailed the major elements of any note.

[SleeperService]

The No Hull MG was a characteristic specific to the Centaur 95 CS, ordinary Centaur Gun Tanks (not used in anger) had the Hull MG

SleeperService pretty much nailed the major elements of any note.

Not quite my Sherman specialist friend. The hull mg was removed on the early hull vehicles with the roof hatches for driver AND hull gunner. The crew was reduced to 4 as the hull gunners position was a death trap if the turret obstructed the roof hatches, which it did over about 320 deg of the traverse. The hull gunners other way out was through the drivers hatch after negotiating the part bulkhead between them, or the floor escape hatch behind the drivers seat. This applied to all gun tanks. A rare case of common sense.

The Centaur ARV wasn't affected and the OP vehicle had a charging set and other equipment in the hull gunners position.

[Stuart Wilson]

I suspect that most Cromwell VI had the "D" or later style hulls. Accurate Armour has a conversion. They may have had the "Vauxhall" hatch too (I think AA do one of these too).

Stuart

[3DStewart]

Thanks for your help.

One more question: was the "D" hull used on the Cromwell IV?

Stewart

[Centaur95]

The Cromwell MkIV designation seems to have been used to denote Centaurs that had been built with Meteor engines (and therefore designated as Cromwells). As such, I think most had the 'C' hulls (per the Tamiya and Revell kits in various scales).

Centaurs were built to a slightly different technical specification to Cromwells (less powerful springs in the Christie suspension, internal track adjusters and a couple of other minor bits and bobs) but were largely identical externally to Cromwells.

You'll occasionally see notes to suggest that Centaurs didn't have the raised air louvres on the rear deck and that this is how to recognise them - unfortunately companies like English Electric and Harland & Wolf built their Centaurs with the raised louvres (and then started fitting Meteor engines)!

It is unlikely that any Centaurs were re-engined after manufacture - they either left the factory with Liberty engines or left the factory with Meteor engines.

D and E hulls were almost the same visually - the fitting of the one-piece 'Vauxhall' hatch was probably unique to the welded Mk V Cromwells (approx 100 built?).

By June 44, the F hull was entering service, which negated the need for expedient hatch designs (of which there were a couple) seen on earlier hull types.

Hope that helps?

Cheers,

Centaur

[SleeperService]

It is unlikely that any Centaurs were re-engined after manufacture - they either left the factory with Liberty engines or left the factory with Meteor engines.

I agree with this completely Centaur. I have found mention of a party from Clan Foundry going to Rover to inspect an engine swop on an unidentified Centaur. In the rest of the Rolls Royce documentation I found no reference to a widespread re-engine programme and concur with others who suggest that designations were created but no vehicles were allocated it. Much the same thing happened with Fireflies.....

[JackG]

Are these the two plugs associated with track tension on the centaur as indicated by the red arrows?

 

 

[bigfoot]

It’s the covers for the early track tensioners. Some centaurs had both the layer track tensioners (hockey stick) but still retained the early covers.

[JackG]

3 hours ago, bigfoot said:

It’s the covers for the early track tensioners. Some centaurs had both the layer track tensioners (hockey stick) but still retained the early covers.

 

I take it  early covers and plugs are the same thing - so that is a yes regarding the photo I had posted - thanks!

[JackG]

Alright so any guess to the outer diameter of those early track tensions covers?

 

Also what about length and width for those heavy bolts for the added armour?

 

 . .. and how maximum height of the turret at the rear - I think the diagram below is showing 725mm ?

 

[Kingsman]

On 4/4/2014 at 9:24 PM, fatfingers said:

The Centaur had the Liberty engine and the Cromwell had the Meteor engine. Some Centaurs that were re-fitted with RR Metoers were renamed 'Cromwell IV's'

Sadly, untrue.  But a commonly-held myth.  No Centaurs were ever converted to Cromwells.  The Cromwell V and X conversions of Centaurs were prototyped but not taken forward.  The Final Specification for Battle Cromwell set in January '44 made Centaur conversions impractical

 

However, many tanks contracted as Centaurs were production-built as Cromwells as manufacturers switched from Centaurs to Cromwells.  This is probably the source of the confusion.  Cromwell IVs - the majority variant - were originally contracted as Centaur IIIs.

 

Many more Cromwell VI were built than the contracted numbers suggest.  English Electric, for example, were contracted for about 170 Cromwell I but switched to the VI after only 48-40 Is were built.  They were then contracted for more VIs, and this is the number usually quoted.  It has been suggested that Fowlers completed some Centuar IV as Cromwell VI, but with the additional numbers of EE VIs there is no space in the final numbers for this.

 

I presume we are talking here about the external differences for modelling, rather than the engineering differences - many of which were invisible, like the number of dampers.  A Cromwell VI in NW Europe will look like this:

• Type D hull (which neither Tamiya or Airfix have got right) with....
• Flat-top front fenders and 3 fender stowage boxes
• OR
• Type F hull (Accurate Armour) with....
• 2 fender + 2 turret stowage boxes and
• (probably) wider 15.5" tracks
•  
• "Hockey Stick" track tensioning
• Hull MG
• No dial sight box (The Centaur IV was intended for indirect fire as SP artillery whereas the Cromwell VI was intended for direct fire)
• Solid roadwheel tyres

The number of Type F hulls is uncertain, but definitely a small minority.

 

Your only excuse for a Centaur IV is RMASG, although some survivors - they lost a lot - were passed on to Free French and Canadian units.  They were more of a mixed bunch of build standards including Type C hulls with sloping front fenders and worm drive track tensioning as well as Type Ds.  They all had the dial sight and the perforated roadwheel tyres and no hull MG.  Plus rear hull fittings for Porpoise.

[sandsmodels]

sounds like unless you are an expert, no one will notice the difference between the 2.

i think sometimes we forget what this modeling lark is all about and we are being too fussy.

similar to the classic car world, with, 'you got the wrong tyres, or wrong colour, or too many accessories ect'

just get on and build you model and ignore the criticisms, i do! 

[Graham Boak]

Its a sad approach to the world when advice is taken as criticism, and then automatically rejected.  This modelling lark isn't necessarily just playing with toys, though generally having about as much relevance to the real world.  The classic car world isn't just a "car" world- the key is the "classic", and many if not most participants are searching for the same authenticity as many modellers.  It may be necessary to accept something close, but its better to get it closer.  Look how many modellers are making kits as some kind of tribute to their direct ancestors or those they consider worthy individuals, or some key event in their own lives.  In these cases a Spitfire with the wrong combat codes just doesn't cut the mustard.

[Bullbasket]

1 hour ago, sandsmodels said:

sounds like unless you are an expert, no one will notice the difference between the 2.

i think sometimes we forget what this modeling lark is all about and we are being too fussy.

similar to the classic car world, with, 'you got the wrong tyres, or wrong colour, or too many accessories ect'

just get on and build you model and ignore the criticisms, i do! 

I'm far from being an expert, but I can tell the difference between a Centaur and a Cromwell Mk.Vl, mainly because I take an interest in what I am building.

I know that this is off topic, and for that, I apologise, but many people approach model building in different ways.. Me, I like to get it right. If that's not for you, then that's fine. Each to his own.

 

John.

[JackG]

Interesting responses, so thanks for those.

 

I am interested in building a Centaur representing  one of the dozen that were  passed on to be manned by Canadian crews.   As luck would have it, there is a diary page of four WD numbers of the remaining vehicles when the 1st Canadian Centaur Battery was disbanded - but of course, none of them match the well known period photos.  

 

 

 

 

[Kingsman]

Well those were all ex RMASG tanks.  The likelihood is that they were Fowler built.

 

So you only have 1 question that matters.  Were they Type C or Type D hulls?  For Type D the Tamiya kit works although the engine deck hatch layout is not quite right. If that level of accuracy is important. Most likely had the hockey stick idler adjustment.  For Type C the Tamiya kit can be adapted.  The engine deck is still slightly wrong but nearer being right.  You will need to alter the front fenders to the sloping type and might need to alter the driver's hatch.  Use the worm type idler adjustment.

 

For ease I would go with Type D and the Tamiya kit for least work.

[JackG]

Darn my frugal spending funneled me into ordering an Airfix boxing and from Amazon no less - only cheaper than other low priced vendors because of the free shipping. 

 

Anyhow, plan is to have neither front nor rear section of fenders, so that takes care of that particular detail.   Will have to further research the hull types ... nice graphic presented here but not ideal for taking measurements.  Have read elsewhere too that the  Airfix hull deck is about 2mm short while turret height is short by about 1mm.

 

 

 

 

 

[JackG]

Vidette T185102 appears to have a C type hull?   T185077  and  T185107 from the Canadian diary are close so - but I know, must stop before drawing conclusions . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kingsman]

One thing the hull diagram fails to show is that the majority of Type C hulls had the sloping front fenders as per Types A and B.  Only the last few Type Cs had the flat-top fenders from the Type D.  They also seem to show an angled rear hull behind the rear vent which is not correct.  More reminiscent of the earlier A24 Cavalier.

 

Vidette is a Type C hull but a late one as it has the flat-top front fenders.  The rear vent has been covered by a curved plate added in preservation.  T185107 is likely to be the same.  T185077 had the sloping fenders based on the fact that T185084 Achilles and T185096 Assegai still did.  T185075 Seawolf (also preserved) and T185071 did also. So we can extrapolate that the fender change came somewhere between T185096 and T185102.

 

If you choose to model T185107 then your Airfix kit works, subject to correcting the engine deck.  You will need to change the wheels for the perforated type and add the dial sight box.  And possibly change the driver's hatch, depending what the kit provides.  If the kit doesn't provide the hull MG blanking plate you will need to fabricate that: a round disc with a flat bottom.  The ones used on Centaur IVs were bolted on whereas some others, AA and Dozer, were fitted with flush screws.

 

If you have a 3D printer or know someone who does there is an STL file for the dial sight box.  But it is a fairly simple scratchbuild.  For my RMASG Sherman I used 3mm square rod with the edges chamfered and the sight hole drilled, a plastic card top and some tube to fit the periscope socket. 10 minutes' work.

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/1-35-rmasg-centaur-cs-dial-sight

 

Wheels are available in resin from Accurate Armour for £18 (A046). https://accurate-armour.com/aa-products/135th-accessories/a046. 

T Rex Studio do them too in 3D print but these will be a lot harder to find and more expensive.

 

AFAIK the turret markings were retained on the Centaurs transferred to Canadian and Free French forces.  For decals I can recommend the Star version rather than Peddinghaus.  The latter comes on a single film needing a lot of trimming and the film is quite thick.  And of course these Centaurs were most definitely still painted SCC2 brown, not SCC15.

[JackG]

Thanks for the heads up about the sloping fenders, linked photo shows it clearly . . .

 

 

My ordered kit should arrive this week, but on the pdf instructions looks like the hull MG blanking plate is part D51.   Should be in both kits as they are the same plastic with just different instructions and decals.   There are also a pair of brackets D47 & D48 which look exactly what is needed for towing the porpoise sled.   Driver hatch looks to be basically correct in terms of be split off center.

 

Have seen the wheel set offered by T-REX and can actually be found a bit cheaper - I think this may be because they only provide the outside wheels which have to be paired with inner wheels provided by the base kit.   Which leads to another question, how similar are the diameters of the wheels between Airfix and Tamiya since the T-REX product was designed to fit the latter?   Also the holes in the drive sprocket are narrow and tear shaped, is this correct for the  RMASG Centaurs?

 

Rear deck again seems to be combined C and D styles if I have read correctly the reviews.  Have yet to come across an actual technical drawing done to scale.  

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by JackG

[Kingsman]

Interesting.  T Rex clearly haven't twigged that the inner wheels were perforated too.  Although it is hard to notice.  No idea about diameters.  They are shown on the Tamiya kit, judging by the green plastic.

 

Counting Heads says that Cromwells used sprockets with both teardrop and ovoid holes although the latter was by far the majority.  I cannot finds a single picture anywhere of a Centaur or the earlier Cavalier with the teardrop holes.  This may have been a manufacturer variance.  Pity: those are nice pieces.  It may have been unique to BRCW, who did not build any Centaurs.  Picking out BRCW Cromwells is difficult unless you can find a welded one, which were all BRCW (the 1 EE and 2 Vauxhall welded tanks used BRCW hulls).  The Cromwell IC at the RAAC Museum Puckapunyal is a BRCW tank by serial number and that has the teardrop holes.  And the A30 Challenger and Avenger both had the teardrop holes and both were only built by BRCW.  So it seems that T Rex have chosen a very minority configuration as BRCW only built 256 riveted Cromwells out of 2,212.

 

As for engine decks, your hull type diagram above seems to be taken from Tank Power 373 on the Cromwell.  A very good reference.  They also publish 367 on the Centaur and Cavalier and 483 Cromwell part II.  Collectively they are probably the best current references on the A27 with about 6 times more pages between them than the Ian Carter book including many scale drawings, interior sketches etc.

 

Here is the Type A-C engine deck layout.

 

And here is Types D-F.

 

Centaur IV with Type D hull.  Although this one still has the worm drive idler adjustment: note the round covers outboard of the headlamps and no hockey stick tool along the right side of the engine deck.