Centaur questions

[bigfoot]

I’ve just started building a RMASG centaur in a group build but I need answers to some detail questions.

 

1) when did the sloped track guards change to the curved ones? Was it related to a specific change in hull type (possibly C to D) or were the track guards associated with different manufacturers?

 

2) would the smoke candles have been removed for landing or would they have been waterproofed?

 

3) was the switch from internal to external track tension system again associate with a change in hull type? One answer I’ve seen suggests the types were dependant on who built them.

 

4) what are the two bits marked in this picture? The bit on the turret appears to be some type of aiming stake/device but I’ve not seen it on any other RMASG centaurs. The rear parts are provided in the Aber wading trunks set (parts 5) but I can’t figure out what they were used for. Not seen on all centaurs again but I’m sure I’ve seen a clearer picture but I can’t find it at this time.

 

 

 

5) how was the bottom of the rear intake sealed? Was the internal fording flap just used or was it canvased over?

 

6) it’s pretty certain the centaurs were all in SCC2 but pictures of Hunter show darker paint around the hull markings. This isn’t sealant as not in the right places. Could it be SCC15 painted before the markings were added?

 

 

I hope @Kingsman may have answers to some of these questions, but any insight would be useful.

[John Tapsell]

The change of track tensioning is strictly speaking a difference between Centaurs and Cromwells (and therefore also determined by manufacturer, since the two types were in theory built under different contracts). However, a lot of Centaur hulls were completed as Cromwells and therefore retained the internal track tensioning (they also retained a slightly lower-rated suspension appropriate for the lighter Liberty engine, even though they were fitted with the heavier Meteor). English Electric for example, was contracted to build several hundred Centaurs (no mention of Cromwells) but only completed around 120(?) of the order as Centaurs before EE decided to fit the rest with Meteor engines and therefore complete them as Cromwells by default. The EE 'War Diary' (published post-war) claims that this decision was taken by EE but I can't see how they would suddenly be able to access large numbers of Meteor engines without authorisation or instructions from the War Office or Ministry of Supply - the supply of components and raw materials was highly regulated during the war. It smacks of a degree of 'spin' on their war efforts.

 

I suspect the smoke candles may have been removed - AFV crews were responsible for waterproofing their own vehicles using issued kits and instructions (and testing them in local rivers or lakes) so anything that wasn't absolutely vital was probably removed rather than being 'proofed.

 

Not sure about the sloped fender timeline but they were seen on both early Centaurs and Cromwells.

 

Can't help with the markings question or the brackets on the engine deck.

 

 

[Kingsman]

Questions, questions.........

 

Firstly I think your engine deck brackets in the picture are in fact something stowed on the engine deck, but I have no idea what.  RMASG tanks did not have engine deck brackets for anything.  They were not intended to need extensive stowage and this is the most extensively-stowed one I've seen.  So forget those.  Very few went far inland and even fewer engaged in direct combat, Hunter being one of those few.  Most that survived the initial assault - and the last didn't arrive until D+3 - met up with their parent field artillery battery and acted as SP artillery as planned.   They were never intended to act as tanks in direct close support, something later reports criticised.  Some never fired at all. None fired from their LCTs as foreseen.

 

I would have gone for the Accurate Armour wading kit, not the Aber - which appears to have fittings never seen on RMASG Centaurs.  I suspect that Aber may be confused with Cromwell VIs in service later in WW2.  But I've never seen anything like that on them either.  They may have seen Centaur IVs in later and longer post-RMASG service with the Canadians or Free French.  I've never knowingly seen photos of either.

 

The flat-top fenders appeared on very late Type C hulls and all Type D/E/F.  RMASG had tanks with both.  The Tamiya engine deck is confused, neither C nor D, and needs some work.

 

With a Type D hull the Cromwell-type idler adjusters would be usual if not universal.  The oval objects that fit behind the idlers: don't use the round bosses on the glacis.  With the Cromwell adjusters you would have the "hockey stick" adjuster tool along the right side of the engine deck.

 

Colour is now generally agreed to be SCC2 as the tanks were built before the SCC15 change.  However the rear and turret wading trunks were SCC15, being produced for Cromwells and after the SCC15 change.  I concluded that the loader's hatch locks had to be removed to fit the hatch trunk.  There is s second plate inside the trunk which appears to hold the hatches open.

 

The rear trunk attached to the exhaust grille surround with clips or wing nuts and wire bracing to a U bracket on the engine deck.  The join would have been covered in sealant.  All the dry rivetted joins on the hull were covered in sealant as they leaked.  Wading Cromwells were internally seam-welded to help seal them, but not the Centaurs: no time.

 

As the commander has a map or plotting board I wonder if this tank is acting as GPO in lieu of a KO'd Sherman OP.  The apparent ranging stake is a mystery, as they need to be in a surveyed static location to work.  There might be one on the other side too.  However I think they are acting in lieu of proper ranging stakes so that an indirect shoot can be fired.  That is possibly what the commander is plotting. I've never seen them before and I have no idea how they were attached.

 

There have been a couple of Centaur builds on this forum recently you might like to look at.  This is from mine.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Kingsman
addition

[bigfoot]

Thanks both for the in depth replies.

 

On 1/15/2023 at 9:58 PM, John Tapsell said:

The change of track tensioning is strictly speaking a difference between Centaurs and Cromwells

I understand this is a common myth. Some of the RMASG centaurs such as Hunter can be seen to have the later external tension system so the external system was present on both.

 

Interestingly the Samur centaur, which looks like it was likely an RMASG one, appears to have the features of both - the external tensioners and also the covers over the internal adjuster on the glacis. I read that some Centaur III's were reworked to bring them up to cromwell final specifcations. Would this have included a change of track tensioning system but retained the access covers of the internal system? Could some of these reworked III's then been converted to Centaur IV's?

 

On 1/15/2023 at 9:58 PM, John Tapsell said:

I suspect the smoke candles may have been removed

This is my thinking as well so I am going with that on my model.

 

17 hours ago, Kingsman said:

I would have gone for the Accurate Armour wading kit

If I had been aware of the accurate armour set before I bought the Aber one I probably would have done. The Aber one is marketed as cromwell as well so you're probably right re the brackets, I will leave it off. The turret wading screen also appears to be wrong as it doesn't have the angled corner but a small cut out to fit around the aerial bracket.

 

17 hours ago, Kingsman said:

The flat-top fenders appeared on very late Type C hulls and all Type D/E/F

Thanks, I know I needed to change the engine deck panels but didn't know which type to go with.

 

17 hours ago, Kingsman said:

Colour is now generally agreed to be SCC2 as the tanks were built before the SCC15 change.  However the rear and turret wading trunks were SCC15, being produced for Cromwells and after the SCC15 change. 

That's what I understood although looking at this picture that appeared on missing lynx recently the wading stacks appear to be the same tone as the hull so could be the same colour?

 

 

I've looked at all the centaur builds on Britmodeller and taken ideas from all. yours is a very nice build. What do you think re the dark paint around the markings on Hunter? Possibly SCC15?

Edited January 17, 2023 by bigfoot

[Kingsman]

@bigfoot The Saumur Centaur does not have Cromwell-style adjusters, only Centaur-style.  Centaur IIIs were not reworked but all Cromwell IVs - the most numerous Mark - were technically Centaur IIIs built with Meteors, so that may be what you saw/read.  There wasn't a lot of reworking for operations once the Final Specification was decided as some of the details could not be re-worked.  400 new builds were commissioned for D Day but some tanks already built met the Final Spec.

 

Centaur IVs were all built as such.  But some were completed as Cromwell VIs along with contracted Cromwell VIs.  The Centaur/Cromwell story is a tangled web.  The only Centaur to Cromwell conversion authorised was the Cromwell X from the Centaur I.  This retained the original 6pdr gun and it seems that none were actually converted.  Centaurs factory built as Cromwells as companies switched over from Liberty to Meteor engines don't count as conversions.

 

The contrast around the Hunter markings suggests black, but I have no idea why it would be so.  I can see the hull MG blanking plate being covered in sealant, and the joins along the hull front plate and around the bolts would have been sealed too.  But that doesn't really explain the pattern seen.  I'd never noticed the patchy appearance on the turret side, about which I also have no idea.

 

As for the rear view colour - that's the last of 2 RMASR arriving on D+3 - I don't know.  Monochrome shows only shade, not colour.  SCC2 was formulated to have a close reflectance to Khaki Green 3 so it could perhaps resemble SCC15.  But the wisdom is that all the wading sets were produced in SCC15 for Cromwells.  The debate about some RMASG tanks being SCC15 has not been definitely settled in many minds.  The few colour images, especially that of Assegai, have been interpreted both ways allowing for the vagaries of colour shifts in the colour film stock of the day.

 

Aber seem to have made a poor job of their set, and I suspect they put it together by reference to kit parts rather than photos.  The angled corner was specifically to clear the antenna base.  The conductive parts of the antenna could not be allowed to contact the coaming as that would cause interference.  If you make the hatch coaming large enough to fit over the moulded hatch locks then it ends up being that big.  I didn't use the AA set but I did use their parts as templates to make mine.  It is clear to me that the hatch locks were removed to make way for the coaming otherwise the geometry simply doesn't work, and there is no purpose for the internal plate. So you will need to shave them off: the objects by the front right and rear left corners of the hatch.

[bigfoot]

18 hours ago, Kingsman said:

 The Saumur Centaur does not have Cromwell-style adjusters, only Centaur-style

Actually, this picture shows quite clearly the Cromwell style adjusters. Other pictures show the worm screw covers as well.

 

 

18 hours ago, Kingsman said:

Centaur IIIs were not reworked but all Cromwell IVs - the most numerous Mark - were technically Centaur IIIs built with Meteors, so that may be what you saw/read. 

The information I read is in the tank power book on the cavalier/centaur. It states about a dozen of the centaur III’s were reworked to final spec, and that centaur IV’s were converted from I’s and III’s. I’ve not seen this information in any of the other Cromwell/centaur books I own so it may not be correct, as you say.

[Kingsman]

You are indeed correct about the adjusters on the Saumur tank and I stand corrected.  Next lesson, enlarge the images more............

 

It does have the cover bosses for the worm adjusters but the square holes in the centre seem to have been welded-over, preventing them being unscrewed.  This suggests that the glacis part(s) arrived on the production line in Centaur configuration with the holes and the easiest thing to do was simply to install the cover bosses to cover the holes.  They may have been welded in place: can't tell.

 

Most of my figures come from the David Fletcher book, and he of course had unrestricted access to the Bovington archive.  Yet there are still gaps in what we know about Cromwells and Centaurs as the records are patchy.

 

According to his figures, there were 233 Centaur IIIs built as such and 114 Centaur IVs - of which RMASG had 80.  Yet there were 250 Centaur III Dozer and 9 Centaur III Taurus conversions plus an unknown number of III OP conversions - at least 259, so where did the others come from?  As the III and IV were the same apart from armament I suspect that some of these "III" conversions were in fact some of the 34 redundant IVs: made no difference to those conversions.  The 97 Centaur III AAs were apparently new-build.

 

From those same figures. a total of 1,935 tanks contracted as Centaur IIIs were built as Cromwell IVs.  So there would be no obvious need to rework another dozen Centaur IIIs but it is not impossible that this might have been done at an RAOC depot on tired training tanks.  The exact split between Final Standard and not doesn't seem to be known.  It is known that all those with Type F hulls were FS.  58 Cromwell IVs were converted into ARVs.

 

A total of 341 Cromwell VI were built, some of which had originally been contracted as Centaur IVs and some of which were FS.  The exact split is again not known.

 

Tank Power may be referring to the Centaur I - Cromwell X conversion.  Or they may be confusing the Cromwell III, which was a Centaur I built with a Meteor and the 75mm gun.  There were 200 of those, but factory-built and not converted.

 

Because of all the various changes between what was contracted and what was built the number of Cromwells varies in different sources.  I make it 2,833 but the numbers vary between 2,497 and 3,066.  A figure of 1,821 Centaurs built as Centaurs seems to be agreed.

 

Are you adequately confused about Cromwells and Centaurs now............?

[bigfoot]

16 hours ago, Kingsman said:

Are you adequately confused about Cromwells and Centaurs now............?

Clear as mud now! 😁

 

Thanks for your fulsome replies as always Peter.