antarmike Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Cent and Conqureor ARV's side by side at Duxford, which is your favourite, which is best, lets hear some pinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 9, 2008 Author Share Posted November 9, 2008 I find it interesting how the 15 ton heavier, and wider Conqueror has a much lower profile than the Cent. When you could be coming under fire recovering a tank from the battle field, this is one big plus for the Conk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Cent "looks" to have better weight distribution across the tracks though so less chance of bogging down...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Cent "looks" to have better weight distribution across the tracks though so less chance of bogging down...... Can't agree with you there Neil. Conqueror tracks look wider although more open being without pads. It's also got more road wheels to spread the load along the track. Conqueror definately looks better! As Mike said lower profile. Also meaner looking tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Can't agree with you there Neil. Conqueror tracks look wider although more open being without pads. It's also got more road wheels to spread the load along the track. Conqueror definately looks better! As Mike said lower profile. Also meaner looking tracks. Just my thoughts - but the Cent track pattern is large squares close together vs the Conq's narrow ridges further apart - I always was led to believe it was more the surface area of the track in contact with the ground, than the number of road wheels that spread out the load??? Look at the width of a Soviet JS-3 MBT - same era as the Cent and Conq and, IIRC, the same no of road wheels as a Cent?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) The Conq does make a lovely noise when running... That said, I understand that the Cent was far more useable and transportable than the Conq, which makes the Cent a far better vehicle for the job. Edited November 9, 2008 by Lauren Child typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Just my thoughts - but the Cent track pattern is large squares close together vs the Conq's narrow ridges further apart - I always was led to believe it was more the surface area of the track in contact with the ground, than the number of road wheels that spread out the load??? Look at the width of a Soviet JS-3 MBT - same era as the Cent and Conq and, IIRC, the same no of road wheels as a Cent?? That is all assuming that the tank is standing on a hard surface, but when on soft ground the whole area of track will bear the weight. The rubber pads on the Cent are for road work and are a later addition. From memory, tracked vehicles are designed to have a ground pressure of approx 11 pounds per square inch, no matter what weight or size of the vehicle, so more weight, then longer and / or wider tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Thanks for the clarification Richard!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 (edited) As an ARV, Conqueror with its 45 ton directly driven winch was probably the best available, Cent having to make do with a Bedford powered 18 ton winch (mk1) or a Rolls B81 powered 30 ton petrol/electric winch (mk2). In many cases this would enable a Conq to use a staight pull where a Cent would be wasting time setting up a 2:1 pull. However it was large and heavy, making it difficult to transport and heavy on fuel. Quite why we were designing FVs powered by petrol engines in the '50s after the lessons learned in WW2 is totally beyond me. Edited November 12, 2008 by radiomike7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 CVR(T) in the 1970s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 CVR(T) in the 1970s? Another good example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Quite why we were designing FVs powered by petrol engines in the '50s after the lessons learned in WW2 is totally beyond me. What lessons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 11, 2008 Author Share Posted November 11, 2008 Centurian better B.H.P. per ton so nippier all round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Centurian better B.H.P. per ton so nippier all round Mike, I don't think there is much in it, although I would be the first to admit that the Conk always seems to be a lumbering giant when displayed. Cent MBT 650bhp/51tons = 12.74bhp/ton Conk MBT 810bhp/65tons = 12.46bhp/ton Cent ARV 650bhp/45tons =14.44bhp/ton Conk ARV 810bhp/57tons =14.21bhp/ton I have averaged the weight/power from several sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 What lessons? Fire risk, fuel evaporation and vapour locks when hot, danger when re-fuelling, poor economy, ignition system fails when damp, radio interference from HT, torque curve unsuited for heavy vehicle use, generally less reliable than a good diesel, just to mention a few, and probably why we finally saw sense and opted for diesel as the standard fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Fire risk, fuel evaporation and vapour locks when hot, danger when re-fuelling, poor economy, ignition system fails when damp, radio interference from HT, torque curve unsuited for heavy vehicle use, generally less reliable than a good diesel, just to mention a few, and probably why we finally saw sense and opted for diesel as the standard fuel. It is easy to say this now in hindsight, but go back to the 1950's and look at diesel engines then, they were relatively low speed, lacking in acceleration, bulky, heavy, smoky, low power to weight ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) It is easy to say this now in hindsight, but go back to the 1950's and look at diesel engines then, they were relatively low speed, lacking in acceleration, bulky, heavy, smoky, low power to weight ratio. Go back even further to 1941 and the Russians were capable of mass producing the T-34 with 500bhp @ 1800rpm from a V12 diesel. I gather it was quite a success, even driven by girlies: "Arguably no tank in the history of warfare has come as a greater shock to the enemy, nor inflicted more terror, than did the T-34 when it appeared on the Russian front in the summer of 1941" Going by L60 and K60 in Chieftain/432, being smokey was a Ministry requirement, although I will concede that they were intended for multi-fuel use. Edited November 12, 2008 by radiomike7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 It is easy to say this now in hindsight, but go back to the 1950's and look at diesel engines then, they were relatively low speed, lacking in acceleration, bulky, heavy, smoky, low power to weight ratio. Quite and I don't think many of those lessons were learnt in WWII. Many of the faults radiomike lists are much more apparent in a low use, peacetime army than they were in wartime, intensive use. A petrol engine may be generally less reliable than a good diesel but you have to have a good diesel (in that there is less to go wrong) to start with and it took a while to get one of those in a heavy British tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 It is easy to say this now in hindsight, but go back to the 1950's and look at diesel engines then, they were relatively low speed, lacking in acceleration, bulky, heavy, smoky, low power to weight ratio. Some of what you say is true but Cummins had been racing diesel engines since 1931. Not quite the same needs as for military use but turbo and superchargers were not uncommon. If the military had decided to go with diesel engines earlier and particularly during the war it would no doubt have driven a leap forward in diesel performance. As it was diesel engines were somewhat neglected in large vehicles and the likes of Sentinel continued to sell steam engined waggons into the 1950's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 All this petrol / diesel Centurion talk keeps reminding me of a passage we kept encountering on the Civil Service Linguist (Army) German course. ISTR it was a recording in German for a dictation / translation test. It kept whittering on about a unit (size not specified: ISTR the word was Einheit, translating exactly as unit) of Centurion tanks sat idling and burning a lot (it was specified but the value is now forgotten) of petrol. Among other things. Slightly off-topic, but ... It reminds me of a pic I found yesterday on our regimental Facebook group of one of my former comrades aboard a Saladin of the Cyprus Armoured Car Squadron in the 1980s after I had left. He joked that Ordnance did not believe any Saladins were still in service and they had to take a picture of themselves in front of a Saladin with a current newspaper with date visible before Ordnance would release spare parts to them. Good job the Commies (or the Turks) weren't coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcspool Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Go back even further to 1941 and the Russians were capable of mass producing the T-34 with 500bhp @ 1800rpm from a V12 diesel. I gather it was quite a success, even driven by girlies: "Arguably no tank in the history of warfare has come as a greater shock to the enemy, nor inflicted more terror, than did the T-34 when it appeared on the Russian front in the summer of 1941" And it was the very same tank which elicited the following reply from German industry after they were asked to manufacture a copy: "No we can not", was the answer. "It would not pass our quality inspection". H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 And it was the very same tank which elicited the following reply from German industry after they were asked to manufacture a copy: "No we can not", was the answer. "It would not pass our quality inspection". H. That would probably apply for quite a lot of the allied vehicles. Whilst the Germans tended to over engineer complex machines the allies philosophy was for a greater volume of mass produced vehicles and eventually won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Reminds me of a quote by a German anti-tank gunner on one of the History Channel prgorams - he said they ran out of shells for their guns - but the Allies never ran out of Shermans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 19, 2008 Author Share Posted November 19, 2008 No-one has said the best ARV is the one that isn't here, "Cheiftan"..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Elsdon Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Croc and i were discussing the Cent ARV earlier, somebody we know has one, but is having problems (By the way it is one mother of a machine!) Correct me if i am wrong but this is how i think it is powered, it has the V12 Meteor for main drive, a RR B80 for powering the winch mechanism, and a Morris engine (not sure what engine it is) for running the generator etc. Would i be correct in thinking the morris donkey engine should be running all the time, providing power and heating up the coolant, and does the coolant system have a heat exchanger for heating the transmission oil? Just the one we have seen only runs its V12, and its all a bit pop bang and judder when it moves. P.S. if the competition for best tank relied on its name, i think the Conqueror clearly wins, particularly against Challenger, sounds a bit limp in comparison! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.