Canada keep Centurion tank into the 1980s

Could Canada have kept its Centurion tanks into the 1980s as their NATO commitment in Germany?

640px-Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG


This means no Leopard Is. There were some pretty good upgrades to the Centurion that could have been copied, including new diesel engines, 105mm L7 gun, reactive armour (available later).

1) Israeli Sho't Kal

Shot_Kal_03.jpg


Olifant Mk1B

olifant_mk1b.jpg
 
Possible.
Canadian Centurions were worn-out and definitely needed a major overhaul by the mid-1970s.
As for what would replace them?
It depends whether Prime Minister Trudeau could set up an overhaul facility in a Liberal riding.
In the end, he decided that buying into the European Economic Community was more important.
IOW other NATO members (Western Europe) told Canada to pull her military weight or forget about trading with Europe. That forced Canada to buy tanks from Germany or Italy. France was building tanks, but had left NATO. Back during the 1970s, Germany was building the best tanks and the Bundeswehr was willing to loan a hundred Leopard 1 tanks to Canada until new-made Leopards rolled off the Krauss-Mafei production line.

I served with the Royal Canadian Dragoons during the last Renta-Panzer exercise: Reforger 1978.
 
Given an early decision and a long term plan, the Centurion could have continued. A plant set up to gradually remake the hull, turret and suspension with new engine, gearbox etc. with follow up programmes to up rate the weapons systems and armour which would eventually feed into a new hull to make use of modern armour. Not an all at once factory that would die from a boom and bust cycle but a more modest plant that would continuously but gradually recycle the hulls through up grades as technology moved on. Politically there seems no real problem with separating it into a chassis site, engine/gearbox supplier and a turret/weapons system site if that helps the politicians carry it through.

The economic question is whether it is cheaper to use taxes to promote export earning industry to earn the foreign exchange to buy foreign tanks or to keep the money in the national economic cycle.

The politicians avoiding the ageing of the Centurion fleet left them with a need to do a quick fix when Canada's european trading partners told her to act and act fast. That was the driver when Germany offered to lend Leopard 1s to bridge the gap.

Had the rebuild programme been thought through thoroughly and early then Canada could have had a significant tank industry rebuilding Centurions for existing users and then buying old ones in and rebuilding them for those with a need for economical tanks. BAE in Britain built a 25 year business on buying up old their own old Hawker Hunters, rebuilding and reselling them. Often the same airframe several times. The Canadian Centurion equivalent could take this further by, eventually, being able to rehull them in more modern armour. It would still be a viable model with all the upgrades and few sudden huge capital demands. Maybe even expand to do the same for other tanks for foreign customers. There were surplus M48s, M60s and Leopard 1s coming onto the market in time. The work was well within the capability of Canadian industry and would build a pool of heavy industry and electronic sensors etc. which would support other growth into these areas. Almost as if Canadair had gone for the Lockheed Orion market with the Argus with continual improvements.
 
Possible.
Canadian Centurions were worn-out and definitely needed a major overhaul by the mid-1970s.
As for what would replace them?
It depends whether Prime Minister Trudeau could set up an overhaul facility in a Liberal riding.
In the end, he decided that buying into the European Economic Community was more important.
IOW other NATO members (Western Europe) told Canada to pull her military weight or forget about trading with Europe. That forced Canada to buy tanks from Germany or Italy. France was building tanks, but had left NATO. Back during the 1970s, Germany was building the best tanks and the Bundeswehr was willing to loan a hundred Leopard 1 tanks to Canada until new-made Leopards rolled off the Krauss-Mafei production line.

I served with the Royal Canadian Dragoons during the last Renta-Panzer exercise: Reforger 1978.

Britain was in the EEC by then and there were some part commonalities between Centurion and Chieftain so was that ever looked at?
 

Nick P

Donor
Given the timescales this is tricky given that the Centurion needed replacing by 1980 at the latest and the Challenger 1 did not enter service until 1983. That said, it is not impossible that the British Army loans 100 Chieftains to the Canadians until the Challenger 1 comes in. I think that the German deal worked because the Canadians were being loaned pretty much the same type as they were looking to buy thus reducing the logistics and training needs.
There is also the fact of the Leopards being bought and used by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Norway. These large numbers and widespread use works well for a NATO based supply chain.
 
The Chieftain is the (superior) equivalent to the Leo I while Chally is best bracketed with the Leo 2. The one down side for the Canadians is while Chieftain is a better armed, better armoured vehicle it's also bigger, heavier, more expensive and less common. Which doesn't make it ideal when you're a continent away from where you intend to base most of your tanks in peacetime and fight in wartime.
 
Did the Canadians consider second hand M-60s from the US as the US went to the M1? I only ask because sometimes buying from your next door neighbor can be a little easier.
 
If an upgraded Centurion was good enough for Canada, doesn't that also mean that it was good for all the other Centurion operators including the British Army?

In that case doesn't the POD have to be that the British Army has to decide to upgrade its existing fleet of Centurions rather than develop a new tank, i.e. Chieftain. Then its likely that many of the armies that bought Leopard 1 to replace their Centurions IOTL would have had their Centurions upgraded instead. Especially if an upgraded Centurion was cheaper than a new Leopard 1.

The problem with that is that they try to fit it with the same multi-fuel engine that the Chieftain and Vickers MBT used.
 
I think the biggest problem with updating the centurion is the risk that once a large amount of money and time and industrial effort is expended the result is shit. The thing about buying a new tank in the 70s is that it will be viable for 25+ years wheras doing up the cent is likely to only be viable for a decade before being overtaken by new tank development.
 

Redbeard

Banned
The Royal Danish Army used Centurions from 1953 and until late 90's - a couple of hundreds at its max. At first as the main tank of the army (alongside M4,M10 and M41). From the mid 70s Leopard 1s replaced the Centurions in the Jutland Division (which was scheduled for deployment in N. Germany along with NATO forces) but Centurions stayed in service on Zealand until late 90s. Both the old 20 pdr. armed versions deployed as tank destroyers at the coastlines and 105mm Centurions in the two Zealand Mechanised Brigades. In my service time in the 80s the TDs were worn out but the 105mm versions were fine and up to date (don't recall the exact modernisation programmes but included night vision and laser rangefinders, still had petrol engines though).

Anyway I would claim that the Centurion in the 1980 still could be a reasonably powerful tank and that a "standardisation" on modernised Centurions in the Canadian, Danish and British Army on the Rhine would be theoretically possible, all forces expected to operate together in NW Europe. The Germans probably still would operate their own, but so did the British in OTL.
 
What was the reason they went for Leopard 1s over Chieftains?

Cost I expect

Chieftain was the best armed and armoured tank in NATO until the M1/M1A1 and Leo2 - and as has been mentioned let down only by its multi fuel engine (a late change to the design) - but I have read that the engine issues were eventually resolved.

Also the British only tend to make what they need - the Germans spammed out lots of Leo1s and Leo2s which is why the Leo2 is such an export success (the Germans had/have lots of them to sell)

So I imagine that the Leo1 was available (particularly after the introduction of the Leo2) in sufficient numbers of up to date hulls while the older Centurion was not - and has been mentioned the Leo1 was compatible with the majority of the NATO forces ie ammo and spares - while the Chieftain with its 120mm main gun was not.
 
When Australia looked at the leo 1 and m 60 in 1973 the leo was considerably more expensive. We bought it against the advice of the army, for 'whole of government' reasons.
 
Exactly my point Redbeard. The age of the Canadian Centurion fleet was an opportunity not a cost. Add in the Dutch and Swedish Centurions and there is a market of hundreds of tanks to be modernised. Not to mention buying surplus Centurions from users not wanting to upgrade. There were at least 4,000 Centurions about the world at time. The South African Olifant shows us what can be done. By the 21st century pretty well all the Centurion is providing is the heaviest engineering items. The hull, turret and gun. Had Canada gone ahead with a rebuild factory it would still be in production.
 
Challenger failed miserably in tournaments in Canada in the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy
That's partially because the British Army sent crews that were experienced in the Chieftain, then gave them Challengers just before the competition without training on the new equipment. Once they started sending crews who'd been trained on the Challenger, performance improved considerably. It always had accuracy issues, something to do with the design of the mount IIRC, but not as bad as often claimed.
 
That's partially because the British Army sent crews that were experienced in the Chieftain, then gave them Challengers just before the competition without training on the new equipment. Once they started sending crews who'd been trained on the Challenger, performance improved considerably. It always had accuracy issues, something to do with the design of the mount IIRC, but not as bad as often claimed.

Given that Challi 1 holds the record for longest range tank kill I'd say so!

(Stationary t62 with a DU round at 5110 meters)
 
I thought it was HESH not DU - the range would certainly suggest that it was a chemical rather than kinetic penetrator!
 
Top