Canada keep Centurion tank into the 1980s

While range would suggest HESH from everything I have read it was a DU round!

According to Smudge 65 off of ARSSE who was the gunner......

"There seems to be some confusion about what happened and what shot etc. the range was just over 5100m. we had finished moving forward and had gone firm. i was scanning the horizon when picked up what i thought to be T62's across the valley. we had been shooting at whatever targets presented. i lased the target and was surprised by the range that came back, we started talking about having a go at the target amongst ourselves and The Colonel ok'ed the shot. it was a normal fin round, and after lasing again i fine laid the elipse onto the target and fired. it was central hit just below the turret, as to whether the target was manned, i don't know.
however the shot i was really proud of is mentioned by Mad Pierre by mistake,which was a T62 mover reversing up and out of a hull down position at about 1500m, and was hit with a HESH first round through the top of the turret, again fine laid without autolay, never did like it much. hope this helps. i was always a lucky gunner."

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/th...about-that-famous-long-range-cr1-shot.155024/
 
Last edited:
Just imagine if the Canadian Army had bough more Centurions. Considering we are only now just phasing out the Leopard 1s for Leopard 2s I can picture The Canadian forces in Afghanistan in the 21st century deploying tanks that had their chassis originally designed in 1946!

Does the Canadian Army really need MORE antiquated equipment on the front lines?
 
American-built M-60 tanks were definitely on the Canadian Army's "short-list" because plenty of Canadian soldiers had been exposed to them during cross-border exercises in the USA.
However, we saw the Leopard purchase as a political purchase because the USA ad Canadian military-industrial complex had been closely inter-connected since WW2.
The Leopard purchase was a political decision made way above the pay-grade of Canadian Army generals. The decision was made above the level of parliament. The decision was made by Cabinet: specifically the minister of foreign affairs and various European ambassadors.
By the 1970s, Canada's military spending and specifically: NATO commitments had been neglected for so long than that the EEC told PM Trudeau to "buy European" or forget about trading with the EEC.
IOW Trudeau bought German tanks to buy a key to European markets. Canadian soldiers were "priority last" in that purchase. Fortunately, Leopard 1 was one of the better tanks available during the 1970s.

I also suspect that the Canadian Army did not buy tanks with 120 mm guns (American M1 Abrams, British Chieftans/Challenger or German Leopard 2) because bigger guns require larger safety zones at gunnery ranges.
Even back during the 1970s, Canadian natives (Indians) were saying "we want our land back" (e.g. Me afore tank range in Ontario).
 
Modern tanks in service today have better armour, far more power and endurance and vastly better weapon systems than a 1945 Centurion. However, were the Centurion fleet rolled through a continuous programme of updates, then by now all of these would have been addressed. Even if one were still using the Centurion core all you are still using of 1945 is a big steel box, and a smaller steel rotating box on top. Everything else will have changed (although the 105mm gun has some legs left in it). Even if the suspension system were as per Centurion they would have been replaced through sheer wear and modified to cope with higher weights. Really it would be an early 21st century tank that avoids the cost and investment in major castings and steel slab welding. Just look at the Oilfant 2 and compare South African industry and investment potential with Canada.

It is only now that one can begin the development of radical changes such as hybrid drives, automatic CVT, remote crewing, intelligent rounds, 3D virtual vision, continuous 360 degree targeting to just start a list and Canada would be in a position to make these mid 21st century tanks that could be inservice for the rest of the century. Or take another option and meld the anti armour capability of a MBT with the modern APC for a true main battle IFV with high velocity small bore gunnery. The point is that expense made back in the 1970's would be a net earner today whereas, today, Canada has to spend again on a MBT fleet.
 
As an aside I regularly see an expression of disgust that certain weapons are purchased for 'political' reasons, the inference being that fighting men and women are being sold up the river to their deaths by sticky fingered politicians foisting shit equipment onto them. But which of the M60A1, AMX30, Leo 1A3 and Chieftain could be classed as 'shit'? Similarly which of the Mirage III, F104, Lightning, F5E and F4 could be considered 'shit'?

Are some doctrinal changes a price worth paying for gaining a number of Alliance benefits? Or to use a more recent example in another country, is the defence of Australia better served by shutting down the Thales munitions factories in Australia and relying solely on imports so the Army can get the Blackhawk rather than the MRH90?
 
As an aside I regularly see an expression of disgust that certain weapons are purchased for 'political' reasons, the inference being that fighting men and women are being sold up the river to their deaths by sticky fingered politicians foisting shit equipment onto them. But which of the M60A1, AMX30, Leo 1A3 and Chieftain could be classed as 'shit'? Similarly which of the Mirage III, F104, Lightning, F5E and F4 could be considered 'shit'?

Are some doctrinal changes a price worth paying for gaining a number of Alliance benefits? Or to use a more recent example in another country, is the defence of Australia better served by shutting down the Thales munitions factories in Australia and relying solely on imports so the Army can get the Blackhawk rather than the MRH90?

Is maintaining your own industrial base worth it to wait longer for something and/or pay more and maybe even take something not quite as good. I've heard American fighter pilots complain that the "buy American" bit from Congress meant we couldn't get helmet mounted sites and Python IVs from the Israelis sooner which are better than the US made JHMCS and AIM-9X. I don't know what the right answer is.

Speaking of these types of decisions - why did Australia chose the Super Hornet over a late model Strike Eagle like the ROKs and the Sings are getting? Is it just because Australia has experience with the Baby Hornets?
 
The decision in Australia in recent years has been yes, it is worth it. The government has been very upfront about the 30% premium we pay to build warships here, but that the whole of government benefits outweigh the cash price. I had a RAN (actually RN long term exchange) MRH90 pilot tell me that the Army should just 'get over it' about the Blackhawk, and I tend to agree with him.

As for the super hornet, it is a semi-stealth gen 4.5 platform unlike the late model Strike Eagle. Australia also had big and mature support organisations for the Classic Hornet which were leveraged for the Super, both in Australia and in the US FMS system, that didn't exist with the USAF FMS system or in the DMO at this end and would have to be created from scratch. Added to this is the parts commonality between the platforms, which is minor but worth mentioning.
 
I understand the semi-stealth bit but a late model Strike Eagle with AESA radar, JHMCS, AIM-9X, and the latest EW suite is still a pretty bad machine and it has longer range, heavier warload, and most certainly greater speed than the Super Hornet. Plus from a logistics standpoint the only other user of the Super Hornet is the USN whereas in the Asia-Pacific region you have the ROKs, the Sings, the JASDF, and USAF all flying some species of the Eagle so from a life cycle support standpoint you're in pretty good shape. IMWO RAAF would have been better off with the Eagle but they had their reasons.
 
The RAAF had the probe and drogue 707 tankers when the Super Hornet was purchased, which could refuel the SH but not the F15E, which is another feather in the SH's cap.

SthK had a significant offset agreement with their F15K, was the same offset available with the F18E/F? Similarly Singapore got the APG63v3 on it's F15SGs rather than the SH APG79 derived APG82 in USAF F15Es, given this restriction on the F15 what restrictions were placed on the F18F version that was offered? I'm guessing such restrictions or lack thereof impact on these decisions, is a full bottle F18F offered to Australia better than a full bottle F15E, probably. Is a degraded F15SG better than a more degraded F18FS, probably. Is major industrial offsets but a slightly worse F15K better than no offsets on an F18F, probably.
 
As an aside I regularly see an expression of disgust that certain weapons are purchased for 'political' reasons, the inference being that fighting men and women are being sold up the river to their deaths by sticky fingered politicians foisting shit equipment onto them. But which of the M60A1, AMX30, Leo 1A3 and Chieftain could be classed as 'shit'? Similarly which of the Mirage III, F104, Lightning, F5E and F4 could be considered 'shit'?

Are some doctrinal changes a price worth paying for gaining a number of Alliance benefits? Or to use a more recent example in another country, is the defence of Australia better served by shutting down the Thales munitions factories in Australia and relying solely on imports so the Army can get the Blackhawk rather than the MRH90?

Well considering the F104's nickname in the Luftwaffe was Erdnagel (ground pin) from it's habit of crashing I would argue that sometimes political reasons end up with operators being sold up the river. Other times (Leo, F4) there aren't such negative consequences. Either way while military utility shouldn't be the only factor, logical ease and wider foreign policy does matter it utility should be the main factor.
 
Well considering the F104's nickname in the Luftwaffe was Erdnagel (ground pin) from it's habit of crashing I would argue that sometimes political reasons end up with operators being sold up the river. Other times (Leo, F4) there aren't such negative consequences. Either way while military utility shouldn't be the only factor, logical ease and wider foreign policy does matter it utility should be the main factor.

National defense and deterrence is more than the paper specs of an aircraft or tank fleet. western jet aircraft have routinely achieved 90% availability in wartime compared to 50% for Soviet/Russian combat aircraft. In action this results in the British harrier fleet of never more 25 aircraft flying more sorties than Argentinas close to 90 jet aircraft.

It's better to be able to fly somewhat inferior aircraft flat out than have a lot of higher spec aircraft on the ground because local industry wasn't fostered or the education level of the society can't provide enough people suitable to be aviation techos.
 
National defense and deterrence is more than the paper specs of an aircraft or tank fleet. western jet aircraft have routinely achieved 90% availability in wartime compared to 50% for Soviet/Russian combat aircraft. In action this results in the British harrier fleet of never more 25 aircraft flying more sorties than Argentinas close to 90 jet aircraft.

It's better to be able to fly somewhat inferior aircraft flat out than have a lot of higher spec aircraft on the ground because local industry wasn't fostered or the education level of the society can't provide enough people suitable to be aviation techos.

I couldn't agree more and generally agree with your point that paper specs while important shouldn't be the only factor. Logistics matter a hell of a lot because a Hawker Hunter in the air is better than a F22 on the Tarmac. A point which incidentally also applies to cutting edge vapourware like XF-108 which even if built would probably have been hanger queens. But sometimes politics does foist substandard and frankly dangerous pieces of equipment onto troops who then pay a price in lives, the F104 is the perfect example of this.
 
was the f104 particularly substandard compared to the Mirage and other contemporary aircraft? RAAF Mirage had a nasty habit of crashing as did Marine Harriers.
 
Top