Jump to content

Centurion vs the Leopard 1


Colin

Recommended Posts

So been mulling over Canada's conversion to the Leopard 1 from their old Centurions and wondered if an upgrade of our Centurions to the Strv.104 standard would have produced a better tank than the Leopard 1's (Circa 1978). I not sure how the FCS at the time compared, The Leopard 1 would be faster for sure. I agree that the cost and time of the upgrade of the Centurions might have proved to be unworkable. I have to wonder just how well the Leopard 1 would have done if in real tank vs tank combat? thoughts?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We should have been progressively updating Centurions throughout the sixties and seventies and replaced them with Leopard 2, Challengers,  or Abrams in the early to mid eighties.

I think we would have found the Leopard C1 to be in trouble against T-72 and T-64.  They were comparatively lightly armoured and it turned out the 105 mm was not good enough.  Even updated Cents would have had trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the 105 wasn't entirely adequate wasn't known at the time. 1st gen 120mm munitions dodn't perform better than the then latest 105mm rounds.

The Strv, while an interesting concept, was probably a more expensive solution and logistically largely incompatible with anything fielded by NATO partners. Which, I think, carries the greatest weight as an argument for the planners at the time.

Leo 2 and M1 were promises in 1977 when the decision was made. That they were revolutionary good is ex post knowledge.

 

I think, the choice was M60, Leopard 1, or an exotic solution (keeping the Cent, adopting the Strv, or a British model; not sure if the Challenger was trial worthy at that time). Did any of the exotic designs promise very significant advantages over the Leopard that would have offset their significant disadvantages?

I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One has to remember and to bear in mind, the vast majority of the Warsaw pact tanks were not T72, or even T64. It was T55. Even the nations that had T72 had mostly early model variants that later 105mm APFSDS would probably have made short order of.

I see the Leopard 1 giving increased range, increased reliablity and increased agility. As far as the first two, they were easily remedied in Centurion by upgrades. The Dutch/Israeli LR fuel tanks and transmission upgrade was particularly neat. Someone even did a hydrogas upgrade for the Centurion, which would probably have gone some way to improve mobility. There was even a plan to fit the L11 120mm onto the Centurion for service with Israel (never done because Chieftain was cancelled). So there was some room to upgrade firepower as well. There was also a canadian 105mm gun that was being trialled on Leopard 1 towards the end of the 1980's. That could have been a possibility as well. All of these could have been done as rolling upgrades, just undertaken as money became available for them.

Looking back, I think they might have done better to upgrade the Centurions, and put the money into buying Bradleys or perhaps LAV APC's. From one book I read on the canadian brigade, the Americans gave them a warplan for their wartime deployment areas, and the Canadians shook their head, and pointed out they didnt have the mobility to make it work. The real thing that was letting them down was the M113.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dutch seem to have thought about the modernization route à la Israel but came down for the Leopard 1, too.

Quote

As an experiment, one Mk 5/2 and one Mk 7/2 were converted by installing a diesel engine in 1968; though successful, it was not adopted because the cost approached that of buying a new Leopard 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank)#Former_operators

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was an interesting one. Because looking at the drawings of it, its absolutely identical to the Israeli modification to the Centurion. Ive never found a good reason why this was, whether Israel had designed it and sold the design to them, or it went the other way.

Bear in mind, the Dutch position was different from Canada. They had a bigger tank force, and they already had perfectly adequate infantry carriers. For them it made sense to put the money into new tanks. They would also have had a closer working relationship with the West Germans because of their deployment area. The Canadians were largely operating as a backstop for leakers through the American lines. In actual fact, reengining the Centurion would have meant they had the same engine and transmission as American tanks.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Centurion offer superior protection over the Leopard 1?

Did it have a comparatively good fire control system ?

Only if the answer to both is a solid Yes the choice to upgrade would have made sense, assuming that the upgraded Centurion would have had similar mobility characteristics as the Leopard 1 (about which I don't know enough, but I'm skeptical).

When the costs of an upgrade are on par with buying new, you only do it if you have no other choice. Like Israel, which was often confronted with weapons embargos.

 

I mean, it's not as if NATO countries had much love for buying German tanks. If the Dutch, Belgians, Greek, Danes, and the Norwegians did it despite having been Nazi occupied three to four decades before, and assuming that no idiots were at work, then the default assumption should be that there were good reasons to choose the Leopard 1. If the decision appears poor even in ex ante analysis, maybe not all the relevant facts have been considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Did the Centurion offer superior protection over the Leopard 1?

Did it have a comparatively good fire control system ?

Only if the answer to both is a solid Yes the choice to upgrade would have made sense, assuming that the upgraded Centurion would have had similar mobility characteristics as the Leopard 1 (about which I don't know enough, but I'm skeptical).

When the costs of an upgrade are on par with buying new, you only do it if you have no other choice. Like Israel, which was often confronted with weapons embargos.

 

I mean, it's not as if NATO countries had much love for buying German tanks. If the Dutch, Belgians, Greek, Danes, and the Norwegians did it despite having been Nazi occupied three to four decades before, and assuming that no idiots were at work, then the default assumption should be that there were good reasons to choose the Leopard 1. If the decision appears poor even in ex ante analysis, maybe not all the relevant facts have been considered.

There's more to it, I seem to remember a history on one of the old AFV sites (Missing Links, AFV news?) in which it was mentioned that, by the time they were replaced by Leopards, the engines and gears were giving trouble, so reliability and mobility (which would be critical for the 4th Canadian Brigade to perform its role) would be more important than armor and firepower (which was the same, anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well engines and gears would have been foremost in replacement, so that problem would have gone away in an update. I believe mobility and protection would have pretty much canceled each other out relative to the Leopard 1; looking only at top speed and max range, the Israeli modifications drove it up from 35 to 50 kph and 80 to 500 kilometers respectively, still short of the Leopard's 65 and 600, while armor was evidently better at least against older threats. Still if you pay almost the same for capabilities overall similar to a new tank, the rationale to put the saved money into more mobile IFVs kinda evaporates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian Centurions were old; upgrading them to Leopard 1 standards of firepower may have been more expensive than simply buying brand new Leos. Surely they could have added the 105mm (done by the British already), the AVDS-1790/CD-850 diesel powerpack, a modern FCS (IIRC the Jordans fitted the Belgian COBELDA FCS to their Cents) and strip and rebuilt them to brand new condition but surely at a cost.
Operating mostly in Germany, MAYBE it was cheaper to maintain the Leo 1 (Made in Germany and Bundesheer main tank) than the upgraded Cent. Trade off of far greater mobility (specially in a developed country like Germany with lots of roads) for a worse protection in the era of HEAT may have also been weighted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons why Dutch selected Leopard 1 (instead of Chieftain) was that the tanks were going to be fielded in Germany and they would have access to German facilities for maintenance. It is likely the same thing applied to the Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Did the Centurion offer superior protection over the Leopard 1?

Did it have a comparatively good fire control system ?

Only if the answer to both is a solid Yes the choice to upgrade would have made sense, assuming that the upgraded Centurion would have had similar mobility characteristics as the Leopard 1 (about which I don't know enough, but I'm skeptical).

When the costs of an upgrade are on par with buying new, you only do it if you have no other choice. Like Israel, which was often confronted with weapons embargos.

 

I mean, it's not as if NATO countries had much love for buying German tanks. If the Dutch, Belgians, Greek, Danes, and the Norwegians did it despite having been Nazi occupied three to four decades before, and assuming that no idiots were at work, then the default assumption should be that there were good reasons to choose the Leopard 1. If the decision appears poor even in ex ante analysis, maybe not all the relevant facts have been considered.

The point surely was, that Leopard 1 didnt offer anything over Centurion, other than the points I suggested.  I have difficulty believing dropping in a new transmission and engine is going to nearly equal the cost of a new tank, that seems wildly implausible to me, unless the Americans were stitching them up.

Im not trying to make this into a dick swinging contest. Im just making the point, if upgraded Centurion was such a poor mans option, then someone really needs to explain why to the Syrian Army.

Mobility is a strange thing. Ive no doubt Leopard 1 was faster over good ground. OTOH, the IDF used Centurions (along with Super Sherman) on the Golan because the terrain broke torsion bars, but not coil spring. Hence the reason why the Merkava 1's suspection is based on Centurion.

31 minutes ago, Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo said:

The Canadian Centurions were old; upgrading them to Leopard 1 standards of firepower may have been more expensive than simply buying brand new Leos. Surely they could have added the 105mm (done by the British already), the AVDS-1790/CD-850 diesel powerpack, a modern FCS (IIRC the Jordans fitted the Belgian COBELDA FCS to their Cents) and strip and rebuilt them to brand new condition but surely at a cost.
Operating mostly in Germany, MAYBE it was cheaper to maintain the Leo 1 (Made in Germany and Bundesheer main tank) than the upgraded Cent. Trade off of far greater mobility (specially in a developed country like Germany with lots of roads) for a worse protection in the era of HEAT may have also been weighted 

They already had 105mm in them as early as 1962.  Fire control yes, it needed an upgrade. Although again, it has to be borne in mind all the Israeli ones were operating without even an RMG or laser rangefinder. For a purely fire support role, which seems if First Clash is any guide what the Canadians really wanted them for, there doesnt seem to be that much hurry. If they had a Armoured Brigade, yes, I would see the point of new. But if Denmark could get buy for another decade with Centurion, then surely so could the Canadians.

It has to be remembered what kind of operations Canada was undertaking. The whole reason for the 5th Canadian Mechanised Brigade was a backstop to the American divisions. That was it, they were not going to be undertaking any counteroffensives. Until they rectified the mobility of the infantry carriers (Bradley or Marder look good options) there has to be a question whether it was worth the cost. Particularly in light of how much use other users, like South Africa or Britain managed to get out of them. I really dont see the urgency for new tanks as there were for say, infantry carriers or recce helicopters, which were deferred.

Contentious? Well its a debate isnt it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

One has to remember and to bear in mind, the vast majority of the Warsaw pact tanks were not T72, or even T64. It was T55. Even the nations that had T72 had mostly early model variants that later 105mm APFSDS would probably have made short order of.

I see the Leopard 1 giving increased range, increased reliablity and increased agility. As far as the first two, they were easily remedied in Centurion by upgrades. The Dutch/Israeli LR fuel tanks and transmission upgrade was particularly neat. Someone even did a hydrogas upgrade for the Centurion, which would probably have gone some way to improve mobility. There was even a plan to fit the L11 120mm onto the Centurion for service with Israel (never done because Chieftain was cancelled). So there was some room to upgrade firepower as well. There was also a canadian 105mm gun that was being trialled on Leopard 1 towards the end of the 1980's. That could have been a possibility as well. All of these could have been done as rolling upgrades, just undertaken as money became available for them.

Looking back, I think they might have done better to upgrade the Centurions, and put the money into buying Bradleys or perhaps LAV APC's. From one book I read on the canadian brigade, the Americans gave them a warplan for their wartime deployment areas, and the Canadians shook their head, and pointed out they didnt have the mobility to make it work. The real thing that was letting them down was the M113.

I have to agree with this. The IDF kept upgrading their Sho't up to Dalet standard in 1984, and they upgraded over 700 of their tanks. They must have run some kind of assembly line there for upgrades. The CAF should have done the same for their 275 odd Centurions. The final IDF version was pretty impressive with Blazer armour, FCS and laser range finder, applique armour, etc. The weakness of the Centurion was identified as RPGs and this was largely resolved with ERA. If cost was an issue, maybe they could have contracted with the ISraeli company (Rafael? or IMI?) and ship the canadian tanks there for the upgrades. New powerpack/transmission and with new 105mm ammo being developed, I think it would have been viable against the T-72.

In the Singapore army, the Israeli modified and upgraded Centurions were in service for at least 5 years after the introduction of the PT-91 by Malaysia 2002. Our last batch of Centurions were IDF surplus bought in mid 90s. We bought the Leo 2 in A5 configuration in 2006 and I don't think it was that great an improvement over a final modified Centurion. Not from what we have seen with Turkish use of Leo2s in Syria. Only after the Singapore army modified the Leo 2 to A7 + did I think we had a markedly superior tank to the PT-91.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alejandro_ said:

One of the reasons why Dutch selected Leopard 1 (instead of Chieftain) was that the tanks were going to be fielded in Germany and they would have access to German facilities for maintenance. It is likely the same thing applied to the Canadians.

Yes, but the Canadians were operating alongside the Americans. OK, so the suspension is different, the stab is different, but the gun is largely the same, the ammunition is largely cross compatible,the engine would be the same, the transmission is the same.

After all, most of the other kit 5th CMBG was using was a mix of British (L1, Carl Gustav, Ive a nagging feeling blowpipe but I wont swear to that) and American (M113, TOW, Kiowa). So if anything, if they wanted to be cross compatible with whom they were working in, the more logical choice would have been M60.

Its not quite as cut and dried as it looks now. Id love to see any policy documents on why they made the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, On the way said:

I have to agree with this. The IDF kept upgrading their Sho't up to Dalet standard in 1984, and they upgraded over 700 of their tanks. They must have run some kind of assembly line there for upgrades. The CAF should have done the same for their 275 odd Centurions. The final IDF version was pretty impressive with Blazer armour, FCS and laser range finder, applique armour, etc. The weakness of the Centurion was identified as RPGs and this was largely resolved with ERA. If cost was an issue, maybe they could have contracted with the ISraeli company (Rafael? or IMI?) and ship the canadian tanks there for the upgrades. New powerpack/transmission and with new 105mm ammo being developed, I think it would have been viable against the T-72.

In the Singapore army, the Israeli modified and upgraded Centurions were in service for at least 5 years after the introduction of the PT-91 by Malaysia 2002. Our last batch of Centurions were IDF surplus bought in mid 90s. We bought the Leo 2 in A5 configuration in 2006 and I don't think it was that great an improvement over a final modified Centurion. Not from what we have seen with Turkish use of Leo2s in Syria. Only after the Singapore army modified the Leo 2 to A7 + did I think we had a markedly superior tank to the PT-91.

 

Exactly. And the Israelis had the ability to buy as many M48's and M60's as they wanted, yet they still kept the Centurions in service.

If you look at it logically, Canada could probably have got on board the IDF upgrade program. I refuse to believe that wouldnt have been cheaper than new tanks, or the IDF simply wouldnt have been doing it.

Yes, politically I can see buying West German was an easy choice. But logically when you stop to think about it, they had other options, that might have saved  money up further upgrade the brigade. If you read any account on the Canadians in this period, there is complaint after complaint about how their equipment was out of date. So they buy a top of the line MBT, when their main infantry Antitank weapon was still recoilless rifles. Its a bit of a strange set of priorities isnt it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Exactly. And the Israelis had the ability to buy as many M48's and M60's as they wanted, yet they still kept the Centurions in service.

If you look at it logically, Canada could probably have got on board the IDF upgrade program. I refuse to believe that wouldnt have been cheaper than new tanks, or the IDF simply wouldnt have been doing it.

Yes, politically I can see buying West German was an easy choice. But logically when you stop to think about it, they had other options, that might have saved  money up further upgrade the brigade. If you read any account on the Canadians in this period, there is complaint after complaint about how their equipment was out of date. So they buy a top of the line MBT, when their main infantry Antitank weapon was still recoilless rifles. Its a bit of a strange set of priorities isnt it?

From what I understand, when Singapore bought its initial batch of Centurions from India in 1975, (i believe they were Mk7 with the 20 pounder gun and petrol engine), they were shipped directly from India to Israel to join the Centurion upgrade assembly line. And brought up to Sho't Kal standard. When the IDF started phasing out its Sho't, we bought a second batch in the mid 90s.

Canada bought the Leo1 in 1977-78. They could have saved the money, and had their Centurion tanks modified to the Israeli Sho't Kal standard in the late 70s, and later modified to Gimel standard in the later 80s. The Israelis would have give the Canadians a good price I believe, just to spread out the fixed cost of the upgrade assembly line over more tanks.  I think it was fool hardy for the CAF to buy the Leo1 in 1977-78, knowing what handheld RPGs and ATGW could have done to a tank. The Leo 1 would have been dog meat in a European war. The only effective answer to RPG/ATGW at that time was Blazer ERA. They could have shipped the Canadian Centurions to Israel and gotten back a superior tank to the Leo 1. It was hilarious to think they were almost immediately looking for armour upgrades for the Leo 1 after they bought them and ended up using IBD Diesenroth's Mexas applique armour. Which is no protection against RPGs. In terms of survivability, i believe a Centurion modified to the final Sho't Gimel standard would fare better then a Leo 1/C1. Even better then a C2, which I understand was never fitted for ERA. Not to mention other benefits like a common powerpack and transmission with our American neighbours and their M60/M48. So much easier servicing and spare parts.

Regarding the recoilless rifle, yeah, maybe the proper weapon to buy from German was not the Leo1 but the Armbrust. Smacks of politics to me. No deals with the those dirty rotten Israelis who oppress Arabs, LOL. Something like that.

 

Edited by On the way
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, that was an interesting one. Because looking at the drawings of it, its absolutely identical to the Israeli modification to the Centurion. Ive never found a good reason why this was, whether Israel had designed it and sold the design to them, or it went the other way.

Bear in mind, the Dutch position was different from Canada. They had a bigger tank force, and they already had perfectly adequate infantry carriers. For them it made sense to put the money into new tanks. They would also have had a closer working relationship with the West Germans because of their deployment area. The Canadians were largely operating as a backstop for leakers through the American lines. In actual fact, reengining the Centurion would have meant they had the same engine and transmission as American tanks.

 

Which infantry carriers would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were M113's the Canadians were using. From what the Canadians were saying they just did not have the ability to make the Americans elaborate plans work. It was kind of emplace in a good position, and hold on for dear life. Pretty much as you see it in First Clash.

 

I was reading an interesting point on another forum, that suggests that since half the force was in West Germany, it made sense to buy there in Germany, and save on shipping costs. Ive no idea how true that is, but if it is true, it shows how hard up Defence was in Canada that it would be even a consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, On the way said:

The Leo 1 would have been dog meat in a European war. The only effective answer to RPG/ATGW at that time was Blazer ERA. They could have shipped the Canadian Centurions to Israel and gotten back a superior tank to the Leo 1.

was the Blazer ERA even public knowledge back in 1977 when canadians had to make their decision ? and if it was not, were the israelis ready to sell it to others? and were the israelis even using it back in 1977?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Exactly. And the Israelis had the ability to buy as many M48's and M60's as they wanted, yet they still kept the Centurions in service.

If you look at it logically, Canada could probably have got on board the IDF upgrade program. I refuse to believe that wouldnt have been cheaper than new tanks, or the IDF simply wouldnt have been doing it.

Yes, politically I can see buying West German was an easy choice. But logically when you stop to think about it, they had other options, that might have saved  money up further upgrade the brigade. If you read any account on the Canadians in this period, there is complaint after complaint about how their equipment was out of date. So they buy a top of the line MBT, when their main infantry Antitank weapon was still recoilless rifles. Its a bit of a strange set of priorities isnt it?

The Centurions had been heavily used and would have required a lot of money to get an upgraded old tank, which would have been increasingly expensive to maintain. Another factor that undoubtely weighed in was that the Canadian Brigade Group had been moved from BAOR to S. Germany, so having commonality with the Germans and Americans made eminent sense, rather than set up a dedicated support force for a single regiment of Centurions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that however you modified the Centurions, they had become an insular system. Even if you americanized the drivetrain, deploying Leopard 1 anywhere in Germany was going to beat the logistics of maintaining an essentially 1940s British design. If you wanted commonality with the US you would really have to go M60, but with the Patton line going back just as long as the Centurion, and a new generation of MBTs on the horizon for the 80s, I don't think it would have improved the price/capability ratio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bd1 said:

was the Blazer ERA even public knowledge back in 1977 when canadians had to make their decision ? and if it was not, were the israelis ready to sell it to others? and were the israelis even using it back in 1977?

That is undoubtedly true Retac, but it's also true of the Danes. They kept a number of their Centurions (20 Pounder ones!) In service till the end of the cold war. I find it difficult to believe they, or the Swedes come to that, used theirs less. Or Israel come to that matter.

I think it was a political decision primarily. Particularly as the Canadians sold some of their Centurions to Israel, where they allegedly got upgraded into Shots anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I was thinking that however you modified the Centurions, they had become an insular system. Even if you americanized the drivetrain, deploying Leopard 1 anywhere in Germany was going to beat the logistics of maintaining an essentially 1940s British design. If you wanted commonality with the US you would really have to go M60, but with the Patton line going back just as long as the Centurion, and a new generation of MBTs on the horizon for the 80s, I don't think it would have improved the price/capability ratio. 

It's a shame the changeover didn't occur just 4 years later, then the Abrams and the Leopard 2 would have been available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That is undoubtedly true Retac, but it's also true of the Danes. They kept a number of their Centurions (20 Pounder ones!) In service till the end of the cold war. I find it difficult to believe they, or the Swedes come to that, used theirs less. Or Israel come to that matter.

I think it was a political decision primarily. Particularly as the Canadians sold some of their Centurions to Israel, where they allegedly got upgraded into Shots anyway.

I don't doubt politics played a part, breaking with Britain and all that, which had been going on for some time (Canadians building the Type 12 frigates on their own hulls, for example). While looking for the state of the Centurions I have stumbled on this gorgeous webpage:

http://silverhawkauthor.com/4-canadian-mechanized-brigade-group-canadian-forces-europe_366.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...