A former Centurion driver in the Army of Sweden kindly accepted to be interviewed for the blog. L. served with both the original and modernised variants, so he can give a full perspective of the improvements and how they affected the driving.
1. Hello L., thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide a brief overview of your experience with the Centurion tank in the Army of Sweden?
I began basic training in 1982, was chosen out to be a loader but as a couple of the guys who were chosen to be drivers had no licence for driving a car exchanges were made. The captain who was responsible for drivers education and training chose two countryside guys brought up on farms. He meant we were used to work long days, keep things going and - we could handle gearboxes without syncronised gears. Very important.
The tanks we had were strv 102. Centurion Mk 3, upgraded with L7 105 mm gun and Israeli designed commander’s hatch. The tanks which suffered main engine breakdown, which were some, were sent away to go through refit and modernisation program.
In 1986 I was called for being taught the tank version which came out from the REMO, Strv 104. Suddenly the crews had fast and reliable tanks! And - the tanks were much easier to drive and handle. The difference was huge.
2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Centurion tanks?
The entire design of the Centurion was like made for Swedish terrain, both open plain fields, forests and hills. A defense position in a reverse slope or behind a summit made the tank a small target difficult to see and hit. Training units equipped with battle simulation system made this very clear, also when ”fighting” against the infamous turretless S-tank. Things were a little more complicated in open fields but being on the move firing gave the Centurion gunners a good advantage against the S which had to stand still for aiming and firing.
The Centurion with the original power pack were mechanichally vulnerable. They had been in Swedish service for 29 years when I entered service, most of the tanks had been rolling for several thousands of miles. One tank we had during basic training had an meteor engine which had worked for 5000 miles… that engine was that tank’s second engine. That engine was reputed as the one in Sweden which had done most miles. It was a bit tired though.
The Merrit-Brown gearboxes could be difficult for some to learn to handle. A gearbox which had been repaired did not last far as long as a brand new gearbox.
The gun’s righting system almost never failed though.
3. As a driver, how did you find the ergonomics?
The original Centurion, a product of the 1940s was craftmanship to drive. Skills were essential and drivers had a pretty hard work. The clutch pedal needed like 40 kg to be pressed full way. It was common drivers got issues with their left knee. I’m one, slightly linking.
Strv 104 was something different. No clutch, just brake and throttle. Instead of two steering sticks there was a handlebar like on a bike. Things had become better and easier. Brakes and steering were more efficient.
One Swedish Centurion, 80392, got a new driver’s hatch for trial. It was not split like the original one. It had two large periscopes which could not be adjusted sidewise. Even though supported by springs for easy handling it was too heavy and the project was abandoned. The unprotected periscopes would have been very vulnerable in combat.
4. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Did the tank needed any special maintenance?
An armoured unit sometimes moved from one exercisefield to another, doing its way on tracks. We did about 100 km in one day that way. After an accident with a civilian car in the mid 80s speed was limited to 25 km/h, and the gun fixed over rear armour and driver was to have hatch open. Two men on watch in the turret.
Tracks and bolts were carefully checked before march on road longer than 30 km.
5. How did the diesel and petrol engine performance compared? Was there a difference in the response? What about the fuel consumption/range?
The Meteor had some issues. Never let it idle for more than some seconds at ~600 rpm, or the spark plugs would clog and need to be changed. 1000-1100 was fine. The engine was very light for its power, so the material was not particularily thick and therefor vulnerable. It happened an engine sounded weird and when checking the engine compartment a piston was found on the floor. Once the entire row of cylinders on one side quit working. That tank was despite that damage able to be loaded on trailer by its own power.
 |
| Strv 104 (Courtesy of S.). |
The Teledyne Continental diesel was a bit more noisy with a rather rough sound.
Screws needed to be tensioned some times, they could tend to shake loose. Otherwise were these diesels very reliable and they gave much more power and speed. Some strv 104 did 55 km/h.
During exercise the Meteor needed 15-25 l/km, petrol, in terrain. The Teledyne Continental was more moderate, about 5 l diesel/km.
6. In the introduction you mentioned the integration of synchronized transmission in Strv 104. What were the main benefits (acceleration, fatigue for driver)?
Israel Defence Forces upgraded many of their Centurion tanks in the early 1970s with modern and powerful diesel engines and powershift gearboxes with torque converter. The turret was also modernised for faster and more accurate shooting. Swedish Army and South Africa Defence Forces upgraded several of their Centurions about ten years after Israel fought Yom Kippur War where the upgraded Centurions were a great part of their success.
The gearbox was a Detroit with two gears forwards and one reverse. The torque converter and the powershift eliminated the need of a conventional clutch and made the driver’s work way easier. As less focus was on just changing gears the driver could be more focused on looking in his periscopes and that way be able to drive faster, safer and more comfortable which made the lite better for the crew.
The Detroit gearbox was not only very easy to handle, it was also extremely reliable. Strv 104 was in service for twenty years and gearbox breakdown was very, very rare. I did not witness any myself. The torque converter gave smooth power to the final gears, which were modified to turn rotation. Final gear breakdowns got rare.
The increased power and speed prompted the crews had to check tracks and bolts more often. Track segments did crack. Bolts did break too. But we were much on the move, and the crews enjoyed strv 104.
7. Living in Sweden, what were the worst wheather conditions you encountered while driving? Did you ever have problems starting engines on the morning?
Swedish weatherconditions can sometimes be a little of a challenge. An armoured unit can not wait for good weather though. Fall and winter meant fog, rain and snow. Rain pouring through the hatches, vapor, water and snow on the periscopes kept the crew busy all the time. The temperature inside the tank was not a problem even in -20 degrees Celsius. Especially the strv 104 had an excellent heater with effect enough for half a dozen of average size houses. Strv 102 once had a petrol fueld heater in the compartment left of the driver, but they were scrapped in the late 1970s because of they tended to leak out petrol and catch fire. A few drivers had been injured when that descision was taken.
Snow and ice could be both a challenge but also quite fun. The tracks tore up snow so it could be difficult seeing your way, but it was really cool drifting with the tanks!
The drivers got well trained driving on icy ground to prevent tracks to come wrong among the road wheels, or other accidents.
One accident happened one winter with much of snow and very bad road conditions. A company were to be moved from a firing range and the trucks and trailers were not able to make their way to the camp, and so the tanks were to be driven 5 km to the closest cleared and sanded main road. One gunner persuaded his driver to drive instead of him. Half a kilometer from the road where the tanks were to be loaded on trailers the tank began drifting in a downhill, in the end of the downhill is a slight curve to left and there is a steel bridge with a railway on top. The tank hit the right bridgepillar with right idler wheel. Since then strv 104 were banned for others than drivers ti drive during winter conditions…
There is still, 30 years later a curve on the pillar… and marks from the track.
Other interviews:
I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes
No comments:
Post a Comment