Are there any differences between the Cromwell Mk.VI CS and the Centaur? Or was it simply the fact that the latter name was only given to Royal Marines examples?

Cromwell had the Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, the Centaur had the Nuffield Liberty engine. Different engine deck layout is the main outside difference between them

Hi Paul,

There's a wealth of threads on the differences, as well as the development of the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell family of tanks. But the short version is the Centaur hull used a different engine and thus a different engine deck arrangement. There was also a different idler-adjustment system that affects details on the front glacis. But both Centaur and its replacement Cromwell shared the same basic hull and turret design, so look almost identical to the casual observer. Both came in 75mm "gun" tank and 95mm Close Support configurations. (The Cromwell was an improved version of the Centaur, with better engine.) The big issue is that the only Centaurs to see combat were the RMASG CS tanks that arrived at D-Day - the rest of the NWE campaign used Cromwells.

However, those "Centaurs" IVCS that saw action on D Day - as kitted by Tamiya - had the Meteor engine and matching deck refitted and so were in fact Cromwells, but were never re-designated as such. Many Cromwells (Mk III) were similarly converted from Centaurs and English Electric-built Cromwells retained some Centaur features after they switched production.

So the Tamiya kit is a reasonable starting point for a Cromwell VI. But it needs new wheels, or perhaps just the tyre perforations filled in, and possibly the later slighly wider tracks. The idler tensioning arrangement was different: there were external parts on the Centaur not present on Cromwell. The hull MG needs to be replaced and the full front trackguards fitted. Some of these parts may be in the Centaur kit but not used.

Or Accurate Armour do a 95mm howitzer conversion set for the Tamiya Cromwell. That kit has the right wheels, hull MG and trackguards, but the tracks might still be wrong for a VI: the difference is less than 1mm in scale. Not sure if the AA set includes the roof-mounted sight, or if that was unique to the Centaur IV.

If we're talking about the Tamiya kits then in practical terms you need to replace the perforated roadwheel tyres with solid ones and reinstate the hull mounted MG. The sight appears to have been unique to the RMASG Centaurs as it isn't present on a Cromwell CS illustrated in an old Polish book by Janusz Ledwoch on the Cromwell (the photograph in question is credited to the Tank Museum and is taken from above the vehicle).

I have yet to find any evidence that Centaurs (other than the RMASG examples) were 're-engined'. I believe that all the 'Centaurs' so fitted had them installed during production.

The English Electric War Diary states that they (EE) made a decision to start fitting Meteor engines after they had produced about 180 Centaurs (and that would mean the remaining 1000 or so from their total order book left the factory with Meteors fitted). I'm slightly dubious about the assertion that this was an EE decision as I doubt they would have been able to obtain Meteors without War Office/Ministry of Supply approval.


As Pete notes, these 'hybrid' vehicles were manufactured to Centaur standards, including external track adjustment and slightly weaker suspension springs in the Christie suspension units. One thing to note is that English Electric and Harland and Wolff manufactured Centaurs had the same (or virtually identical) 'vented' engine decks from the start of production - they were not retrofitted when the Meteor engine was installed.

The whole A27 story is a minefield of commercial rivalry, self-interest and politics, with different parties keen to claim credit for this or that decision retrospectively - trying to tease out all the detail of the real story would probably be virtually impossible.

Regards,
John

Thanks for the very interesting and informative answers to my original question.
Now, I have a 1/76-scale resin kit (assembled and primed), from many years ago. I found this lurking in my collection of 'shelf queens', and really can't remember whether it was a Cromwell Mk.VI CS or a Centaur. It does have the 95mm howitzer, but I'm not sure what exterior features would identify this as being one or the other.
Can anyone suggest what details I should be looking for to be certain?

Paul,

The name 'Centaur' is not unique to the Royal Marine vehicles. It denotes a whole range of vehicles in the A27(L)family. The A27(M) was known as the Cromwell (L=Liberty engine and M=Meteor engine). Although the engine was the fundamental difference, there were also internal differences between the two types.

Both types were manufactured with either 6 pounder or 95mm guns, but the Cromwells were later fitted with the 75mm. Both types were also converted to ARVs

Just to tie up loose ends, you also had the A27 Cavalier, produced in small numbers and in some ways little more than an upgraded Crusader, but that isn't relevant to your question.

If you are able to post an image of the model, that's probably the easiest way for us to tie down what it is.

As noted previously, a Centaur generally had rubber roadwheels with little holes drilled into the sides - however, this is really a feature early production A27s of both types. Later vehicles (probably including Cromwell CS) would have been fitted with roadwheels that have solid tyres. I've even seen a Cromwell fitted with a single perforated roadwheel amongst an otherwise full house of solid ones.

If your kit is of an RMASG Centaur then it should have a 'cube' on the turret roof, just in front of the commander's hatch. This sight seems to be unique to the RMASG vehicles and is not standard on other Centaurs of any type. It should also have the hull MG port plated over (a circular bolted plate). The mudguards may slope down at the front (note I said 'slope', not curve) if indeed they are fitted.

If it's a Cromwell CS then it should have solid roadwheels, standard gunner's sight in front of the commander's hatch and curved front mudguards (if fitted).

In real life the situation isn't quite as clear-cut but the above seems to be a fairly standard way for model manufacturers to differentiate the two when they produce both Centaurs and Cromwells in their ranges.

Regards,
John

[/quote] I'm slightly dubious about the assertion that this was an EE decision as I doubt they would have been able to obtain Meteors without War Office/Ministry of Supply approval.[/quote]

I wasn't intending to suggest this was anything other than an official switch. EE were originally part of the Centaur group but switched to become part of the Cromwell group once it became clear that adequate Meteors were available to build more Cromwells. As you say, they had tooled to build Centaurs with Cromwell decks anyway. I know they kept the thinner engine bay armour but I'm not sure it's clear that they kept the weaker rear springs. That would have been an easy swap for the heavier engine, but might not actually have been necessary with the lighter hull: maybe just the rearmost one. Not that any of that affects modelling as it's invisible.

The old Chamberlain & Ellis "British and American Tanks...." book says that Cromwell IIIs were converted from Centaurs, but doesn't say whether on or off the line. But elements of that book have been discredited with later information.

Fitting a complete new engine, transmission and cooling system - regardless of being designed to fit - would have been a base/depot workshop task, and a proper programme if done in quantity. The fact that it was organised and done for the RMASG vehicles, especially at short notice, is in itself remarkable. 80 sets of parts extracted from the production line supply chain.

At that scale it's pretty much just the engine deck. From the walkaround on Net-Maquettes, this is the Cromwell as identified by the raised vent cover behind the turret. Centaurs originally lacked this vent and had a slightly different arrangement of panels and hinges. The Centaur track tensioner access hatches on the front glacis are possibly visible at 1:76, but I wouldn't really count on it.

All the earlier-mentioned caveats about Centaurs built with Cromwell decks still apply, of course!

I'm slightly dubious about the assertion that this was an EE decision as I doubt they would have been able to obtain Meteors without War Office/Ministry of Supply approval.[/quote]

I wasn't intending to suggest this was anything other than an official switch... [/quote]

Hi Pete - I meant that I was dubious about English Electric's claim that they made the decision to change to Meteors themselves.

That said, there have long been suggestions that some of the Centaur Group manufacturers broke ranks early and effectively underminded Lord Nuffield's insistence that Liberty engines were the better solution (conicidentally manufactured by his own company).

Regards,
John