_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Centaur C.S. Mk. IV
PanteraG
Visit this Community
Guanajuato, Mexico
Joined: August 31, 2005
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:12 AM UTC
Hello, this is mi first post of a model.

Is the Centaur C.S. Mk. IV Tamiya kit. It was painted with acrilic tamiya, oils for the weathering and scratches and pigments for dust.





















capnjock
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: May 19, 2003
KitMaker: 860 posts
Armorama: 411 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:48 AM UTC
Looks real fine to me!!!. Showing much very good artistic ability!!!
capnjock
biffa
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 881 posts
Armorama: 826 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 04:15 AM UTC
welcome isaac and i love your centaur, the weathering is exactly how i hope to do mine, its perfect i wouldnt change a thing about it, great job.
MonkeyGun
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Joined: August 07, 2005
KitMaker: 943 posts
Armorama: 825 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 05:33 AM UTC
Hi Issac

Fantastic work ,I love the weathering and the wear on the tow hooks looks really good.
Also you have done a great job on the turret markings especially around the shell ejection port .
Hope to see more of your work soon


Ian
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 06:16 AM UTC
Thanks for posting your pics! It looks very nice. For my personal tastes however, I think you've overdone the paint chipping. The RMASG Centaurs only fought for a few days just after DDay (Normandy).

Again, it's just m y personal observation only. Welcome to the site!
AlanL
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:30 AM UTC
Hi Issac,

Lovely piece of work there, well done, a very nice first post indeed.

Only thing I might be inclined to move is the helmet, the position looks a bit odd, but that's just my preference.

Thanks for sharing, looks like this one has seen a bit of service!! nice paint job.

Cheers

Al
AikinutNY
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 21, 2003
KitMaker: 683 posts
Armorama: 630 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 06:10 PM UTC
What was the function or use of the numbers on the turret? And what was the function of the Centaur, the same as the AVRE?
MonkeyGun
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Joined: August 07, 2005
KitMaker: 943 posts
Armorama: 825 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 06:20 PM UTC
Hi Jim

The Centaur was a close support tank fitted with a 95mm howizter used by the Royal Marines during the D-day landings , the turret markings are to help calibrate fire support even if the target was obscured by smoke etc

Ian
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 06:55 PM UTC
The RMASG tanks were readied to provide fire support even during the approach to the beaches. The markings were to allow observers from outside the tank to call targets to the tank crew. For instance: MG pillbox, 500 yards, 200 degrees.

The numbers were painted there to assist helpers outside the tank call down potential targets.

Some Sherman Is of the RMASG were also marked.
Brigandine
Visit this Community
Dunedin, New Zealand
Joined: July 12, 2006
KitMaker: 553 posts
Armorama: 312 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 06:57 PM UTC
Gidday Isaac. Looking good - the chipped paint and rutsed metal is really effective.

Jim, the Centaur was , in British parlance the Cruiser Tank, Mk VIII, Centaur (A27L) - it was the same basic vehicle as the Cromwell (A27M), except it was powered by the old American Liberty V-12 engine, rather than the Briish Meteor V-12 of the Cromwell. The engine deck was lowere than that of the Cromwell. The Centaur C.S Mk IV was the only version to see active service.
AikinutNY
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 21, 2003
KitMaker: 683 posts
Armorama: 630 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:36 PM UTC
So, what or where is the reference mark? I take it the commander or gunner did not have a compass to use for an azumith reading. How did the numbers work? Lets say the landing craft with the Centaur is heading due east 90 degrees and the tank is faciing that same direction. The target is 46 degrees NE of the landing craft. Who reads the numbers to know the gun is pointing at 46 degrees? Since the numbers are on the turret the gun always point at 180. I don't see the reference mark for someone to look at and wait for the 46 mark to come to it. I can under stand that the gunner could estimate the correct elevation to hit a target at 200 yards on the same plane as him. So, I won't try to think about the target up on a bluff overlooking the beach by a 100 foot.

As the landing craft is coming on to the beach and a pillbox was spotted at X degree heading from the boat, the turret could be turned to that basic heading, X degrees and the gunner could pick up the target thru his sights. They would not be likely to hit anything on a rolling, pitching landing craft over a couple of hundred yards away or was ther some sort of gun stabilization on it?

Atleast the loader did not have to open a hatch and put the next round in through the muzzle like the AVRE.
Murdo
Visit this Community
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: May 25, 2005
KitMaker: 2,218 posts
Armorama: 1,050 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:12 PM UTC
Very impressive paint job mate!

I think I'll take up Origami...
PanteraG
Visit this Community
Guanajuato, Mexico
Joined: August 31, 2005
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:37 PM UTC
Thanks a lot for your comments.

due the centaur only fought for a month in land, maybe the chips are overdone, buy was fun did it :-)

All your comments are great to me, they are value information for other models.

I will post more pictures soon.

tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 02:51 AM UTC

Quoted Text

So, what or where is the reference mark?



The centre of the turret is the reference, I believe. If you look at the markings, 180 is at the gun bore pointing forward and 360 is at the centre of the rear face of the turret. So, if you are looking through the centreline (CL) of the turret towards the target, you can talk the gunner on to the aim point. If you are standing behind the turret and looking straigh ahead at the target, you call out "MG 500 yds 360Deg" and the round goes directly forwards. If you are off to the left and see a target directly to the right its "MG 500 yds, 90 deg" and the turret slews to the right and pops the Nazi b*st*rd. :-)


Quoted Text

They would not be likely to hit anything on a rolling, pitching landing craft over a couple of hundred yards away or was ther some sort of gun stabilization on it?



As in most artillery support operations the main object is to throw off the other guy's aim enough so your guys are not getting hit. Actually hitting the other guy is a fortuitous event to be prayed for, but not expected. One can validly question the effectiveness of this, but it was the mode for fire support operations from landing craft. Basically any round that lands anywhere near one of their guys is effective at making them miss our guys to a greater or lesser degree and any support fire is more effective than none. If our guys are not hit, they will eventually get to their guys and actually kick their *rses.

Or thoughts to that effect... :-)

Once on the ground, the mode switches from artillery support to close support where you actually expect the Marine gunners to hit the targets. Again that may be expecting too much, but I'm only quoting from Army friends.

Paul
AikinutNY
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 21, 2003
KitMaker: 683 posts
Armorama: 630 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 05:20 AM UTC
Paralax? I think that is the term, where the view point of the observer skews the reading If you don't have a clear view over the center of the turret your reading might be off. The commander in the turret can't see the numbers, so who was giving the directions? Maybe it is all those years of surveying.

Today you call in an azimuth reading for the gun, it gets dialed in, elevation computed and bang. On the way!
Brigandine
Visit this Community
Dunedin, New Zealand
Joined: July 12, 2006
KitMaker: 553 posts
Armorama: 312 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 05:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Paralax? I think that is the term, where the view point of the observer skews the reading If you don't have a clear view over the center of the turret your reading might be off. The commander in the turret can't see the numbers, so who was giving the directions? Maybe it is all those years of surveying.

Today you call in an azimuth reading for the gun, it gets dialed in, elevation computed and bang. On the way!



I would guess that there would have been a forward observation post working with front-line troops, and pointing out targets for the Centaurs. Once the lead Centaur was lined up on target the rest of the troop would have been able to work out where to aim, reading from the turret markings of the lead vehicle.
 _GOTOTOP