# We should have bought the M48 over the Centurian (split from the MGS thread)



## TCBF (31 May 2005)

"Now, if we were to procure the C-17, then I could see us using tactical airlift, but the weight limit would be gone anyway......"

- And the C17 pillows are WAY COOL.  They have USAF stencilled on them in big letters.  They have a nasty tendency to fall off the seats of the C17 and land in the turret of the Coyote....

"I really, really hope that the buy of the MGS ends up the same as the proposed buy of the M47, in the garbage.  And maybe, we'll get something better than the MGS, just as we got something better than the M-47, the good old Centurion."

- We should have bought the M48.  With all of the cheap upgrades out, we would still have an Armoured Corps.  Had we bought 500 M48s vice 500 Centurian agony wagons... The Germans were still using M48s in reserve units twelve  years after we bought the Leopard C1.

Buy American!

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (31 May 2005)

> - We should have bought the M48.  With all of the cheap upgrades out, we would still have an Armoured Corps.  Had we bought 500 M48s vice 500 Centurian agony wagons... The Germans were still using M48s in reserve units twelve  years after we bought the Leopard C1.



Waay off topic, but have you (or anyone else) read _Tank Sergent_ by Ralph Zumbro? He still writes about tanks and stuff at <a href=http://www.geocities.com/futuretanks/>his site</a> and also <a href=http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/ralph.html>here</a>


----------



## Zipper (31 May 2005)

Buy American Tom?

Why should we when your stealing the crystal wear, the salt and pepper shakers, and probably the bath robe to boot!?

 :dontpanic:


----------



## TCBF (31 May 2005)

"Waay off topic, but have you (or anyone else) read Tank Sergent by Ralph Zumbro? He still writes about tanks and stuff at his site and also here"

- Hey, thanks!  I read it when it came out last century.

"Why should we when your stealing the crystal wear, the salt and pepper shakers, and probably the bath robe to boot!?'

- I am unclear on this concept.  Where do you think I am posted, Shawinigan?   ;D


----------



## Lance Wiebe (31 May 2005)

The M48 wasn't available at the time, Tom.

The Prime Minister of the day, St Laurent, wanted the Canadian Forces to be totally equipped with US gear.  Weapons, tanks, artillery, everything.  That's why we ended up with the early 50's vehicles of the jeep, 3/4, and deuce, all license built in Canada.  But the US wouldn't let us have the M47, they were all destined for Korea right off the assembly line.  Seeing as how we had promised NATO a mechanised brigade, we needed a new tank, and ended up with the Centurion.  The M47 was a piece of garbage, and the M48 had to be rushed in to service to replace it.

I personally didn't like the M47, the M48 or the M60.  Mind you, the Chieftan was pretty sad as well, if it had to be moved.  It was a good static gun emplacement, though!


----------



## baboon6 (31 May 2005)

Centurions could also be upgraded... Israel and Sweden had them in service as gun tanks until recently and South Africa still does (though I don't think there're too many working!). 105mm gun, diesel engine, laser rangefinder, automatic transmission ... they were still doing the business in the 80s. Also remember the Canadian brigade at the time when the Cents were bought was part of BAOR.


----------



## LordOsborne (31 May 2005)

we should find some israeli tankers and ask them. after all, they used both the Centurion and the M47 family of tanks against russian types to great effect ;D


----------



## GK .Dundas (8 Jun 2005)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The M48 wasn't available at the time, Tom.
> 
> The Prime Minister of the day, St Laurent, wanted the Canadian Forces to be totally equipped with US gear.   Weapons, tanks, artillery, everything.   That's why we ended up with the early 50's vehicles of the jeep, 3/4, and deuce, all license built in Canada.   But the US wouldn't let us have the M47, they were all destined for Korea right off the assembly line.   Seeing as how we had promised NATO a mechanised brigade, we needed a new tank, and ended up with the Centurion.   The M47 was a piece of garbage, and the M48 had to be rushed in to service to replace it.
> As I recall from my copy of the armour corps  history was that we wanted the M48.It was still in development ,the Yanks offered us the M47 and we were'nt biting. At about the same time we began  to take notice of the centurion.
> ...


----------



## pbi (17 Jun 2005)

I don't really think that the availability of M47s, M48s, Centurions, M1s or T54/55s has anything to do with getting out of the tank game: the Leos still have years on them, and there is no shortage of armour available in the world. I think that it was really about not being interested in trying to sustain, deploy and employ any heavy fighting vehicles any more, period. And, I am willing to bet that te decision had very little to do with the govt, or the Liberals, except for the size of the funding envelope they give us to work in.


Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jun 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I don't really think that the availability of M47s, M48s, Centurions, M1s or T54/55s has anything to do with getting out of the tank game: the Leos still have years on them, and there is no shortage of armour available in the world. I think that it was really about not being interested in trying to sustain, deploy and employ any heavy fighting vehicles any more, period. *And, I am willing to bet that te decision had very little to do with the govt, or the Liberals, except for the size of the funding envelope they give us to work in.*
> 
> 
> Cheers



I am a bit puzzeled by that assertation. Many issues of the ADTB have articles decrying the end of the tank, the ineffectiveness of the MGS concept and so on, so internally at least, there is an outspoken opinion for retaining tanks. It certainly seems if anyone was to ask for our _professional_ opinion as to what is needed, tanks and other modern AFVs would be high on the list. We get our marching orders from the Government of the day, so if they have no interest in tanks, then we salute and march on; or get out.

Perhaps it isn't as clear cut as Jean Creitien saying there will be no new funding for the CF after September 11 launched the West into WW IV, but there are certainly no positive signs that the government supports tanks or warfighting forces in general either. We mostly get a studied indifference, and the occasional scrap when the media notices us, but still mostly talk rather than action. The funding promises were to kick in five years from now in the budget, and given the instability of Parliament, it is very likely these spending promises will be traded away in exchange for the 19 votes of the NDP.

My take on this matter is the lack of interest is indeed a government issue, and we will have to make do until we get a change of government attitude or a new government altogether.


----------



## TCBF (17 Jun 2005)

Dr Sean M Maloney has placed on the web his original chapters 16 - 19 that he submitted for the RCAC History. They were then apparently heavily edited to make even more room for the already well covered WW2 era, at the expense of some very good post war info on things like why we bought what we bought, when we bought it.

http://www.seanmmaloney.com/i0038.html

In his words:

"During the course of production of this work, the chapters I contributed dealing with the Cold War and the Stabilization Campaigns of the 1990s were drastically edited to make even more space for the already large Second World War section. This reflected the RCAC Association's belief that the Cold War and the 1990s â Å“weren't really important history.â ? I suspect that I wasn't following some unstated party line. Subsequently, I was also removed as a co-author. I have included PDF versions of my original drafts for those who are interested."


----------



## onecat (11 Nov 2005)

Which would of been the best tank for Canada use in the late 50's to early 70's: the Centurion  or M-48?  I know Canada had a policy in the post war period of dumping british Kit for US Kit but wasn't able to get the M-48, it was only offered the m-46/47 and army wanted better so went for the Centurion.  But the M048 was an option would it have been better?  Both could easily be updated to nato standards and 105 guns.  With the M-48 there was a chance that canada might of upgarded to M-60 as well.  Just the experts here.. 

thanks


----------



## George Wallace (11 Nov 2005)

IMHO the Cent was the better tank.

As far as I recollect, in my readings, the US was pushing the M48s for export to provided their own troops with the M60s that they were developing.  That would have been cause for Canada to have purchased the M48, but the Cent was chosen instead.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (14 Nov 2005)

The Centurion was a very, very good tank. Probably the best of its days. The Israelis had a lot more centurions than US designed tanks and won most of their battles (if not all) with centurions because it was a superb tank. The marines have found their M60s unreliable in the first golf war. When Sweden wanted to replace their centurions, they tested it against the leo 2A5, and the centurions where able to push back many attacks from the 2A5s and to give them a LOT of trouble.


----------

