WesWorld

Quoted

Comparative Vehicle Evaluation
Chief Evaluator: Brigadier Carlos Maldonaldo, Vehicle Testing Commission

Introduction
In October of this year, this Commission was directed to conduct comparative testing of British and German heavy tanks. The vehicles undergoing evaluation were delivered to the Ejercito's Armoured Training Centre. One example of British "Centurion Mk.I" and one "Centurion Mk.II" heavy tank were made available from November. The Mark.I vehicle was constructed at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich while the Mark.II vehicle was built at the Vickers factory in Elswick. Two examples of German "Standardpanzer I Panther" "medium" tanks were made available from late December. Both Panther vehicles were constructed at Daimler-Benz of Berlin-Marienfelde. Offer of testing for the Panther was made by German special communication and accepted by Ejercito General Staff, which in turn solicited a request to British Army to provide Centurion tanks for the purpose of comparative trials.

Relevant specifications are as follows.
a) Centurion Mk.I, wt. 50 tonnes, Meteor gasoline engine (650hp), 76.2mm "17-pounder" and 20mm cannon.
b) Centurion Mk.II, wt. 50 tonnes, Meteor gasoline engine (650hp), 84mm "20-pounder" gun.
c) Standardpanzer I Panther, wt. 44 tonnes, Junkers diesel engine (850hp), 88mm gun.

The purpose of the Vehicle Testing Commission was to analyze both models of vehicles to provide a recommendation to Ejercito General Staff and Materiel Command regarding:
a) the advisability of acquiring a tank of the 40 to 50 tonne class (hereafter: 'heavy tank") for service within the Armoured Corps of the Ejercito;
b) assessing the relative performance of the Centurion and Panther types in regards to the possibility of them meeting potential future procurement requirements;
c) evaluating the design of components, technology, and all other items of note regarding armoured fighting vehicle development.

Testing Methodology
The Vehicle Testing Commission established a methodology whereby testing of both vehicles would occur, following a semi-standardized format laid out by the Commission. For purposes of comparison, two M45 medium tanks from the 3rd Battalion were used to establish performance benchmarks. This methodology is described as follows:

a) setup of vehicles upon arrival at the Armoured Training Centre;
---- 1. vehicles inspected for material defects and complete operation of all parts by representatives of the manufacturers and mechanical experts of the Testing Commission;
---- 2. training of key testing crewmen (commander, driver, gunner, loader) in the operation of their assigned station-specific items, under the supervision of uniformed military personnel from Britain and Germany respectively;
---- 3. training of fitting personnel in the operation and maintenance of mechanical components, under the oversight of representatives of the respective manufacturers.

b) Driving trials, broken down into:
---- 1. Cross-country: five 20 kilometer timed trials across unimproved terrain, beginning at headquarters of Armoured Training Centre and returning to same place, using dirt or macadam tracks, as well as crossing extensive undeveloped terrain; during two of these circuits the tanks attempted to fire on-the-move at registered targets;
---- 2. Hill Climb: timed ascent and descent of 35, 45, and 60-degree slopes at the Armoured Training Centre;
---- 3. Road March: two 85 kilometer timed trials along asphalted open highway, macadam roads, and undeveloped terrain, including a 1km section driving through a shallow creek.

c) firing trials, broken down into:
---- 1. HE accuracy trial with five rounds each at brick and wood structures at ranges of 500 meters, 750 meters, and 1,250 meters;
---- 2. AP accuracy trial firing at steel armour plate of 2m x 2m size at ranges of 500 meters, 750 meters, 1,250 meters, 1,500 meters, and 2,000 meters, with three rounds of AP or equivalent and three rounds of HVAP or equivalent at each distance;
---- 3. On-the-move-firing accuracy trials on 20km cross-country circuit, against five armoured-steel target plates, two masonry structures, and three sandbag-and-wood bunkers at ranges of 500 meters to 2,000 meters, with targets to remain under fire until a hit is scored;
-------- 3a. one trial pass to be conducted on-the-move;
-------- 3b. one trial pass to be conducted by stopping, shooting, and moving, with the stop not to exceed ten seconds duration;
---- 4. Night firing, consisting of five rounds each of high explosive, armour piercing, and white phosphorus at illuminated targets at ranges of 500 meters.

Considerations Relating to Heavy Tank Operation
Prior to the start of comparative testing, the Commission solicited information from the Armoured Corps and select officers within the tank battalions regarding desirable characteristics, ideal method of employment, and considerations for use in the field. An overview of all responses will be provided here; however, the Armoured Corps publication TL-958-46 should be consulted for further reading.

a) Desirable characteristics of a heavy tank are to include first and foremost an effective armament of 75mm bore size or larger. Good frontal protection against the German-manufactured 7.5cm KwK 38 L/48 gun or the Italian 75mm L/46 Mod 34. Additional side protection from hand-thrown or shoulder-fired antitank grenades, antitank rifles, and guns up to 40mm size was also viewed as desirable. Mobility was desired to be of 35 kilometers per hour top speed or better, with good performance desired in sandy and rocky conditions such as those found in the northern regions of the country.

b) The general commission of the Armoured Corps has not settled upon an ideal or final method of employment for tanks of this size catagory. At present, Chilean tank forces are organized as follows:
---- 1. Four medium tank battalions of three squadrons assigned to the two Panzergrenaderos Brigades (equipped with M41 and M45 medium tanks);
---- 2. Six light tank squadrons integrated with the armoured cavalry battalions (equipped with M44 light tanks);
---- 3. Six reconnaissance tank squadrons integrated with the armoured cavalry battalions (equipped with M46 reconnaissance tanks);
---- 4. One independent battalion of tank destroyers assigned to infantry reserve forces (equipped with M37 tank destroyers).

Three proposals for the acquisiton of new tanks have been considered by the general commission of the Armoured Corps:
---- 1. That new vehicles replace M41 medium tanks on a one-to-one basis within the 1st and 2nd Tank Battalions, in order to phase that type out of service. This alternative is likely to be rejected due to cost-effectiveness measures.
---- 2. That new vehicles replace M41 and M45 tanks on a one-to-one basis within one squadron of all four tank battalions. This alternative is likely to be rejected due to the issues of operating two different types of tanks within the same battalion, requiring each battalion to maintain parallel supply chains and parts stockpiles for each type.
---- 3. That new vehicles replace M37 tank destroyers on a one-to-one basis within the independent tank destroyer battalion, forming an armoured strategic reserve force capable of more general duties than the previous specialized unit.

In the absence of a final doctrine from the general board of the Armoured Corps, this commission analyzes that option three would be most likely due to reasons of cost, as well as providing the least disruption to existing units and supply organization.

c) Considerations for use in the field.
---- 1. Lack of satisfactory bridging equipment: all heavy scissors-type bridges for use by Chilean panzergrenaderos units are currently rated for a maximum of thirty-five metric tons, while armoured cavalry and infantry units are provided with scissors-type bridging equipment rated for twenty metric tons. Acquisition of a new armoured vehicle of this weight class will require engineering equipment with significantly higher weight ratings.
---- 2. Tank transporters: no road-trailers or railway carriages rated for tracked vehicles of greater than thirty-five metric tons are currently within the inventory of the Chilean Army, requiring purchase of these items.
---- 3. Heavy vehicle-lifting equipment rated for forty or more metric tons, necessary for extensive maintenance or for loading vehicles onto trucks or railway carriages, is not commonly used within the Chilean Army. An immobilized vehicle that cannot be towed away by a salvage vehicle may be particularly difficult to recover.
---- 4. Road width restrictions.

Review of Standardpanzer I Panther
The Standardpanzer I Panther is indentified by the German Army as a medium tank of 44 metric tons, being armed with an 8.8cm KwK43 gun with a length of 71 calibers. The commander, gunner, and loader are stationed in the turret, with both the commander and gunner to the right of the gun while the loader is positioned to the left. The driver is positioned in the left-hand forward part of the hull, while the fifth crewman, who serves as radio operator and machine gunner, is located in the right-hand forward hull. The engine, transmission, and final drive are all located in the rear of the hull.

The 8.8cm KwK43 cannon represents one of the most distinguishing features of this vehicle, being one of the most powerful pieces of ordnance mounted on a fighting vehicle to date. With "discarding penetrating" type PzGr40 ammunition the weapon achieved reliably consistent penetration of twenty centimeters of rolled homogenous armoured plate at one thousand meters, and roughly sixteen centimeters of penetration with the PzGr39 "capped core penetrating" type ammunition. The two vehicles involved in the testing fired ninety and eighty-five rounds respectively, with a total of 52 and 50 EFC (equivalent full charges). Ammunition expenditure for Panther #1 totalled thirty-nine rounds of high explosive, thirty-six rounds of capped core penetrating, and fifteen rounds of discarding penetrating type; ammunition expenditure for Panther #2 totaled thirty-six rounds of high explosive, thirty-four rounds of capped core penetrating type, and fifteen rounds of discarding penetrating type. Barrel wear was observed during the firing trials, and the commission felt it was necessary to replace the liner of Panther #2's gun prior to the conclusion of testing in order to receive reliable results. The barrel liner on Panther #1's weapon was retained in order to observe accuracy as it related to barrel wear. At the conclusion of testing, the commission believes this item of ordnance had achieved approximately 90% of its factory estimated service life, which is in line with data received from the German manufacturers. Similar results have been observed with the similar British "Ordnance QF 20-pounder", and the commission concludes that low barrel life is a cost inherent in high velocity anti-vehicle weapons.

Accuracy of the KwK43 main gun is excellent, with reliable hits being obtained at all ranges during accuracy tests. The gun is equipped with a single-axis stabilization system, which adjusts the barrel elevation in relation to the measured movements of the vehicle. Evaluation of this system was determined by the commission to be satisfactory. The system is largely self-contained and can be maintained by a technician in the field, although calibration is time-consuming and should only be undertaken by qualified personnel. Maintenance personnel noted that the gyros for the stabilizer were not satisfactorily sealed against dust or other fine debris particles, particularly in light of the Ejercito's experience with the M44 light and M45 medium tanks. When testing accuracy on the move, both tanks advanced towards motionless targets at between five hundred and one thousand meters range, firing on the move; average accuracy was 57%. The main armament has a range of motion of twenty degrees elevation to eight degrees depression, which the commission deems sufficient. Turret rotation is hydraulic and performs satisfactorily when the vehicle is level, but when the vehicle is on an uneven surface the hydraulic controls struggle to rotate the turret at a satisfactory rate. Testing personnel also criticized the amount of fumes which blew back into the fighting compartment after firing the main armament. Blast effects also caused a great degree of dust to be kicked up outside the vehicle. The Panther's entire ammunition load is stored low in the vehicle hull to enhance vehicle survivability; no rounds are stowed in ready racks near the gunner's seat. This commission feels this has a negative impact on the crew's ability to maintain a high rate of fire during combat.

All vehicle controls were evaluated as satisfactory. Tank commanders commented favorably on the vision blocks and tank periscopes designed into the command station. The vision blocks are of high quality and sturdy in construction, and can be easily replaced if damaged. Similarly, the gunner's TZF 12a sight is of particularly high quality, possessing great clarity of view, with settings for 2.5x and 5x magnification. However, the gunner lacks any secondary wide-angle sight, which complicated a gunner acquiring a target in his main gunsight after the commander spotted and called it out. The commission notes that a German tank crew demonstrated that this issue could be partially mitigated (although not completely negated) as a result of a high degree of training. However, the Chilean tank crews involved in testing were unable to replicate this performance without more extensive training on the equipment. This commission feels the excellent vision for the tank commander partially offsets the gunner's lack of a secondary general-purpose viewscope, although it does place a higher need for cooperation between the gunner and commander.

The Panther tank's armour provides excellent protection. The upper glacis is eight centimeters rolled homogenous armour sloped at thirty-five degrees, broken only by the machine-gun port, while the turret face is eleven centimeters thick. A conical gun mantlet of ten centimeters covers the gap between the gun barrel and the turret, providing extra effective armour to the front of the turret, which is a fairly small target compared with the rest of the hull. Side armour is four centimeters and is generally not heavily-sloped or angled. This commission's analysis indicates that the Standardpanzer Panther's frontal arc may be completely impervious to 7.5cm guns from almost any range.

A Junkers V-12 diesel engine of thirty liters displacement provides eight hundred fifty horsepower. It additionally powers major vehicle functions. The high engine power gives the Panther an excellent power to weight ratio of nearly nineteen horsepower per ton, which is extremely respectable for a tank of this size and weight. The vehicle could reliably reach its top speed of forty-seven kilometers per hour on macadam or gravel roads. During testing, the engines were operated a total of sixty-two (Panther #1) and fifty-nine (Panther #2) hours each, with approximately half of this time at minimal or light loads. No serious mechanical issues were noted with either engine, although the dust filters on Panther #2 became clogged during cross-country trials, requiring replacement before the vehicle could complete the course. Additionally, some pooling of grease, oil and other lubricants was observed underneath the engines of both vehicles. Due to the design of the engine compartments, maintenance personnel could not clean off or eliminate the greases and oils, and mechanics felt this represented a potential fire hazard. Mechanics were also concerned that the Junkers engine was forced to run at higher rotations per minute in order to achieve the high horsepower output, potentially increasing engine wear. While no negative side-effects of the engine were observed and engine speeds appear to be entirely satisfactory, this commission recommends further investigation into the operational parameters of the Junkers engine.

Suspension components are of the conical spring type, with satisfactory travel and rough ground performance. The units are externally mounted on the hull and easy to remove for repair or replacement by maintenance personnel. Mechanics indicated general satisfaction with this suspension design. Tracks on both vehicles met expectations, demonstrating satisfactory performance in vehicle flotation on soft terrain as well as resilience on roads or hard terrain.

Panther #1 was driven a registered 282 kilometers, with two mechanical issues noted. The first issue resulted from the removal of (and failure to replace) the radiator fan belt during preliminary inspection, resulting in the engine heating beyond its design limits during the first driving trials. Inspection indicated the engine was not materially damaged before the issue was noticed and a spare radiator fan belt substituted. In the second case, mechanics noted excessive leakage from multiple rubber connections in the engine. Mechanical personnel felt this may have been a side-effect of the brief engine overheating. This resulted in drippage of diesel fuel and other liquids, which collected in the bottom of the engine compartment. Inspection of Panther #2 revealed the same sort of buildup of fluids, although to a much lesser degree.

Panther #2 was driven a registered 299 kilometers with two mechanical issues logged by observers. First, the engine's dust filters became clogged with a fine particulate during the initial long-distance driving trial. The cause of the rapid dust buildup could not be diagnosed, but after replacement of the filter the issue did not reoccur, with only normal dust buildup observed. In the second issue, the vehicle consistently suffered from a failure to automatically eject spent ammunition cases from the vehicle, with the empty shells becoming lodged in the mouth of the disposal chute. This contributed significantly to noxious fumes from freshly-fired tank shells entering the fighting compartment. Despite multiple attempts to rectify this issue it remained unresolved at the conclusion of the testing program.

Review of Mk.I Centurion
The Mk.I Centurion is distinguished from the Mk.II variant through having an "Ordnance QF 17-pounder" main armament of 76.2mm bore size, with a length of 55 calibers, and a muzzle velocity of between 880 and 1,200 meters per second, depending upon ammunition. The tank also carries a 20mm cannon in a special mounting within the turret. The Commission is appraised of the fact that this vehicle variant is out of production in Britain at the present time, and so does not intend to spare much comment in this report to the analysis of the fighting characteristics of this vehicle. The Mk.I vehicle was evaluated primarily in regards to aspects of mechanical reliability and mobility, which are identical to the Mk.II.

The sole Mk.I vehicle was driven a registered 288 kilometers and suffered only three noteworthy mechanical events. The first issue occurred when driving in rough terrain resulted in minor damage to certain track elements, which had to be re-straightened in the field using a sledgehammer. The second issue occurred following the long-distance test drive when several gauges at the driver's station stopped displaying. Following detailed evaluation, it was determined by the manufacturer's representative that wiring had been shaken loose during the course of the trials. The third issue occurred when a British driver misinterpreted hand and voice signals from Chilean support personnel and backed the vehicle into a parked Modelo 1938 halftrack, resulting in damage to the right-hand track and rear drive sprocket. Maintenance personnel replaced the damaged components over the course of nine hours and returned the vehicle to testing.

The "Ordnance QF 17-pounder" armament of this vehicle was not demonstrated to be decisively superior to that of the United States-manufactured "3-inch 57 caliber" gun installed on the M45 medium tank, although minor favorable differences were discovered within statistical margin of error of testing. Demonstration of the British high-velocity "discarding penetrating" type nevertheless favorably impressed the Commission, as these rounds are not widely used by Ejercito de Chile armoured vehicles at the present time.

This Mk.I vehicle also possessed a 20mm non-automatic cannon installed to the left of the main cannon. Although armoured to similar standards to the rest of the turret, this Commission believes the mounting location, with its mounting permitting it to be individually-aimed within ten degrees of standard, introduces an armour weakspot. Additionally, the cannon mounting cuts into the working space of the vehicle's loader to a degree that the Commission feels is unacceptable, and is prone to fill the fighting compartment with a high degree of smoke and fumes when the weapon is fired. While this offers an impressive capability for dealing with massed infantry, unarmoured, or lightly-armoured vehicles without using the main cannon, it lacks automatic firing capability and does not offer any capability that could not also be provided by a smaller 8mm or 12.7mm machine gun. The Commission does not recommend adopting secondary vehicle armament modeled on this vehicle, and notes that the British Army has similarly removed this feature from production of the Mk.II Centurion, apparently due to their own experiences and evaluations.

Review of Mk.II Centurion
This vehicle differs from the Mk.I variant by having a new "Ordnance QF 20-pounder", an 84mm cannon of 71 calibers length. The turret is of similar design to the Mk.I, but lacks the coaxial 20mm gun. At the time of testing, this vehicle was not equipped with a muzzle-brake (as designed) but only with a barrel counterweight for purposes of simulation. All mechanical and drivetrain features are identical to those found on the Centurion Mk.I. A coaxial machine gun serves as secondary armament. The driver is located in a position in the right hand forward corner of the hull. The remainder of the crew is located within the fighting compartment, with the gunner and commander on the right-hand side of the gun, and the loader on the left. Testing personnel found all the crew positions comfortable and working room satisfactory, made possible by the relatively spacious vehicle interior.

Vehicle controls and general fightability are overall evaluated as highly satisfactory. Field personnel felt the design and layout of the commander's station was highly satisfactory in all respects. Due to the room available in the turret, loaders expressed a preference for the Centurion Mk.II over the Panther, and even over the Carro de Combat M45, which has been well-regarded for this feature. Personnel also commented favorably on the layout of the gunnery controls, with an excellent power traverse system for the turret as well as gun elevation and depression controls. However, the position of the turret manual traverse lever is so badly-positioned so as to be virtually unusable, no emergency means of firing the main gun is available, and the firing stud of the coaxial secondary armament is located on a footpedal. Another major deficiency is the manual gearbox, which causes excessive driver fatigue. This is a particularly unpleasant feature to drivers who have already trained in the US-built M45 medium tank with its Hydra-Matic transmission.

The Ordnance QF 20-pounder main armament was fired eighty-six times during the course of testing, adding up to the equivalent of forty-five EFC (Equivalent Full Charges). Ammunition expenditure totalled thirty-nine rounds of high explosive, thirty-two rounds of standard armour piercing, and fifteen rounds of high velocity discarding penetrating type. Significant barrel wear was noted after the conclusion of testing, and inspection after the conclusion of firing trials indicates the barrel liner had used eighty percent of its factory-estimated lifecycle. As with similar issues observed on the Panther's 8.8cm KwK43 gun, the commission believes that this short barrel life is the penalty of a high-velocity cannon of this type. Armour penetration figures at all ranges are extremely impressive, estimated to exceed two hundred millimeters of rolled homogenous steel plate angled at thirty degrees at one thousand meters. Accuracy was also excellent even at extreme ranges of 1,500 meters or more. Despite the lack of an installed muzzle brake, personnel unanimously agreed that blast effects from the 20-pounder armament were much less than that of the German 88mm gun, causing less dust to be kicked up during firing. Additionally, the 20-pounder gun has ten degrees of gun depression, two more degrees than available on the Panther; while this difference is slight the Commission feels it is an important distinction.

A Metrovick two-axis stabilizer was installed as part of the associated equipment of the Ordnance QF 20-pounder main armament. This system is being installed as standard on all Centurion Mk.II tanks, and when desired adjusts the elevation and azimuth in relation to the measured movements of the tank, permitting a limited capability at short to medium ranges to fire on the move against immobile or slow-moving targets. After conducting detailed evaluation, the Testing Commission believes the system is highly satisfactory in improving accuracy while moving. When testing accuracy on the move, the tank advanced towards motionless targets at a range of five hundred to one thousand meters and fired on the move. Average accuracy was 83%. However, several items of concern were identified. First, the system is mechanically complex, and must be calibrated prior to use by a highly-trained technician in order to be effective. Although further experience may show otherwise, this system does not appear easily maintainable in the field by normal tank battalion service personnel. Second, maintenance replacement of parts similarly will require re-calibration of the entire system by a trained technician. Third and most critically, the complexity of the system has apparently resulted in a lower degree of 'fit and finish' than is believed desirable. Wires to certain components were left exposed and on one occasion resulted in the gyrostabilizer being taken offline by a careless motion of the gunner's foot, whereupon testing of the stabilizer had to be terminated until the system's repair and calibration. Discussions with a representative of the Metrovick manufacturer indicate the British are aware of the issues with the system and intend to resolve them with an upgrade in the next generation of vehicle, if not before. Nevertheless, despite the concerns expressed above, this Commission is extremely impressed with the results so far obtained by the Metrovick system.

The Centurion tank's armour also impressed the Commission. Armour on the turret face measures approximately fifteen centimeters in thickness, with a semi-sloped and overlapping gun mantlet that adds to the overall effectiveness. The frontal glacis is twelve centimeters angled at approximately forty-five degrees, which again improves the effective overall armour thickness. It is the Commission's opinion that the Centurion Mk.II's armour is proof against its own main armament at ranges of over one thousand meters. Side and rear armour both on the hull and turret is less impressive, but the Centurion may perhaps be one of the best-armoured tanks currently in production at the present moment.

Both Mk.I and Mk.II Centurions are powered by an Orenda Ursa V-12 petrol engine which provides 650 horsepower, additionally providing power to major vehicle functions. The top measured road speed was 37 kilometers per hour, as registered on asphalt and macadam roads, with this speed being reliably achieved in similar conditions. The vehicle has a power to weight ratio of 13 horsepower per ton. During testing, the engines of the Mk. I and Mk.II vehicles were operated fifty-nine and forty-five hours respectively, with approximately half of this time being at light operating load or idling. An average of one hour's preventative maintenance was logged every five operating hours. The Testing Commission observed no mechanical defects relating to the engines during this time. Nevertheless, the Commission strongly feels that the Ursa V-12 engine is not best suited for a tank of this size due to the low power-to-weight ratio.

Suspension components are of the Horstmann bogie type, being externally mounted on the outside of the hull, with good travel and rough-ground characteristics. The bogie may be easily removed in the field by general maintenance personnel for servicing or replacement. Tracks are generally well-designed and resistant to wear, meeting or exceeding performance requirements desired by the Commission.

The Mk.II vehicle was driven a registered 269 kilometers, with two observed mechanical incidents. In the first incident, loose electrical wires on the Metrovick stabilizer were accidentally dislodged by the gunner during firing, requiring an hour of maintenance work and two hours of recalibration. In the second incident, the vehicle was engaged in driving tests crossing a creek with steep banks. Following the vehicle's ascent up the opposite bank, a noise was heard from the tracks, and minor damage was discovered to certain track elements. Analysis indicated rough impact against a large rock bent several track links out of alignment, requiring the replacement of four links after the driving test was completed.

Comparisons to Carro de Combat M45
The Carro de Combat M45 medium tank was accepted for service in the Ejercito de Chile in June of 1945, when it began replacing M41 medium tanks. Its defining characteristics are a gross combat weight of thirty-two metric tons, with an American-manufactured gun of 7.62cm bore size and a barrel length of 57 calibers stabilized in the vertical axis. Mobility is highly satisfactory with a top road speed (in service) of forty-eight kilometers per hour, and the vehicle is immensely popular amongst tank drivers due to its Hydramatic transmission. The M45 tank has demonstrated a high degree of mechanical reliability over the last eighteen months in the Ejercito's service.

To establish testing benchmarks, two M45 medium tanks conducted all trials during the same period as the Panther's evaluation. Both tanks fired 85 rounds from the main armament and drove a registered 375 and 298 kilometers respectively. M45 #1 experienced only one mechanical issue of note during this time, when the engine repeatedly failed to start. Inspection revealed that an electrical connection had been loosened during driving resulting in a flat battery. Both items were replaced. Mechanical personnel also replaced the tracks and two suspension components as a result of scheduled preventative maintenance unrelated to testing. M45 #2 suffered two mechanical issues during the testing period. First, following complaints from the vehicle's driver, an issue was identified with the M45's drive linkage, which was replaced prior to the conclusion of testing. Second, testing personnel discovered that the vehicle's gunner had manually disconnected the main armament stabilization following issues with dust getting into the gyros. As the general board is aware, many M45 crews remain skeptical about the reliability and usefulness of a stabilized main armament due to issues with dust infiltration. The vehicle's crew was permitted to conduct further testing with the gyrostabilizer deactivated, with final shooting scores indicating a substantial performance penalty as a result.

Following an analysis of mean-time-between-failures, neither variant of Centurion nor the two Standardpanzer Panthers suffered what the testing commission felt were particularly high rates of mechanical failure even in comparison with the M45. This came as a surprise to the Testing Commission, as it has long been a fundamental assumption within the Armoured Corps that heavier vehicles will suffer greater incidence of mechanical unreliability which in turn would severely hinder their operation within the anticipated Chilean battle-space. Based upon these tests this Testing Commission no longer feels that assumption should be taken for granted. It should, however, be noted that all testing took place in the environs of the Armoured Training Centre and not in high-altitude regions such as the Andes or the CBSAR Altiplano, and further investigation should be undertaken prior to committing to a course of action.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the trials, the Vehicle Testing Commission concludes that:
a) The Centurion Mk.II is preferred, with some reservations, by field personnel;
b) The main armament of the Standardpanzer I Panther is slightly superior to that of the Centurion Mk.II in regards to penetration, stationary accuracy, and dispersion, with the exception of muzzle blast effect and fumes entering the fighting compartment;
c) The gun controls of the Centurion Mk.II are superior to those in the Carro de Combat M45 and the Standardpanzer I Panther, with the exception of the manual traversing mechanism;
d) The fire control equipment of the Centurion Mk.II is slightly superior to that of the Standardpanzer I Panther and significantly superior to that of the Carro de Combat M45, with the exception of the Panther's gunner's sight, which is superior in quality of manufacture;
e) The mobility of the Standardpanzer I Panther is superior to that of the Centurion Mk.II and equivalent to the mobility of the Carro de Combat M45, (except as regards restrictions resulting from greater weight) due to its more powerful engine and higher power-to-weight ratio;
f) The reliability of the Standardpanzer I Panther and the Centurion Mk.II are generally equivalent to that of the Carro de Combat M45;
g) The overall characteristics and features of the fighting compartment of the Centurion Mk.II, particularly in respect to the larger turret spaces, well-balanced gun, power traverse, and gun stabilization are superior to the Standardpanzer I Panther and the Carro de Combat M45;
h) The suspension components of the Standardpanzer I Panther and Centurion Mk.II are equivalent to that of the Carro de Combat M45 in terms of ride quality and reliability, and potentially superior for maintainability.

Based on these conclusions, the Vehicle Testing Commission recommends that:

a) Tanks of the forty to fifty metric ton weight should not be disqualified from consideration for potential adoption by the Ejercito de Chile, particularly if operational characteristics are able to counterbalance the weight penalties incurred;
b) Efforts should be made to purchase a Centurion Mk.II vehicle for experiments to assess whether a more powerful diesel engine could be substituted; the vehicle should then be re-tested to evaluate its suitability for procurement;
c) The Armoured Corps should consult with the accounting commission to analyze the costs associated with purchasing and equipping a battalion of heavy tanks prior to any final decision to purchase vehicles, as the costs involved in procurement may still be prohibitive for the Ejercito de Chile.

Quoted from "Hood"

A very detailed and informative write-up, thanks for taking the time to do this.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Is the F5E fighter aircraft what I believe it to be? ;)

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Is the F5E fighter aircraft what I believe it to be? ;)

The F5E is the ENAER license-built Focke-Wulf Fw.340.