previous post next post  

A unique tank.

By The Armorer on January 16, 2008 | | Comments (16)

A long serving warrior... ...with a very unique record of service. The Atomic Tank. I admit, I've always had a soft spot for the Centurion. What a warrior of a tank she was, especially in Israeli hands. This is the saga of an Ozzie tank with a unique history.

The Centurion in position prior to the initiation of the atomic blast. The bomb was detonated atop the tower visible in the background to the left of the tank. <br /> Clearly visible on the rear armour is the registration number 169041, while low scrubby vegetation can be seen in the distant background (http://www.raeme.net/ops.php?op=armd&item=3)

The Centurion in position prior to the initiation of the atomic blast. The bomb was detonated atop the tower visible in the background to the left of the tank. Clearly visible on the rear armour is the registration number 169041, while low scrubby vegetation can be seen in the distant background.
During the few hours leading up to detonation on 15 October 1953, the Centurion’s main and auxiliary generator engines were started and the various electrical systems switched on. All hatches were then closed.

Surprisingly, the blast caused less damage than expected.

The tank stayed upright, but was pushed back over 5 feet and skewed slightly to the left.
Most of the heavy transmission deck covers were thrown open and ended up resting on the rear of the turret.

Surfaces facing the epicentre were all sandblasted and the glass lenses on the optical equipment were badly pitted.

The heavy side plates were all torn off and deposited up to 200 yards away, while the track guards and side bins were badly distorted but remained on the vehicle.

Lighter items such as the aerials were carried away, and canvas components like the mantlet cover were burned off.

Interestingly, the report concluded that the most vulnerable part of a Centurion tank caught in an atomic blast was the crew!

When first observed by a survey party only 60 minutes after the blast, the engine was not running, but investigations later ascertained that it had simply run out of fuel a few minutes after the blast.

Heh. Obviously, (for those who understand this) back in the days before integrated circuits were in *everything*.

I would note also, Stupid Nuclear Testing (as in the caption to the photo below) was not a unique rectal-cranial infarct of the United States.

The tank on the Rogers Brothers M9 trailer after its recovery back to the Long Range Weapons Establishment base at Woomera. Note the extra tyres tied to the tank: the result of a number of blow-outs on the overloaded trailer. </p> <p>One of the recovery crew later observed that they were told to place the tank in isolation well away from the buildings, yet had not been briefed about any radiation hazard prior to the recovery, or been provided with any special protective equipment. (http://www.raeme.net/ops.php?op=armd&item=3)


The tank on the Rogers Brothers M9 trailer after its recovery back to the Long Range Weapons Establishment base at Woomera. Note the extra tyres tied to the tank: the result of a number of blow-outs on the overloaded trailer.

One of the recovery crew later observed that they were told to place the tank in isolation well away from the buildings, yet had not been briefed about any radiation hazard prior to the recovery, or been provided with any special protective equipment.

She went on to serve another couple of decades... see the rest of the story here.

Share This Article:

Categories:

16 Comments

By R. Jewell on January 16, 2008 11:34 AM
Good to see one of those "tank thingies" preserved for posterity. I can understand, that's why some of us spend a great deal of time saving VN Veteran rotor wing aircraft. Each has it's own unique history to be preserved.
 
By ry on January 16, 2008 2:01 PM
Bollucks. Even today the hardest thing to replace is the crew. Tank doesn't work as well after the blast as they used to(even with all the shielding the electronics are supposed to have EMP is a biotch), but the crew is still the most important thing. Always has been and always will be.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2008 2:17 PM
Missing the point, Ry. The point is, the tank survived, usably, even if the crew would not have. So, I could have gotten a replacement crew, if nothing else, scraped together from crews that have lost their vehicles (See, WSRO) Okay, you have to re-do your boresight, and replace your optics. You're supposed to boresight often, anyway. If you trash the tank *and* the crew, now I'm out both. The real point is that the vehicle was usable at all. And the that Centurion would be more usable in that condition than most modern tanks would be after having been hit by the same thing. And could be restored to full combat status quicker.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on January 16, 2008 2:36 PM
Puts the old Timex commercials to shame. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking indeed! Great story, glad you shared.
 
By JimC on January 16, 2008 4:34 PM
You're on a roll today. Another excellent post.
 
By Andrew on January 16, 2008 6:51 PM
Amazing how in an era of pre-hardened electronics the tank worked after being that close to the nuclear test. How well would the M-1, T-90, German, British or French tanks survive the EMP shock today? Ok, so no one will see this question because of the novel written by the poster above me, but still am curious if any of the folks here can provide information on the subject. Open information only of course.
 
By ry on January 16, 2008 9:05 PM
Well, John and Mister MajMike would know much better than I would, but the industry claims that electronic systems should survive because of the shielding the systems are given against EMP. CHobham should be at least as good against heat and shock as old steel armor. They should work after being hit. (See, someone saw your question 'Drew) And how dare you slam me for thinking "first the mission but always the men", John. After how many times you've slapped me down for not doing that? Aye carumba. Where's my skateboard? Eat my shorts. Ack(with tongue flying out as John strangles me). But John seems to be saying it wouldn't. Wow, I think we found someone crazier and more verbose than me. didn't think that was possible. Is that one of the seven signs of the apocalypse or something? Or is that someone put a bad acid tab in his Fruit Loops for after 4:20 munchies? Ai yah.
 
By Ledger on January 17, 2008 12:18 AM
“Okay, you have to re-do your boresight, and replace your optics. You're supposed to boresight often, anyway. If you trash the tank *and* the crew, now I'm out both. The real point is that the vehicle was usable at all. And the that Centurion would be more usable in that condition than most modern tanks would be after having been hit by the same thing. And could be restored to full combat status quicker.” –John Good point. I had a friend to was involved in the cruse, patriot, and other missile projects. He indicated that atomic weapons were mystically over rated and to be effective must be on target to do the job (I believe Gen. LeMay was a stickler for accurate targeting of atomic weapons when he was running the SAC bases). My friend estimated that all of the atomic weapons in service could only scorch about 5% of the earth’s surface area. I gathered from him that the damage from an atomic weapon is mostly thermal and secondly radioactive fall out. If a large tank or other military equipment was far enough away from the actual heat blast it would survive but the people would be toast (I am not sure if “burstance” is a big factor in atomic weapons). For example at the Trinity test the metal supports of the tower could still be seen even though the 21 Kiloton blast made a 10 foot deep crater (see links). Conversely, I have seen weapon system pictures of tanks blown to pieces with conventional 500 lb bombs. John's idea that tanks could survive a nuclear blast (at a certain distance) and returned back to service is not beyond possibility (although one wonders about burning fuel and explosive shells in the tank). The crews may have to be replaced - but it could be done. Submarines could also survive certain nuclear “depth charges.” And, maybe even some well built land bunkers. Picture of men looking at remains of the tower at Trinity test site Picture of atomic fireball Picture of Fat Boy bomb
 
By John of Argghhh!~ on January 17, 2008 10:12 AM
True enough that if Bill and I know better, we're not going to be saying anything. As for smacking you around, that's what punk brothers are for, nyet? One thing to consider, though... armored vehicle systems may or may not be provided with sufficient shielding to protect them from EMP... but *every* vehicle on the battle field as IC circuits controlling the engines and other bits and pieces. Soldiers are carrying lots of gear, to include weapon sights and gear with embedded chips... want to bet on whether or not all of that stuff is shielded?
 
By ry on January 17, 2008 2:52 PM
Again, this is industry claims, but yes, they should survive. THis is why, so I'm told, that there's major backlash against COTS type thinking. That kind of stuff hasn't been 'rugged-ized' for the battlefield sufficiently. It's all supposed to survive an EMP blast that results from the nuc going off. That's what the industry(meaning the people who build and sell the stuff), what I've read out of it anyway, says. Now, whether or not that really happens? I dunno. You actually play with this stuff, John, I don't. You can't say straight out and I can only repeat producer's claims. As for smacking you around, that's what punk brothers are for, nyet? Hontoo desu, neh? Wanker. ;)
 
By John of Argghhh!~ on January 17, 2008 2:58 PM
はい、私は確実である。
 
By htom on January 17, 2008 4:51 PM
"Atomic Tank" Man, that sends me right back to USMC Boot Camp. I got cycled over to Physical Conditioning Platoon and was promptly labeled "Tank II", as there was another recruit there my size who'd picked up "Tank". That rapidly became "Tom Tank". Time passed, and one day I managed to climb the 40' slick rope, to cheers from others, and Gunny stuck his head out the hatch to see why there was noise. "What's this? My Tank II can climb the slick rope? Get down here and do it again, this I've gotta see!" "Aye Aye, Sir!", and I did, rang the bell, and came down. There was silence for a moment, and then Gunny called inside for a black marker, and demanded that I hand him my sweatshirt, which was labeled front and back 
 Tom
Tank
 II
"No more", he said, drawing a line through the "II". "From now on, you're 
ATomic
Tank
Thanks for jogging my memory!
 
By ry on January 18, 2008 3:21 AM
Dude, using a translator program does not count. THe grammar seems awfully wrong. I'm pretty sure that should end in arimasu instead of dewaru(crap I can't even read hurigana anymore, that could also be de-a-ru). You are such a cheater. ;) And what's up with using Kanji? That's a major party foul. Make me dig for my flop eared dictionary. Punk. Yeah, fine, you're sure of it. Great. Maybe I should ask The Armorer's Sister to get me a little payback.
 
By ry on January 18, 2008 3:26 AM
crap. This is why Japanese can be so hard, punctuation. de aru, and not dearu. aru being a conjugate of arimasu. Still, I think you cheated. No, that doesn't mean I want you to beat me over the head with all of your German and French since we both know you could beat me at that while half asleep. Cheater!
 
By John of Argghhh!~ on January 18, 2008 10:13 AM
Hey, you threw Japanese at me and I hadda go find out what it meant. I see it as turnabout is fair play, boyo.
 
By ry on January 20, 2008 5:07 AM
Heh. Your translation service proll'y got 'hontoo desu, neh?' wrong then. It wasn't a question along the lines of 'really? are you serious?'. More like, 'ain't that the truth,' but Japanese style. It's all in how you do the 'neh' part.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.