Conqueror | The Last British Heavy
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Rushed into service to combat the latest Soviet heavies, the Conqueror was a revolutionary heavy tank that had a lasting impact on tank design in Britain and around the world. Plagued by issues and obsolete by the 1960s, it would have one of the shortest service lives of any vehicle in British Army history.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
Any suggestions for the next video or series?
((Like and subscribe))
Corrections
M103 was in production from 1953 not 1951.
FV215 naturally came after FV214, not before.
Chieftain did NOT have composite or Chobham armour at any point in its service history.
Please note that the footage I can find on these vehicles is scarce and sometimes the video will not match properly or will perhaps be slightly inaccurate.
Credit to these excellent articles:
tanks-encyclop...
tanks-encyclop...
Cylinder Seven by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommon...
Source: chriszabriskie....
Artist: chriszabriskie....
it wasnt intended to replace the centurion, but followed on from outdated doctrine. the centurions would provide infantry support and whizz round the battlefield, the Conqeror was intended to be basically a mobile pillbox. hence the wheel on the back of the turret, that was for a squadron to connect there radios, dig in and wait for the russians to come across Europe. David fletcher wrote a good book about the Conq.
Thanks for your comment! Do I say somewhere the Conq was to replace the Centurion?
no , sorry if the statement made it seem like I was questioning. but the two tanks where to co exist ;) just thought id throw it in the mix
I'm not sure if calling the doctrine outdated would be appropriate. After all, the fear was a Soviet invasion, and in order to have a better chance of buying more time (since they would likely rush with a lot more tanks than the NATO side), a defensive tank with a gun that can reliably kill Soviet tanks and have a good chance taking a hit from the front was really necessary. Eventually yes, this idea became obsolete, but at the time it made sense… Or at least the logic makes plenty of sense to me :P
British tanks don't whizz
@@destroyerarmor2846 Well, back in WWII some did (like Cromwell and Crusader and whatnot) :P
One quibble reference to the comment on the chieftain- that did not carry Chobham armour as stated in the video. It was rolled homogeneous armour with applique stillbrew added later in its career.
In the mid 1990's I was posted to BAOR. We were on an Anti Armour range qualifying with the LAW90. Conqueror tank hulls were the targets. The LAW90 round hit the front glasis plate, went straight through, zipped along the left hand side armour, went through and cut right through a road wheel before hitting the earth stop bank behind. Old tech vs new tech was quite sobering.
It's shocking how much steel armour modern warheads can get through!
You mean the 80 or 94 they wasnt a 90..there was a recoiless grenade weopon 90..
@@wor53lg50 Yep, will have been the LAW94 :-)
@@Motumatai3 dang, can't believe that it went through sloped armor effective up to310mm+ of RHA!
I used to work at RARDE, and they brought one of these tanks in. It had obviously been sitting in a field for quite a while. I certainly remember the rear commanders cupola and sat in it. What struck me was how much room there was inside in comparison to any other tank I had been in. It was an absolute monster, and if I remember correctly dwarfed the Challenger and Chieftain tanks.
Sounds like my dream job Kevin - they're absolutely huge tanks!
@@RedWrenchFilms - For someone interested in the history of tanks it would be a dream job. I was always surprised by what they brought in. I may have a feeling the tank in the thumbnail may have been the one I saw. I believe it was due to be done up by some apprentices from REME. Not sure. One thing I am sure about though, from what I saw, modern weapons can still make a right mess of the crew, even in a modern tank.
I think that it could be a fair comparison between the Conqueror and the M103 although I never saw them both. What I understood the Conqueror was generally speaking a really better tank as it had better armour, superior optics and very good off road capability also thanks to it's very wide track compared to the M103. Unfortunately both had reliability issues as they were underpowered with very stressed engines but the M103 had serious reliability issues with the Continental powerpack, shared by the much lighter M48/M60 tanks, was insufficient to drive the much heavier M103 and the transmission suffered many break down. The consumption was awful...ll
@@paoloviti6156 - There is a philosophy in design, that is if it looks right it most probably is right. I was never in the tank regiment, I just worked on them, but to my eyes the Conqueror looked wrong.
The bigger the tank the more you have to protect. So the less of it there is the easier it is to protect with armour. It was a huge target, which would have been difficult to hide.
I can understand the thinking behind it. It needed to be that size to dissipate the shock of the gun recoil around the tank, and to give it the large footprint to absorb the shock around the suspension system.
But the engine looked too small. It is easy to see why the Chieftain replaced it so effectively.
@@kevinpitt2203 I agree with you but then it could be said that the bigger the tank is the bigger the target is....
I always wondered where the Caernarvon fit into British tank development. Thanks for the information...
My father was in REME and we lived in munchen gladbach in the fifties. I remember as a boy huge hangars full of these tanks.
Saw an immaculate Conquer at Kubinka tank museum near Moscow. Loaned from Bovingdon I believe! They were absolute brutes!
the one they have came from IWM Duxford in exchange for IS"
Minor point to pick up on, but I feel like you (as many people are) were a tad harsh on the 20pdr. As far as I can tell, it was a pretty impressive gun for it's day, with similar performance to the long 88 with standard AP, exceptional performance with APDS for it's day, and a hefty high explosive round for it's calibre; all for quite a low mass if you compare it to similar guns I believe. I feel like that gun gets a bit neglected because it's contrasted directly with the 120mm and later L7
Edit: Major point to pick up on; the Chieftain definitely didn't have chobham armour apart from in some very late prototyping before Challenger was put into service. In some of it's mid-life upgrades, it did get fitted with Stillbrew which is a kind of basic composite; sandwiching rubber between additional armour plates
My late father-in-law was a driver in a Conqueror in west Germany in the 60’s . He loved the tank but said the only complaint he has was the terrible crash gearbox.
I met a man who had been a Conqueror troop commander in BAOR with the RTR, he loved the Conqueror and regaled with many stories of exercises and training in Germany
Have to say, having seen the one at Duxford.....it's a jaw dropper ✅
Thanks for explaining these underapreciated and underdocumented vehicles!
In 1979 there was at least one, maybe two sat outside the JLR RAC, Bovington (opposite the Tank Museum), as Gate Guardians, they are gone now, were they scrapped I wonder, would have been a pity? Thanks for the video! 👍🏼
I remember one being there on the gate in 1976 👍
There is a sad example mouldering behind the field where the tanks park up after Tankfests
Just saw one today at the Isle of Wight military museum. "William" that used to be the gate guard at the now long gone Ludgershall REME vehicle depot. Also have a photo of me in front of one during my TA recruit cadre at Bovington when I was in the Royal Wessex Yeomanry.
Thanks for covering this tank.Great job.
It’s huge. I’ve been in the Duxford Conqueror ( friends of Duxford open turret evening ), it’s a wonder the tank moved .
While the tank killing Sherman Firefly with its 17 pounder gun was established as 1 in every troop of 4 Shermans, the other 3 carrying the standard 75mm/L36 the Conqueror was established at 1 troop per regiment equating to only 1 per squadron of Centurions which was far too few.
The 1:4 ratio of Fireflies was just for Normandy, because Britain had a hard time making enough Fireflies. By May 1945 the proportion was higher.
Very informative video. Thanks for posting!
This was the last British "heavy" tank, but I think the term is misleading. People speak of the Conqueror as an immense beast, which it is, but the only thing that has really changed is the abolition of the concept of heavy tank. The subsequent "main battle tanks" that followed are certainly heavy tanks in every manner but name.
The Challenger 2, for example, is of nearly identical size and weight as the Conqueror.
The term "heavy" tanks does not really refer to the weight as such, but to the tactical role they filled. A heavy tank is a better-armed and typically heavier tank used to support medium and light tanks. The fact that modern MBTs weigh a lot isn't really relevant. They are 'MBTs' because they can function without the need for support from heavy tanks.
Really nice. The overlays of armour thickness is great.
Wow yes. Trying to protect the cannon fodder operating a killing machine.
@@leonardgoldberg2879 OK Hippy
Good content lad , keep it up
This was a really interesting video. Keep up the great work!
They were trialled at FVRDE Chertsey before going to bovvy .the conq used as a commentary box at the tank museum was the Dyno car from MVEE hurn
Chieftain had NOT been equipped with Chobbham Composite armor but with an similar thickness of regular steel alloy to conqueror.
what a beauty , great video
Great video! I hope to see more content like this.
Just want to say I'm really enjoying browsing through your channel.
Nicely done. Subscribed.
Great work Sir thank you
Excellent video, reckon I'll subscribe
Especially when the extra armor was added this thing was a beast
Good job! I enjoyed the video very much!
Thank you very much!
Interesting thing is Conqueror’s chassis was very well designed and tested cross country and it could go places Centurion couldn’t. As for the gun and fire control - both were far beyond anything else fielded at the time on either side of the iron curtain. Commanders fire control station is pure “kraut space magic” compared to almost anything of its contemporaries.
Kraut space magic? The commander of all German vehicles in service never had a manual override.
What did have a manual override, stabilisation system and later a protected ammunition storage system was the M4 medium.
Its technology and improvements with the M34A1 gunmount adding a scoped sight, technology that had by then been around for decades. These changes that the Soviets got but the British didn't, were what heavily inspired the Soviets to add stabilisers and commander's indipendent sights to their T-54s and later T-55s, with the British deciding the stabiliser was very quickly added onto the Centurion then carried over onto the M26 and M46.
Some years later and America stumbling three times to replace their Shermans till about 5 years after M48 had been phased out aaaand... The Americans had took one look at the Panther F and decided their M47, M48 and later M60 would only come with rangefinders.
Britian, having learnt a lot more, added wet ammo, new stabilisers, new fire control systems and a commander's override (Everything that became standard on the late shermans.) would all he heaped onto the Chieftain with the engine proving the worst part of it.
There was no technology in the Panthers or Tigers, only bigger gun, bigger armour and bigger compromises. Ask France who were faced with a terrible dialema of: Completely overhaul their Panther fleet to make them more viable or make new tanks.
Not to say bigger gun, bigger armour and bigger compromise isn't dangerous, ask the Soviets and just how big a threat they could be militarily. IS-3 and T-62 specifically.
Hell, even the M2 and M3 mediums has stabilisers. Once again, old tech that had existed before but never really being used by anything which isn't automatically shunned by default like the M4 Sherman...
@@spamuraigranatabru1149 I was thinking the same thing about the M4 fire control capabilities but you said it better than I could have.
@@executivedirector7467 I do not remember writing this as it happened a long time ago very early in the morning haha.
My opinion has changed a little, notably forgetting that the M26 to the M60 did indeed feature a commander's override, and that the stabiliser was retrofitted, combined with the wet ammunition stowage no longer being practical which became a burden and a blessing all at once for the British.
Makes me chuckle to think that this was "the last British heavy tank" and then see 70 ton Challangers rolling around. 🤣
Very interesting, thank you.
The one used for test firing shaped charges was my plaything when I was in the Royal Engineers, was a lot of fun! I even tried flipping the tank over using C4 but never had enough of it to make that happen.
The Chieftain was a sexy tank, Please make a video about this beast
The Centurion tank would get the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm Gun, one of the most successful tank gun.
Are you sure the Chieftain had Chobham armour? I thought that was a much later invention.
You’re absolutely right Tony - Chieftain had Stillbrew armour later in its service life but Chobham didn’t appear until Challenger 1.
@@RedWrenchFilms The first tank to "wear" Chobham/Burlington was the FV4211 which was basically a Chieftain hull and turret overlaid with Chobham. It's now held in the Tank Museum at Bovvy. The first service tank to use it was actually the M1 (XM1) closely followed by the Shir 2 which was built for Iran but the deposition of the Shah led to the contract being cancelled and Shir 2 was modified to become Challenger 1.
Conquerer is a tank from my childhood.
But because i was a tanker, but because i endlessly played the 3rd person tank arcade simulator called Conquerer!
Late 80s, think Warthunder but with AI tanks and 1980s 3D graphics.
I used to see these and cents coming down the tank road from dodosheide in the '50's. They were impressive. Do any of you tank buffs know if there was any truth they could only fire the main gun forward on hard standing otherwise it smashed the wheels.
Sounds like BS to me.(Ex soldier)
@@bsquadronguy so am I but I wasn't a Tankie. By the time I joined up (68) it was the chieftain, though I think there may have still been a few centurion Sqns.
Great video, but I don't think Chieftain had chobham armour.
You're right! Think I was getting mixed up with Stillbrew.
@@RedWrenchFilms Cheiftain didn't enter service with Stillbrew, however. That was an addition in the later years of its life. From the timeframe depicted in the video, Cheiftain had regular cast and welded steel for armor.
Interesting and entertaining video, though!
6:00. First time I’ve ever heard a centurion tank called ‘a lighter vehicle’…. lol
Great archive footage!
If my memory serves me the C.A.T trophy a comp for tanks in BAOR was won by Geordie OLIVER in a Conqueror from the 13/18 RH
The 120mm still slaps
This just goes to show that Soviet Union was ahead of its time, which made other nations wanna "keep up" by creating their own variants
Good to know the Soviet Union is no more.
It wasn't really though. The IS-3 looked good, but was an absolute dog. Just the Soviet Union when you peered under the surface it was all a facadewith were massive issues.
Effectively, the few T10/JS3 employed in battle in ME didn't performed well, the heavy tanks' concept was a dead end, the new MBT were more flexible, thanks also to new, more powerful guns.
It wasn't. As we subsequently found out when the west fought nations with soviet tanks, they were well behind. Take a look at the kill ratio for tanks in the first gulf war for example.
@@alessiodecarolis No T10s were ever used in foreign armies. The IS3 and T10 are two different vehicles. They just happen to be lookalikes.
7:23 since when did the Chieftain have composite armor? I can't find any reference to the Chieftain having composite armor. Everything I've ever found on the Chieftain says that its armor is all steel.
edit: The base Chieftain as it entered service in the mid 60s was only steel. But the stillbrew upgrade in the mid 80s added composite armor to the turret.
Hi Gareth, you're absolutely right - I've put a note on this in the corrections section.
late chieftains had stillbrew armor with rubber and steel layers applied to the turret and turret ring
Interesting and informative
Glad you think so!
Nice job. Cheers.
I would say the Pershing/Patton and T-29 were more of a response to IS-3 than the M103 which came 8 years later. Plus it was for the USMC.
Actually, the Pershing was a response to the Tiger and Panther. The T29 was a response to the King Tiger
@@RocketHarry865 Correct. The M26 had been in the field for months before anyone in the west ever saw an IS-3.
Excellent video!!!
Thanks.
I would hazard a guess dug in hull down and well concealed that tank gun could still do a job in Ukraine, great video
Very good and informative video! I just started playing the conquerer in Warthunder
Hope you enjoy it!
What music did you have in the background? It accompanied the video well.
Even though I’m an American, this British tank has always been my far and away favorite tank of all post-WW2 tanks to see service during the Cold War. It’s awesome size and armor dimensions made it one of the most intimidating AFVs facing the Soviets and Warsaw Pact countries. It’s only shortcoming would have been single Conquerors running short of ammunition after leaving dozens of IS-3s nothing more than burning turretless hulks** littering the North German Plains if Stalin ever got the notion to roll west toward the Atlantic.
Although I will say, due the expense, it was a lucky break the penny-pinching Russians at that time decided not go ahead with production with the IS-7. That tank might have gone a bit into leveling the playing field during a Communist thrust into Western Europe.
** Actually I’m not sure those British HESH rounds have the same kinetic characteristics necessary to pop turrets straight off the hulls of enemy tanks and sending them airborne like more conventional penetrator-ammunition have the tendency to do.
Funny to think that is considered part of the failed heavy tank concept everybody tried after the war, but all our MBTs are now 120mm armed 65 ton tanks.
Chieftain did not have Chobham armour, even Stillbrew was quite late in the lifecycle.
This Tank is an absolute monster
Have you done a video about the difference between a heavy tank and an MBT? While MBTs are a generation advanced from the last heavies, their overall weight and gun caliber are often the same.
Probably my favourite tank, certainly from the post/cold war period. The turret looks far out man, like a spaceship or something. Plus whats not to like about a big fuck off gun and a shitload of armor plate?
Love it in Warthunder as well, so fun to play
How would it feel if you were the target of that big fuck off gun? What's not to like about being blown to pieces?.
Tank heavy number 1. I love simple naming
the so called hunter-killer system wasn´t 1st in the world,commanders target designation systems were introduced in IS-8 later renamed T-10 in which where whole 2 years ahead of time in comparison,with the same functionality. Conqueror was introduced in 1955 to service in 1955.
It was Challenger I that was manufactured with Chobham Armor, not Chieftain.
Awesome! The conqueror is definitely one of my favourite tanks, looks better with the heat shield too.
Interesting I had never heard of this tank
I remember hitting these with LAW94s in Haltern training area, I wonder what happened to them after BFG closed?
it also couldn't fire on the move as the sheer weight of the gun barrel made it impossible to control on the move ..... the conq had to stop and shoot
The British should have put a diesel engine on this tank. At least the Americans got smart and eventually put a diesel engine on their M103A2
I don't think the Chieftan had chobham armor. They had the early composite stillbrew, but were otherwise mostly steel armor.
The french heavy in the last photo, wasn't IT a Amx 50 B? Just asking
Hi Olariu, the AMX 50 was more of a general project than a specific tank (from my understanding). The vehicle you're talking about uses the AMX 50 cast hull with the 120mm Tourelle D - also known as the AMX 50 Surbaissé or the AMX 50 B.
Great footage. Difficult to understand narration.
Probably the accent Michael - I've tried to make it a little clearer on my recent videos.
@@RedWrenchFilms I enjoyed your video. Very informative. You just need to pace your voice over a bit. Sounds like you time compressed it, made it harder to understand.
Chobham armour on Chiffy's? Not until FV4211 in the early seventies and that was a one off design study.
Since when did Cheiftan have Chobham armour? 🤨
Indeed, entirely incorrect. Probably thinking of stillbrew, which was neither composite nor installed in the 60s.
Centurion mk 10 had a 105mm gun. I spoke too soon
hey! hey i recognize this bastard, and he just made another good video!
Please use Imperial measurements along with metric would make your video way more enjoyable..when you say something is 300mm it means nothing to me as I'm sure it's true for many of your views.
AMX 5100(?) looks like a Panther hull with a different turret.
Yeah there's a very good reason for that - the French used some Panthers after the war and took a lot of inspiration from the Panther and the Tiger II.
@@RedWrenchFilms Yeah I know they ended up with some German stuff. Great video .. I find the Conqueror story very interesting .. thanks.
The British learn their lesson Still holds true to today
thx
Very good computer voice narration.
Scary to think that one dot even if a malfunction my father my mother my whole family no one would be here.
7:25 Chieftain had Chobham...... I beg to differ.
Never heard of this tank. Thanks.
Worth every plate offal
Interesting vid. If you do your narration after sleeping your voice will sound better as the drawl and throatiness is working against your interest
in the vast deserts of north africa and the middle east the Conqueror would have been king
Why were british guns so small
When you want peace, carry a fookin' BIG stick!
it's easy to kill this thing in game.. is it the same in real life?
when are any of these videos going to get engine correct its not a meteor its a M120
The M120 is a V12 derivative of the Meteor.
Very interesting content, but slowing down a bit and having a less flat intonation would do no harm. Now it sounds a little like you are reading aloud something you neither understand nor are interested in.
Hi Jo, is the narration any better in my recent videos?
@@RedWrenchFilms I'll have to check them out. Mind you, I'm not a native speaker of English, so that might play a role, too. Then again, I usually don't have similar problems with other channels by native speakers of English. That's why I wanted to let you know. It's a pity if quality content like yours loses watchers because of minor things.
@@joro5748 I like to think my recent videos are a bit clearer! No problem at all though, feedback is always welcome.
Bad info Bruh! Super Sherman and better HEAT rounds/rockets were already making short work of thick armor. Not to mention Super M-26's (Pershings) and I'm not so sure the 90mm and 17 pounders couldn't knock it out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank Less frontal armor than easy to knock T-54. Note 90mm and 105mm Israeli tanks chewed T54/55s up!
A 17 pounder would really struggle against an IS-3. At this point the Centurion was only armed with a 20 pounder too, and they weren’t sure the exact thickness of the IS-3 so they over compensated just to be safe. The 105mm armed M51 Sherman’s weren’t around until the Mid-60s as well. Can’t see them making a 120mm tank just for fun.
Edit: IS-3 had significantly more frontal armour than T-54/55 to boot
Not really. If that were true no one would bother mounting thick armor on tanks at all....e.g. the Leopard I and AMX-30 were designed with your logic in mind.
But HEAT is not without issues, and nowadays MBTs have very thick armor indeed.
@@RedWrenchFilms They were fighting T-54/55 with 105mm guns in the 67 war in Israel! Yes, mid 60s. Also Not, with M-60A1 with TTS in 1978. 105mm Killed T-62s in 1973 and the Israeli Tankers feared Saggar more.
Most US Tanks used 105mm FIN Sabot by 1980. These were no slouch! My first shot Tore through the berm and tore up the machine that raises the Target. Most hull down positions became obsolete!
Last French Heavy?
7:23 Are you sure about that.
Interesting. But could the narrator sound less interested?
I think I do a better job in my more recent videos if you've had a chance to check them out!
I actually drove one of these i was at fvrde in kirkudbright and drove this onto the range for target practice and 3 months later drove it off again without a scratch on it despite being hit a few times very strong tank but a pig to drive
🅱️esh tank
As to the last sentence of this video, we are still only a hairsbreadth away from nuclear Armageddon to this day. Let's not kid ourselves, there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons just waiting for mankind to convince themselves that their use is warranted due to whatever conflict situation we find ourselves in. Or even a computer glitch that triggers the end. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't happen. As long as nuclear weapons remain viable, the sword of Damocles hangs over us. On a lighter note, Tyson or Wilder for the third fight? Have a pleasant evening all.
Nice info but bad narration.
Check out my more recent videos, I like to think they're a bit clearer!
@@RedWrenchFilms Thanks. I will. It's just that the speech is too fast. Hence the initial comment..
A breast