Talk:Conqueror (tank)

Original Info-box
I have changed the info-box to a more current one (the original is at right) and added an image of the vehicle Ian Dunster 12:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

!20mm and 105mm guns.

The article says that the Conqueror had a 120mm gun - which it did - but it also states that the Centurion had a 105mm - which at the time of the Conqueror, it did not. The Centurion at thast time had the 20pdr gun (about 83mm, if I recall correctly) which would have had difficulty taking on the Russian IS-3 tanks. the Conqueror was designed to support the Centurions by carrying the big 120mm gun onto the battlefield. With the arrival of the 105mm gun on the later marks of Centurion - a gun that was quite capable of driving it's APDS round through the front of an IS-3 or, indeed, any other tank of the period - the Conqueror became obsolete and was retired.


 * You're correct.--MWAK 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The gun...
The article mentions that the gun was a US design, but does not name it. Is it safe to assume it was the M58, also used on the M103? Maury 12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It was the same weapon basic, although it was different in at least a few detail - the position of the fume extractor for example. As I have to confess to no special knowledge on this weapon I'll leave it to someone else to flesh out the details. Incidentally, have added a few details about the rotating cuploa fitted to the Conqueror - it was quite revolutionary for it's day and is definately worthy of a special mention. I have also changed the entry on the vehicles mobility somewhat. My assertation that the Conqueror had equal and sometime superior mobility to the Centurion is based on discussion with actual Conqueror veterans. None had much fondness for the machine thanks to it's mechnical unreliability, but they were universally proud of how quick the tank was cross country. Cheers, Getztashida 1725, 18 September


 * Well, the Conqueror was officially just 1 km/h slower than the Centurion? In the Dutch Army the latter tank was known as the "Old Lady" :o).--MWAK 12:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am worried about the addition, actually. In general terms, all else being equal, the handling of a tank is generally a combination of three factors; the suspension system, the power to weight, and the ground pressure. In this case I'm sure that the Conqueror has less P-2-W, I'm pretty sure the suspension was similar, and I don't really know about the last one. Top speed of a vehicle, on the other hand, is essentially a function of the total power. So while it is not surprising to find that it had a similar speed as the Centurion (which had less power) I still find it very difficult to believe it could be considered similarly or even more maneuverable. And that's the way it reads now -- after saying the exact opposite only a few lines earlier! Maury 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, all else being equal a higher absolute power would of course result in a higher top speed. Power to weight ratio is essential, but I assume the Centurions the Conquerors actually worked with in the sixties were upgunned and uparmoured vehicles, with probably a lower ratio and structurally overloaded suspensions. In my experience it's often the transmission and steering system that account for much of the agility — or lack of it — in the field. And: no worries, I remember the higher agility being mentioned in Rob Griffin's Conqueror :o)--MWAK 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the to suspension and ground pressure, the Conqueror has a completely different suspension system to the Centurion, consisting of eight independently sprung small wheels mounted in paired bogies. Also the track was of a diffent, wider, design to that of the Centurion.  Unfortunately I don't know the specific ground pressure of the Conqueror, but it wouldn't be all that surprising if it was the same or even slightly loower than that of the Centurion.  Getztashida 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Combat History
I'm just wondering whether this section should be deleted entirely? It serves no real purpose, since the fact that the Conqueror never went into battle could simply be placed in the main history of the tank. The rather blunt "None" under the "Combat History" title is superfluous.Cig1705 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be replaced with an Operational History section.--MWAK 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

120mm gun
There is an apparent conflict between this article and that on the US M103. There is another conflict within this article.

The article on the M103 states WRT the gun, "...the M103's cannon was a rifled gun firing a fixed round, ejecting a lengthy brass shell casing (34.69 inches in length for the AP rounds/Armor Piercing)[6]."

This one says, "The gun design was American, the same as used on the US M103 heavy tank; with separate charge and projectile, as would also be the case in the Chieftain that followed. The charge was not bagged but in a brass cartridge,"

OK, I do know from personal experience that the Chieftain has separate charge and projectile with no - no -case of any sort.

So...

Was the M103's gun ammo fixed (in other words, a one-piece item not designed to be taken apart) or semi-fixed, like current 105mm howitzers (which have a brass case, but the gunners remove as many bags of propellant as required before replacing the projectile)? Or is it separate like the Chieftain? Was the Conqueror's gun like the one or the other or neither?

Don't know, me, but this just doesn't ring true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.246.177 (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the Conqueror/M103 gun didn't use bagged charges, it was a novel implementation for the later Chieftain, and isn't mentioned about the Conqueror anywhere I can find - bagged charges, or removable bags from a cartridge would have been a notable enough to mention. Hohum (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Main Battle Tank?
Why does the description list Conqueror as an MBT - it was very much designed as a heavy tank, and appeared before MBTs really became a class. The Centurion could arguably be called an MBT, but not the Conqueror, surely?Jellyfish dave (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If we've an equally good way of categorizing as a heavy tank, then I wouldn't argue with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Main Battle Tank as-such really only came into existence with the up-gunning of the Centurion with the 105mm L7. The performance of this gun was so good that it effectively made the Heavy Tank as a type obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Conqueror was intended as a 'long stop' able to destroy advancing enemy heavy tanks at long range - the relevant area being the North German Plain - before these enemy vehicles could get close enough to use their own guns on lighter NATO vehicles such as the Centurion and M48 at ranges their own guns could not effectively reply at. For this reason Conqueror had a gun of higher performance than the 20 pdr or US 90 mm.


 * Once Centurion was up-gunned with the 105 mm L7, a gun of equal, if not superior performance to the Conqueror's 120 mm, the Conqueror became effectively obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.210 (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chieftain (tank) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)