Talk:Conqueror tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

[edit] Original Info-box

Conqueror
Country Of Origin:	United Kingdom
Designation:	Main Battle Tank
Configuration:	Track
Manufacturer:	Vickers
Length:	39ft
Width:	13' 1"ft
Height:	10' 5"
Weight:	65 t
Ground Clearance:	mm
Trench:	11'
Speed:	21 mph (road) mph (off-road)
Range:	65 miles cross country
Primary armament:	L1 120mm rifled gun
Secondary armament:	2 x .30 MG
Power plant:	Rolls Royce M120
Crew:	4

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)