If only it wasn’t a 15 second reload.
The conq is a sick looking tank too.
The reload’s alright, it’s just the reliability of APDS that’s a bit of a let down.
Was one of my favorite vehicles when griding 7.7 UK, the armor when hull down is insane it can stop even apds and heat reliably. But apparently someone recently reported that it actually never had a two-plane stabilizer, and that report was accepted, so if it is eventually implemented i can see it becoming a worse m103, which is already not that great.
Feels like forever when it’s not maxed out.
Not IS 122mm forever. But still…
Instead the FV 221 Caernarvon could have its battle rating reconsidered—A 84 mm cannon that only shoots inferior solid full caliber penetrators, a turret that is severly inferior (when compared to the FV 214 Conqueror) turret armor is very underwhelming I must say. The only advantages I can see is the gun vertical limits and weapon reload time of less then half from the 120 mm cannon to the 84 mm cannon.
Also I must note that Gaijin did corrected FV 214 Conquerors’ armor using public data from Bovington Tank Museum a decade ago. FV 214 Conqueror is one of the few ground vehicles in-game that recieves accurate armor values based on real data that deserved its own article on it, another example is the M1A2 Abrams’ armor that was updated recently (though only on specific models…).
NATO’s heaviest tank ever built is the Challenger 2 TES with around 74.8 tons.
FV 214 Conqueror armour analisys using BR-471B from SU-122-54
It’s pretty mid too long a reload for a sabot round. If it had APHE different story
1 Like
Terrible name. Doesn’t conquor enough in war thunder . Should be called shell shatter.
Is that gaijin dong tasty?
Mate the Conqureors mantlet can be penetrated by even base IS-2s.
and its a 100% kill rate because it just overpressures the crew.
The penetration map means nothing, because it doesn’t consider overpressure and such.
Literally the 122 will just punch through the main mantlet, hit the 152 backer plate/pivot, Explode, and nuke the crew.
The mantlet is also modeled way incorrectly.
1 Like
genuinely, BASE 1943 model IS-2, with the basic APHEBC, can punch through and nuke the Conqureor with no issue because gaijin refuses to model its mantlet or Cupola correctly.
And i know this for a fact because its happened to me probably hundreds of times since overpressure was added to APHE.
Shells that literally do NOTHING to the tank yet pen and slam into the mantlet pivot, Nuke the crew.
The Conqureors Mantlet should be around 300mm thick.
plain and simple, similar protection to the turret front its self.
There is no way in hell they would have built a tank with a 300mm thick turret front, then a Mantlet that a 76 Sherman or T-34-85 could punch through at close range.
Volumetric armor would help with this SOME. But i doubt that will ever come.
And Meanwhile gaijin be like: Oh yeah this heaviest armored Nato Heavy tank, has worse armor than the Centurion on its Mantlet.
And its using the WW2 era Cast armor modifiers, Not the post war ones, which means its even weaker then it says already.
2 Likes
APDS needs a buff, or they need to nerf APHE just as much as they nerfed APDS.
Reload is a bit too long.
Its got some notable bugs with its armour
4 Likes
Slow garbage with horrid shell, reload and mobility
Id not have issue with its mobility, if its survivability was good enough to justify it, same for many in the tree, but alas, Britain having good armour is a marketing lie
1 Like
Probably the single best 7.7 IMO
Insane penetration, stabilizer, fantastic armour especially hull down, bad but not terrible mobility
If you could provide sources that FV 214 Conqueror mantlet alone can reach up to 300 mm I would be happy to support you complains. I would agree with you.
Nonetheless I only support historical accuracy not Forum raging because X disagreeded with Y. Instead, maybe at some point I’ll stop what I’m doing, suck on that dong most people do, but not Gaijin’s dong and start playing western vehicles and advocate that the M60 doesn’t have 200 mm of armour as well.
The “sources” I could find only cites mantlet armour up to 239 mm of armour, not “around” 300 mm thick. I believe that FV 214 Conquerors’ armour is accurate, the problem causing those issues on the mantlet is the game armour calculation.
To explain those issues that could be fixed but I doubt; I don’t think that is Gaijin incompetence to not be able to do, it’s more complicated then measuring the distance between two faces of a plate thus making the armour but works around this, specially on cast-type armour:
Spoiler
Each part of the cast-type of armour has a specific minimal mm-thickness as the FV 214 Conqueror turret suggests and various other vehicles with similar armour type, we can call those cells. For the most part is a rolled homogeneous armour with a few more steps and angles.
The projectile only interact with one of those cells during the penetration proccess, this is proven by just seeing the highlighted armour part during the hit/penetration analysis, it never includes more than one armour segment/cell.
The projectile so follow this trajectory, personally I won’t be able to explain in my perspective how the normalisation works but I think it’s agreedable that exists, some way or another. The projectile follows this trajectory as if other cells didn’t exist, so the calculation don’t put in consideration other cells around the projectile interacting with that specific cell:
What could be done is a more complex system which in my opinion isn’t feasible but could fix this issue, so we keep it to the theorical space is a larger cell at least or the entire armour segment that have different thickness so the projectile can normalise in the entire segment and not in a specific spot:
Or that’s what I thought that can fix. Instead Gaijin can update FV 214 Conqueror’s from the old cast-type armour that features specific thickness values to the newer cast-type armour that has variable thickness values:
FV 4201 Chieftain Mk 3 all around variable cast-type turret armour
FV 214 Conqueror segmented cast-type turret armour
Sources are poor, but these are the ones that doesn’t mention nothing above 239 mm or 208 mm of armour or even 300 mm for that matter:
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/uk/fv-214_conqueror/
https://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=944
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armour/detail.php?armour_id=207v
https://rmsothebys.com/auctions/lc14/lots/r0075-fv214-conqueror-heavy-tank/
Now that’s up to Gaijin to update the FV 214 Conqueror’s turret which I doubt that will happen, a lot of vehicles needs to be updated. But regarding FV 214 Conqueror’s turret, I still think that the values are accurate, at least there are no sources to say otherwhise.
how about a part of my OG post talking about how inaccurate the Conqueror was.
Including armor diagrams that show the Manlet wasn’t hollow like gaijin believes.
It was one solid slab of steel all the way through.
You also have the fact that Actual real conqureors have a completely different mantlet design.
The part around the gun is flat, and way wider, and its Longer, meaning there is more armor there.
I can find a COUPLE pictures of the flat, smoother mantlet design we have in game, but they are on VERY early production Mk1 Conqureors.
While the Conqureor we have in game is directly stated to be a Mk2.
1 Like
Conq is very bad, better than M103 but still terrible. Long reload and slow, main reasons why most tanks with such qualities are terrible.
I’m not surprised that those are innacurate vehicles under incorrect designation. My question still stands: where’s the source for that “around 300 mm” part you mentioned? In the first diagram it’s not specified if it’s ~200 mm of what? Thickness? Length? Where it specifies? On the second diagram it’s not even specified in values. On the documentation provided by the Bovington Tank Museum, the cited “Sheet No. 13 A” could definitely answer these questions as it details the trunnions.
On the documentation provided by the Bovington Tank Museum in that linked News Article about FV 214 Conqueror armour correction, if you cared to read the whole content, they do mention Trunnions, which is part of detailed module for new or reworked vehicles, alikes T-80BVM have this module. It’s only hollow because Gaijin never touched FV 214 Conqueror model since its release in 2016 (which again still uses old cast-type armor layout, IS-3 is another example of this.)
Using Reddit as source is new to me, specially for critical information, hopefully you haven’t used AI to research as it tends to use Reddit as source a lot of times, specially War Thunder community Reddit for this matter. In this video by The_MightyJingles about the Royal Armour update they briefly showcases some vehicles, FV 214 Conqueror included. Although turret values in millimeters don’t include the mantlet, is more than obvious that those were wrong values which Gaijin did corrected as I’ve linked previously.
The Conqueror’s two-plane stabilizer is an ahistorical feature that should be removed.
It is a misunderstanding of the gun trim system meant to lock the gun in an elevated position during travel to avoid collision with terrain and vegetation. (Bug Report)
With this change in mind, I’d drop it to 7.3, but with a 10 second reload to offset the unreliable APDS round. The add-on armor could be removed and reallocated to a premium variant based on the Conqueror used as a range target.
There’s also a report up for missing internal bulkheads, which would be nice to have, but wouldn’t have a strong effect on its BR placement. (Bug Report)
1 Like