British Post WWII AFV series 200: Conqueror Heavy MBT and family

Abraham Gubler

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
18 March 2008
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
721
The FV-215 looks like a very heavy gun tank version of the FV-200 family. The British planned to build a range of AFVs with a common chassis, suspension and drive train as the FV-200 series "universal tank". However in the end only the 120mm gun armed FV-214 Conqueror and FV-222 ARV were built.
 
Web page with alittle info and good Pics:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/conway.html
 
Thanks everybody. The picture certainly does seem to show an FV200 type chassis. The British seem to have had a love for universal type platforms in this timeframe. Do we have any specific information or images of the other proposed variants. I have already seen a picture of Caernarvon (Conqueror with a Centurion Turret) and was wondering if any of the others made it to the mock-up stage or if images have been published?

Other interesting vehicles from this time frame include the lightweight FV300 series

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12897.0.html

and the hideously ugly SPG versions of the Centurion.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12901.0.html
 
sealordlawrence said:
I

http://www.mwstore.vistcom.ru/urgent/fv215b.jpg
Click to expand...

Possibly I'm wrong but I cannot resist an impression that the turret of the vehicle in the picture is located in its rear rather than in the middle. Perhaps it would have been a British 'Merkava'?

Piotr
 
Petrus said:
Possibly I'm wrong but I cannot resist an impression that the turret of the vehicle in the picture is located in its rear rather than in the middle. Perhaps it would have been a British 'Merkava'?
Click to expand...

It certainly looks that way but I think it may just be distortion caused by the huge size of the turret. There is still exhaust tubing at the rear of the hull like on the FV-214 Conqueror and the drivers position in the bow.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/fv214.html

Here is a nice link to pictures of the FV-214. Data on the FV-200 family would be great but I don't think its ever been published. A trip to the UK national archive for someone...
 
Here is confirmation about the FV-215. From the FV Number List at:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/fvlist.html


FV201 "Universal Tank" 1949 (prototype only) (A45) 17pdr gun (later 20pdr)
FV202 AVRE(T) FV201 variant (projected). With Centurion type turret mounting a demolition gun. Intended to tow an AVRE trailer. Cancelled in favour of FV215A.
FV203 AVRE(L) FV201 variant (projected). To carry assault bridge. Cancelled in favour of FV215A.
FV204 Universal flail FV201 variant (projected)
FV205 SP Medium AT FV201 variant (projected). Cancelled April 1949
FV206 SP Medium Artillery FV201 variant (projected)
FV207 SP Heavy Artillery FV201 variant (projected). 152mm main armament
FV208 Universal Bridgelayer FV201 variant (projected). Bridge design used in FV4002
FV209 Universal ARV FV201 variant (projected)
FV210 Heavy Artillery Tractor FV201 variant (projected)
FV211 Medium Artillery Tractor FV201 variant (projected)
FV212 Assault Personnel Carrier FV201 variant (projected)
FV213 BARV FV201 variant (projected)
FV214 Conqueror Heavy Tank 1955 - 1966
FV215a Heavy AVRE FV201 variant (projected) fitted with mine roller
FV215b Heavy AT FV201 variant (projected). Heavy Gun Tank No. 2.
FV216 Mine Flail FV201 variant (projected). Royal Engineers. Intended as replacement for FV204
FV217 SP 120 Medium AT FV201 variant (projected)
FV219 ARV Mk I FV201 variant . Eight completed. Superseded by FV222.
FV221 Caernarvon Medium gun tank. FV201 variant.
FV222 Conqueror ARV Mk II 1960
FV223 ARK FV201 variant (projected)
 
Information and photographs available from the Tank Museum at Bovington (for a price) but mostly those already posted.
I've got a typed report somewhere.
The 183mm was an anti-tank gun or tank destroyer rather than a true tank.
One of a series to mount larger guns on lighter (relatively!) chassis of which the smallest was 20pdr on Cromwell chassis, the Charioteer.
PS the general problem was that the breech of the oversized gun would not fit inside the original turret ring, which led to a high turret which was necessarily more lightly constructed. IIRC the report had simple sketches to show the effects of this problem
 
Wonders will never cease. I found the report straight away!
2 pages with old faint photocopied profile diagrams - unscannable, sorry.
But they show that the turret fits on the (essentially Conqueror) turret ring, with the Commander and gunlayer alongside the gun. The large square part at the back houses the breech and two loaders; it's high enough for them to stand up.

One page of data, summary herewith:
Crew 5 Commander, driver, gunner, 2 loaders
Weight 60 tons
Length vehicle 25'2, gun to front 30'6
Ht 10'6, width oa 12' over tracks 11'8
Ground clearance 20ins
195ins of track on ground

Armament 180mm + 2 .30" mg 12 rounds of 180mm
turret ring dia 115in elevation 15deg, deprn 5deg; traverse 90 degrees

Armour
turret front 10in basis
hull: glacis 10in, 6in at 55deg; nose 3in at 45deg; sides 2in skirt; floor 20mm + 16mm local mine protection. roof 1.25in
rear upper 3in, lower 1.5in

Max road speed 21.3mp; vert obstacle 3ft; max gradient 35degrees; trench 11ft; shallow fording 4' 9in
Fuel 300 gal
Engine RR Meteor Mk12 12cyl 800bhp at 2800rpm
 
Smurf, thank you very much that, I must admit that is a level of detail that I simply was not expecting, especially given the complete lack of information on the variants beyond those discussed here already!
 
It's a pity my diagrams are so very poor. I've looked at the larger one again, having opened the link in your first post.
1. It does show two loaders standing up
2. I was thinking of the Conway FV 4005 Stage 2 when I made the comment about the "large square part at the back"
3. My diagram actually shows a different turret, with the rear 2 or 3 feet of its roof sloping down slightly towards the rear.
The gun barrel is much lower than on FV4005, with a sizeable mantlet very near the tank forward top deck of the tank, than on FV 4005.
But the rear turret floor is lower than the forward tank deck - about level with the top of the tracks. It makes it fairly clear that all round traverse is not possible, and I'd say it depicts the mock-up shown in the link in your first post.
I hope I'm making myself clear?
The picture in your link appears on paper (but smaller and not so clear) in
"The British Tank - a photographic history 1916-1986" by Col George Forty (then of the Tank Museum)
That has lots of (small: approx 6 to an A4 page) pictures from the Tank Museum photo archive of prototypes and some mock-ups of various tracked vehicles, not all tanks. You can still get copies second hand for about £10 - see abebooks.com
In years gone by I used to get photocopies from their film strip catalogue - pictures about an inch square which allowed you to choose whether and which to have made into prints - but those were 6x4in or 7x5 and not exactly cheap. I don't know if they still do that.
 
Thank you again Smurf, yes you were perfectly clear, essentially this was intended as a self propelled heavy anti tank gun as opposed to a true tank.
 
This is an excerpt from the "AFV Weapons Profile 38. Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank" by Michael Norman:

215 b - Heavy Anti-Tank SP - Project started in 1951. 180mm gun in limited traverse mounting in turret at extreme rear of hull. Cancelled in mid-1950s in favour of Malkara anti-tank missile.
Click to expand...

It seems I haven't been wrong as for the rear-mounted turret ;)

Best regards,
Piotr
 
After a bit of fiddling, its not as bad as I expected.
The turret on the FV4005 was of course set to rotate on the existing Centurion turret ring.
Oddly, the FV215 is always described as having a 180mm gun. The FV4005 a 183mm gun, which was the standard 7.2in calibre.
 

Attachments

  • FV215.jpg
    FV215.jpg
    617.6 KB · Views: 1,105
SLL said
Other interesting vehicles from this time frame include the lightweight FV300 series and the hideously ugly SPG versions of the Centurion.
Click to expand...
The FV300 series was described briefly by Major T G Royall in Wheels and Tracks No50
(mostly the FV304 25pdr SP gun and the FV303 SP 20pdr)
The 25pdr Centurion wasn't that bad.
 
Indeed, the FV300 variants actually have something of the US Army FCS look about them, its the centurion variants that look aweful! ;)
 
Re. the FV 4004 and FV 4005: the Arcane Fighting Vehicles [AFV] site page about these has been updated with some new pictures.
The FV 4005 turret at the Tank Museum has been placed on a Centurion Hull, see :-

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/conway.html

Also, the page on the Charioteer has also been updated, see :-

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/fv4101.html


cheers,
Robin.
 
The Charioteer was not really 'intermediate between Comet and Centurion" as geocities says. It was a tank destroyer rather than a true tank. To allow the 20pdr to be mounted on the Cromwell chassis, the gun breech was mounted high, recoiling above and beyond the turret ring - the reason for the high turret. IIRC normal practice was for the commander to dismount and spot away to the side, as the gun blast obscured site of the target from inside, and the turret was very cramped anyway - but my memory may be at fault on that - I'd need to check. But somewhere I have a series of drawings of these weapons, showing the concept of mounting a gun, otherwise oversize for the chassis, to recoil above the turret ring.
That layout was shared with the Conway, in which the 120mm was mounted to recoil above the Centurion turret ring in a high box turret. The 180mm even more so.
 
From 'AFV Weapons Profile 44 - Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank' :-

"FV 215b Heavy Antitank SP -
Project started in 1951. 180mm gun in limited traverse
mounting at extreme rear of hull.
Cancelled in mid-1950s in favour of Malkara anti-tank
missile."


cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • FV 215b - 180mm.jpg
    FV 215b - 180mm.jpg
    130.1 KB · Views: 719
Since this is the default FV.201 thread. The flamethrower version showing of the basic hull design and dimensions.
 

Attachments

  • fv2326.png
    fv2326.png
    639.3 KB · Views: 776
Excellent image Abraham,

I would love to see one of the proposed 20lb gun armed version (not the one that just got the Centurion turret).
 
sealordlawrence said:
I would love to see one of the proposed 20lb gun armed version (not the one that just got the Centurion turret).
Click to expand...

After a close reading of the relevant chapters in “Conqueror Heavy Tank” by Maj. Michael Norman, RTR I suspect the picture attached above is the FV201 (A45) Universal Tank with it’s turret and 20 pounder gun. Norman says the turrets on the A45 were very similar to the A41 (Centurion) and the flamethrower version was just a modification of the baseline (also available in dozer mod). Each FV201 was to be built with the available equipment for modification to flamethrower just adding the Crocodile trailer and the thrower head in the centre of the glacis. He also says externally there was very little different between the FV201 and the interim FV221 Caernarvon with the Centurion Mk 3 turret. He says the main difference was the ammunition storage as the FV201 had a hull gunner so its wider hull was used to vertically rack 74 rounds of 20 lb around the turret basket. Unlike a Centurion and Caernarvon which used the space beside the driver for a horizontal rack of ammunition. So just rub out the goofy looking drum in the middle of the FV2326’s glacis and you have a stock standard FV201. This is of course supported by the title of the technical drawing!
 
Abraham, you are of course absolutely right, the clue is very much in the title of the technical drawing!

Thanks!
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Since this is the default FV.201 thread. The flamethrower version showing of the basic hull design and dimensions.
Click to expand...

very interesting, is there anything further on the flamethrower fitting on the FV.2326 ?
 
What is the reason of the two forward hatches, on for the driver the other smaller one for ??? it seems to small for a crew member.
 
JohnR said:
What is the reason of the two forward hatches, on for the driver the other smaller one for ??? it seems to small for a crew member.
Click to expand...
An AVRE version was in development could the second hatch be a hangover from a mock-up of that? Maybe not for entry/exit but to pass out gear to sappers outside the vehicle.
 
If there is an ammunition stowage area next to the driver, this hatch could allow access and the driver to stow the rounds.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom