Builds 06FA56Paderborn’s 11 Tp C Sqn 3RTR Conqueror Build

Running gear fitted

1621095754027.png
 
As a D&M Instructor I have reached my favourite part of building the Conqueror, track bashing:)

98 links each side, small Amount of cleaning up to be done when removed from their sprue, on the mildly tedious scale if you snip them neatly, seem to go together well but the occasional one has come apart will see how it is with a complete track

1621259230013.png


As a comparison the following are four generations of British tank tracks,

1621259605870.png

1621259814386.png


Conqueror, Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger 1,


All the same basic design, dead track with a single central horn, dry single pin per link held in place by circlip, with the later two having rubber pads held in place by being bolted through the link.

The Conqueror and Centurion are OOB and simply click together, the Chieftain is an iAA resin aftermarket and the Challenger 1 is a Friul metal aftermarket which comes as individual links that are held together by wire representing the track pins. The pads are pre modded to the links are just require painting.

There are more sophisticated versions such as the Masterclub FV 432 track which has individual track pads in rubber that require to be glued to the metal links which are in turn held together by two plastic track pins, indeed a labour of love, but do look good.

The metal aftermarket are my preferred option but are expensive, their extra weight makes the hang far mor realistically than plastic/resin, and they do take time to construct.

Enough of that from me and back to the track bashing.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Wasn't the Conqueror gun a US 120mm?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Comparison between the Aber aftermarket barrel and the OTB version of the Conqueror L1A2 120 mm barrel


View attachment 573456


showing the difference between the 20 pounder of the early 50’s and the L11 of Chieftain/Challenger illustrating the need for barrel length to achieve muzzle velocity and therefore penetration with the L1 A2.

View attachment 573463
There’s a display at Bovington which shows various barrels including the L1 and 11 for comparison. The L11 is slimmer, a consequence of improvements in metallurgy enabling a thinner barrel to withstand higher pressures.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Indeed they will, there have been some fairly negative reviews of the Dragon kit, but given it was the first 1/35 scale model and first came out some years ago I feel they are often overly critical.
I've got the Inaccurate Armour version in the stash. I often look at it and then put it away....
 
Range 9A, 11H gather round to see mighty Conq gun do its thing. Kafackin' BOOM! Round takes orf like a corkscrew, buggers orf out of arc.
Mighty cheers all round!
165979533_1425854081101870_1844479565645217098_n.jpg
 
Yes, same as on the M103.

No.

Same requirement and idea's, design specs etc, but it's still a different gun.

You could put US ammo into a British gun. But it required a bit of work, such as sanding down the plastic cap on the charge. But the powder mix was different and produced a very violent recoil, which if memory serves, would trip out circuit breakers on the tank every few rounds, and the jump was rather spectacular. I'd have to re-read the report to confirm the above.
 
ISTR talk of a Naval gun at the time..
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
No.

Same requirement and idea's, design specs etc, but it's still a different gun.

You could put US ammo into a British gun. But it required a bit of work, such as sanding down the plastic cap on the charge. But the powder mix was different and produced a very violent recoil, which if memory serves, would trip out circuit breakers on the tank every few rounds, and the jump was rather spectacular. I'd have to re-read the report to confirm the above.
It’s worth you editing the Wiki page as it is misleading.
 
It’s worth you editing the Wiki page as it is misleading.

Wiki doesn't allow original research. Only published 'facts', while the above is published by me, I'll bet they won't allow it.
Plus, I have no urge to spend my life arguing with those who think they know what they're talking about because they read a book from 1973, and feel that I'm lying, and thus change the edits back.
Also everything I've looked at Wiki is so far out of whack it doesn't seem worth saving, for example the PIAT and Bombard pages. I like to play a game with any website or video that talks about stuff like that, start counting how many lines or minutes it takes before I yell 'WRONG!'. (For wiki and the Bombard it's the 3rd line, for the PIAT it's the 2nd for something that I think is questionable and I would need to check my sources on).

That said, I have kept an eye on certain Wiki pages to see if I ever get cited in a change. Just to massage my ego :D
 
Top