New Caernarvon and Super Conqueror Renders

33

Good day everybody,

A short while ago, some renders were posted on the site of 3D modeler Alexander Galewskija (his other work can be seen here, including other WoT related work), showing some interesting additions for the Tier 8 and 9 British heavies.First off, the Caernarvon may be getting a replacement for the Action X turret.

Perhaps more interstingly, the long discussed Super Conqueror may be making an appearance, of sorts (first popping up on FTR and then coming up every now and then from the rumor mill). This consisted of adding burster plated to the Conqueror turret and and hull (this and various other proposals for the Conqueror can be found at Dave Lister’s blog).

Some historical images:

And the renders:

Note: these renders have since been removed from the modelers site, so there may very well be something to these.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support DecoNoir on Patreon!

33 comments on “New Caernarvon and Super Conqueror Renders

  1. mredweird says:

    Worth noting that the artist claimed these would be released in 9.17.
    Also, if they make the upper plate of the Conq have the 20mm applique (they obv dont have the 14mm spaced armor on there), it would be a viable replacement for the FV215b since the only advantage that has is better upper hull armor and better gun handling.




    0



    0
    • mredweird says:

      Also, I was talking to Listy, he thinks that shroud on the Conq’s gun is probably a shield because the Super Conq shown in the images up there is from a document about HEAT penetration tests, so this armor on the gun would keep the gun safe from any shrapnel coming up from the upper plate being hit. But it appears that did they not add the 20mm armor plates on the upper hull, it would have been a nice upgrade for tier 9 Conq.




      0



      0
  2. deadarashi says:

    Looks nice, will be interesting to see what happens with them




    0



    0
  3. I’d like to see this in a new line leading to a chieftain tank at tier X and just splits off as a second researchable tank at the black prince. But really, what gameplay benefit do these changes make? The conqueror’s turret cheeks become even more impenetrable and the caernarvon would lose its unique non-mantelt turret that was stronger than most tier 8 turrets but not better than the T32. I don’t see these changes being all that important to the game at the moment.




    0



    0
    • gpc_4 says:

      The top Caernarvon turret isn’t unique, it is the Action X turret which is also on the AX and stock Conqueror.




      0



      0
      • Unique in the sense that it is currently the only tier 8 heavy without a mantlet and relies the majority of its armor strength on using ridgelines. Also, I would not consider the AX turret for the conqueror really part of the gameplay as rather a speed bump because the conqueror needs the top turret to run its 120mm. But you are right that I am exagerating a bit, just saying the old caernarvon turret is very average as it was very similar to a pershing, t32, and centurion turret at tier 8 since they are all ridgeline tanks with mantlets. Granted, now a days, the centurion turret has become more unreliable since they weakened the armor in its hd form.




        0



        0
  4. metalrodent says:

    Looks pretty good, shame they haven’t included the front plate add ons though.

    Also wut, another unhistorical turret for the Caernarvon?




    0



    0
    • I’m pretty sure the current turret is the unhistorical one, but I’m no historian 😉
      Id prefer this turret if it is like the old caern turret, cause the AX turret is REALLY mediocre, with it being shit on flat ground and even when you use 10 degrees gun depression the area around the gun is pennable with anything over 200 pretty much




      0



      0
      • The caernarvon turret in SD was good, in HD, I think it will be as weak as the current centurion turrets. Trust me, you don’t want that tiny gun mantlet over the solid caernarvon turret, the turret cheeks will be extremely squish unless you fantasy buff them to 220mm of effective armor. Also, if you want a T32 with good accuracy and penetration, clone a T32 or play the T34. Heck, even load food and spam gold in the T32. You’re essentially making the british line bland if you take away the AX turret instead of just learning how to use ridgelines (ie getting hull down is not the whole picture, you actually have to choose a good slope that’s not too steep or shallow to get the ideal angle).




        0



        0
  5. gpc_4 says:

    Hard to see the different Conqueror as the start of a new mini-branch that ends in the tier X Chieftain, it would be too similar to the current Conqueror.




    0



    0
    • You’re probably right about that, just not sure why you would want spaced turret armor over something impenetrable in the first place. Like, what do you even do with this? Maybe put it on the FV215b? The conqueror just doesn’t need it.




      0



      0
      • Xavier says:

        The goal is to remove the FV215b altogether. It is completely made up. The real FV215b is in WoT as the FV215b 183.




        0



        0
      • That’s a shame, so replace a unique tank that has been in the game for several years because a chieftain will offer a different play experience from the T110E5? Plus, with development of a rear mounted turreted tank, there was bound to be speculation of taking any existing turret and using that for forming a ground work of design ideas that would lead to the culmination of the FV215b 183. People don’t suddenly think “tank with big gun” and build a death star, even the KV-2 had a predecesor.




        0



        0
      • zombietropa says:

        As far as I know, the FV215b was indeed designed to mount the 183mm gun. It only got to the stage of a wooden mock up, before the British decided that the 183mm gun, as tested on the FV4005, wasn’t working. I personally have never heard of the idea of mounting the standard Conqureor turret to the FV215b (and it really would have been a waste of time, when you stop and think about it).

        I think a lot of people (including me) want the FV215b replaced by the Chieftain as that the Chieftain represents the play styles of the Caenarvon and the Conqureor much more then the present Tier X, which is a diffent play style, with its remounted turret, altogether.

        Also because the Chieftain is awesome 😛




        0



        0
      • zombietropa says:

        *rear mounted




        0



        0
      • the chieftain was a ridgeline warrior which the chruchills, black prince, and conqueror are not. I can see how you could mistaken the conqueror for a ridgeline warrior but with 7 degrees of gun depression it really is a dpm support tank that the FV215b takes to the extreme, otherwise you end up calling the KV-3 a ridgeline warrior which would be funny. If anything, the caernarvon is the oddball in the entire line but it represents a solid intermediate tank of upgunning the previous churchill tanks to the mighty 120mm on the conqueror with a new universal style chasis. If you’ve ever driven the conqueror, you’ll knownhow important it is to sidescrape because giving away the ammo rack at the front is just asking for your turret to be blown clean off. The FV215b solves the ammo rack problem by improvingnthe sidescraping potential so you can side scrape like a black prince or churchill again.

        I’m not a historian on the the FV215b tanks so I’ll take your word on the design conception. And the chieftain is cool, yes, but the only tank in the line like it is the caernarvon and the only similarity between the caernarvon and the chieftain is the gun depression, not the dpm, not the alpha tier for tier, not even the armor layout in the current state (caernarvon is 200mm effective which is mediocre on the flat while the chieftain’s turret is impenetrable on the flat). I really think it’s just the crazy fan boys who want to replace the FV215b because they don’t know how to drive it and want another T110E5 to call their bae. No offense, but if you guys wanted more fun, you’d call for a new tank line instead of a replacement.




        0



        0
      • zombietropa says:

        For me, the late British tanks break off from the play style of the earlier British Infantry tanks. The Caenarvon and the Conq, imho, are jack of all, master of none, types of tanks. While the Caenarvon is differently one of the weaker tanks of the branch (by the gods that ammo rack is bad), and so the possible buff of the 32pdr that some people have mentioned isn’t a bad thing.

        But the Conq, for me; 1) My favourite tank in the game, 2), the highlight in the branch (if you failed to notice, my avatar is the Conq itself). I don’t bother side scrapping, as the side armour isn’t up to scratch against the guns it can face. The turret, however, is. The amount of damage the turret can deflect, and the dpm it can pump out in return, is nothing short of glorious. While the elevation isn’t great, it’s not bad, so you can take advantage of certain ridgelines, and its mobility is the same. Not fast, not slow. You’re able to keep up with the flow of battle, but don’t get into trouble.

        But the rear mounted turret of the FV215b (120) removes this flexibility. Like the Conq, the side armour isn’t up to task to side scape efficiently, and there are weak points even you angle yourself to a stupid level. The front mounted engine means a fire is a certainty (its the only tank I carry an auto extinguisher in). Ask me to take the FV215b or the Conq into a pure tier X battle, and I’ll choose the Conq over the FV.

        As to the Chieftain, it’s not a T110E5 clone. There are weaknesses in the turret cheeks (250mm effective), meaning that a well placed HEAT or APCR shell can punch through it. It’s front hull is also weak when compared to the US heavy. I do think that the Chieftain is a better fit for the Britsh heavier line than the FV215b (120), but I can’t see a reason why the FV should be replaced currently either. Prehaps they can co-habit.

        And since the Chieftain is already in versions of the game (goddamit console), I don’t exactly want to wait around a year or two for a new British line to come out (as much as I would like one).




        0



        0
      • Hi ZombieTropa, my bad, you are right, I did not pay attention to your avatar so I missed that haha so my apologies for the insult about your favorite tank.

        You are right that there is a shift after the Black Prince, and this is an official divide wargaming made for the line as explained in their wiki. I did a really poor job of explaining the reason I singled the Caernarvon out so I could point out that it was an odd ball that many believe is proof that the British heavies are about ridge line fighting like the Chieftain. None of the British heavies with exception of the Caernarvon can work the mid ridge in westfield for example. Quite often, ridgeline fighting was learned in the centurion line, an American line but certainly not in the British heavy line because 4 degrees in a churchill or 7 degrees in a conqueror is not for playing king of the hill. Anyways, the addition of a 32pdr against the existing 20pdr would be a fun choice. Yes, a lot of stuff in it does break a lot, especially the ammo rack in the front. Absolutely no disagreement there ever.

        Back to the Conqueror, you don’t side scrape and expose your inside drive wheel/ammo rack all the time? I’m just messing with you man haha, there’s a time and place for everything, ignoring any tool like side scraping entirely is your choice. 50mm of hull armor, 25mm of tracks, and 6 mm of spaced armor do add up to 81mm and yes, you have an outstanding turret so if you can find a place to go hull down, the world is your oyster. The reason why I put emphasis on side scraping is because you can’t be hull down all the time. It boils down to a fundamental mastery of 70 degree angling which is the same on American heavies, mid tier German heavies, armored mediums, and some td’s. This is where you squeeze the most armor out of the minimum metal. Then you can take this experience and apply it to the FV215b and not go driving front first against everything like a lady showing off her legs to men’s guns. That long hull screams side scrape and it is encouraged because all those engine fires and ammo racks at the front of the tank are not there to reward you for not using the side scraping mechanic. Also, If all you are facing are 152 and 155mm guns only found on td’s that can auto pen your sides, well you’re fighting a heavy tank’s natural predator and you’re not fighting E100’s, other heavies, and mediums that cannot auto pen your sides due to the greater than 3x overmatch rule, most of these tanks the FV215b can easily out dpm anyways. Then there is the weak point on the side, it’s small, right beneath the turret. When I do say side scrape, I do imply you have to juke back and forth to rock the tank and throw the enemy tank’s aim. You pretty much do this in any tank in game so you make your weak points hard to hit unless for some reason the FV215b’s weak points are as gyro stabilized as its gun and magnetically attract enemy shells… um, don’t know what to say but good luck?

        If you believe not bothering to side scrape is the way to go, let’s platoon. I am very curious to learn a thing or two about the conqueror if it is your favorite. Username: Bajicoy on the NA server.

        Finally, the good o’l chieftain. I am glad we agree that the FV215b should not be replaced and you make an excellent point that waiting for a new British heavy line would take too long so they should co-exist like the French medium line or the T54 split between T62A and Obj 140.

        I was also wrong to call the Chieftain a T110E5 clone. The armor for the mk 6 and T95 version linked down below is much worse than the T110E5 and FV215b with a 60mm tumor on top and hull armor that is arguably weaker than a Caernarvon due to the curved hull and 31mm armor hole on the side making sidescraping quite literally imposible unless against the few 100mm guns at tier X. Most of the weaknesses can be minimized on a hill, essentially, the Chieftain can no longer fight on flat ground like a Conqueror, FV215b, Churchill, Black Prince, or Matilda since the Chieftain’s weak points will be too prominent. Upon review of the tank from the site below, I must admit that it would be interesting to see the Chieftain in game in its own line, it is very different from any tanks currently in game so I am all for a coexist with the FV215b while British mountain goats can be researched.

        http://tanks.gg/wot/tank/chieftain#tab:model

        http://tanks.gg/wot/tank/t95chieftain#tab:model

        You really know how to write an impressive reply ZombieTropa and it really got me thinking and interested in researching the Chieftain. Thank you 🙂




        0



        0
  6. SpeedyCraft51 says:

    I want those graphics in game.

    Also this looks like it would be a tier X superpershing. Except the turret front isnt really the weakspot for conqueror anyway so the shields aren’t needed I guess. Looking good anyway




    0



    0
  7. Bricktop says:

    Yay, but what’s the point? Conquerors turret is really tough anyway, this won’t make much difference. OR slap additional armor on upper plate and make new, interesting tier X! But why would they bother, some people liked FV so let’s fuck chieftain, fuck super conqueror, implement more premiums comrade!




    0



    0
  8. Slakrrrrrr says:

    For those who are a bit misinformed about the real life spaced armor Conqueror: the spaced armor visible on the frontal hull plate is 14mm thick. The 20mm plates are attached directly on top of the 130mm frontal plate.




    0



    0
  9. Ion7 says:

    My predictions:
    No.1: At tier 8, heavies split into two lines, front-mounted turret (“Super” Conquer –> Chieftain), and rear-mounted turret (fv215b at tier 9 –> Tog II 183* ).
    No.2: Conquer gets a face lift and still moves to 215b, but the conquer (at tier 9) leads to the chieftain (also at tier 9, would work better with armor). leading off from the chieftain would be something total balanced, such as a fv4005 stage 1 (183mm auto loader), or a chieftain green mace (127mm firing 96 rpm).
    Both seem like very viable option that may just be coming in 9.18 😉




    0



    0
  10. Bonesaw1o1 says:

    In regards to the Caernarvon turret, its a proposed centurion turret with a ‘solid’ mantlet. its not 100% historical but its more historical than having the AX turret on the centurion. I’ve also heard some mumbling that the Caern might be getting the 32 pounder as a gun option along with the new turret




    0



    0
    • Ooh that would be awesome, cause the current lack of alpha/lack of (better) DPM, makes the caern quite mediocre for me.




      0



      0
      • NVM, I thought the 32pdr had 320 alpha, I have never played a 32pdr equipped tank, as they are slow as hell 🙁




        0



        0
      • The Caernarvon is a unique tank in the british line that serves as a heavy support snipper for centurion tanks. If you want a T32 which is a turreted beast designed for close quarter combat, well, I don’t know what you’re doing in the british heavy line, maybe the churchills could be called brawlers if you squint a lot and get seriously drunk. The british line starts off with lumbering damage support sponges and then the british focused on the support part and went all out. That’s where you get the squishy dpm freak that is the conqueror and fv215b, not the ridgeline warriors like the T32, M103, or T110E5. If they were supposed to be ridgeline warriors, they’d have more than russian gun depression. Caernarvon onve again, is support, SUPPORT. Jesus christ, Wargaming needs to hurry up and make a support class of tanks because lumping everything into the heavy tank genre is just giving me a headache.




        0



        0
  11. Bricktop says:

    Vision of Chieftain/super conqueror going from caernarvon with some filler tanks instead of conqueror pisses me off as I got 211k xp on Conqueror and don’t want to pick FV, hoping for replacement.




    0



    0
    • OrigamiChik3n says:

      Well, if you have FV purchased you will automatically get the replacement when (if ever) it happens. That’s how it worked so far. Unless, of course, you have doubts that replacement isn’t worth getting either.




      0



      0
      • Bricktop says:

        Unless they create separate tank from Conqueror leaving FV in game. Or create mini branch from Caernarvon.




        0



        0
      • OrigamiChik3n says:

        It’s been more than two years since the “Chieftain replacing Fv215b… or is it?” talks started in earnest. Wargaming introduced new lines, whole new nations even. And yet they can’t handle a single tank. Or at least give their definite position about it. Even though EU community has been so vocal about it that there is no excuse to think there isn’t enough interest. So i can understand your frustration.

        tl:dr – it’s just Wargaming being Wargaming.




        0



        0
  12. Anonymous says:

    is it just me or does Conq look taller here?




    0



    0
  13. There are lots of images that show where the FV215b idea for WG came from;

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PaCIAvBZ2ug/maxresdefault.jpg
    and
    http://www.motorgraphs.com/content/thumbnails/01544/154291-mainImage.jpg

    It was not unusual for Conquerors to be parked up, or even driven short distances with the turret facing backwards, and the result is photos that look like an ingame FV215b.




    0



    0

Leave a Reply