FV217 Badger
Revision as of 21:38, 21 December 2017 grammatical corrections | Revision as of 14:19, 24 December 2017 | |||
Line 35: | Line 35: | |||
|InTheGame_performance= | |InTheGame_performance= | |||
? | |InTheGame_research= | + | |InTheGame_research= Vehicle is elite in stock configuration. | |
|InTheGame_equipment= | |InTheGame_equipment= | |||
+ | Tank Gun Rammer, Vents, Coated Optics, Binocular Telescope, Spall Liner, Toolbox | |||
|InTheGame_Equipment_Builds= | |InTheGame_Equipment_Builds= | |||
Line 44: | Line 45: | |||
|History= | |History= | |||
+ | A proposal for a fully tracked, turretless, assault gun would be ordered. It would call for a medium anti-tank gun (possibly the OQF 20-pdr), mounted in the hull of a modified Conqueror chassis. This proposal would be called FV205, but only a wooden mockup would be constructed. The proposal for the FV205 was cancelled in April 1949, with little progress being made on the project. | |||
+ | ||||
+ | Some consideration was also given to FV206, which was also a turretless self-propelled gun mounting a high-velocity anti-tank cannon (maybe the OQF 32-pdr) in a ball mount. This would be a feature taken from World War 2 turretless German tank destroyers (Sturmgeschütz, Jagdpanzer 38t, etc). This project was cancelled in July of 1948, as was a 152mm self-propelled howitzer call FV207. | |||
+ | ||||
+ | In May 1952 there was also a failed proposal to mount a L1A1 120mm rifled anti-tank gun on the Conqueror hull under the designation, FV217. It had also been abandoned by the end of the year and never made it past paper. The FV217 would be served by a commander, gunner, driver, and loader. It would have been powered by a Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 810 hp. The suspension would have been a Hortsmann style, which is shared by the Conqueror and also used on Centurion. It would have had the same L1A1 120mm cannon that had been equipped to Conqueror. | |||
+ | ||||
+ | It would have an armor compartment in place of the turret. Now, due to how the vehicle is constructed, it could have 1 hatch, with vision blocks, for the commander (probably something close to what Centurion had), and a hatch, with a vision port, for the loader. The front glacis plate could possibly be thickened. The Conqueror's upper plate is roughly 130mm thick. As a guess, the upper plate on the FV would range from 180-230mm thick. A thing to point out on the upper glacis plate in the gunner location and driver location, is at the bugles, which probably would be reinforced with an additional 30-50mm of armor. The side and rear armor would have probably remained unchanged, but the mock-up does show that the side armor of the compartment would have had a slight slope to it. The lower plate could probably have been thickened, but it's doubtful. | |||
+ | ||||
+ | Now, the gun would be mounted in the center of the upper glacis plate with a ball mount. This would allow the gun to elevate and depress, but also traverse side to side. Who knows what the gun arc would have been but it looks like at least 25-30 degrees left and right. The gun could probably have elevated around -8/+15. This is all just a guess going by the mock-up and shape of the vehicle. | |||
+ | ||||
+ | Mobility wise, the FV217 would have been more mobile than both A39 Tortoise and Conqueror. Removing a turret, even with adding armor to the front plate (if any would have been added), would reduce weight. Also, even if armor was added, it would still have less armor than Tortoise. British combat doctrine, at the time, would have called for a fast, highly mobile, defensive vehicle, over a slower moving heavily armored vehicle. In all honesty, if not for IS3, Conqueror probably would have never happened. At the time, the British were concerned of a Russian invasion into Europe. They and other Nato Countries believed that a rapid force deployment was necessary if Russia were to invade. | |||
+ | ||||
+ | Now, onto the conclusion. Most of the armor measurements and gun handling information is just theory, based on looking at the mock-up, Conqueror, and German TDs like the Jagdpanther, and Jagdtiger. No matter, the FV205, FV206, and FV217 was a failure from the start. All 3 vehicles were based on the mechanically unreliable Conqueror. Also, at the time, the British board for Military projects was leaning toward more versatile options, such as tanks. Very little information even exist. | |||
|HistoricalGallery= | |HistoricalGallery= | |||
+ | image:Badger1.jpg | |||
+ | image:Badger2.png | |||
|Ref_references= | |Ref_references= |
Revision as of 14:19, 24 December 2017
This article requires additional modification. The design and/or content of this article do not conform to wiki standards.
|
FV217 Badger
Mouse over "
[Client Values; Actual values in
6,100,000 Cost |
2100420 HP Hit Points |
65/7016.57/70 t Weight Limit |
- Commander
- Driver
- Gunner
- Radio Operator
- Loader
- Loader
950950 hp Engine Power |
30/12 km/h Speed Limit |
2222 deg/s Traverse |
14.6257.33 hp/t Power/Wt Ratio |
YesYes Pivot |
// mm Hull Armor |
AP/APCR/HE
AP/APCR/HE Shells |
1210/4800/1060
1210/4800/1060 Shell Cost |
480/480/620480/480/620 HP Damage |
272/320/130272/320/130 mm Penetration |
r/m ▲
7.06 r/m Standard Gun ▲
7.06 Rate of Fire Standard Gun |
▲
Standard Gun
▼
Standard Gun
▲
3388.8 Standard Gun ▲
Standard Gun
▼
Standard Gun
▲
3388.8 Damage Per Minute Standard Gun |
m ▲
0.3 m With 50% Crew: 0.372 m ▲
0.3 Accuracy With 50% Crew: 0.372 m |
s 1.7 s 1.7 Aim time |
1616 deg/s Gun Traverse Speed |
30° Gun Arc |
-10°/+20°-10°/+20° Elevation Arc |
6060 rounds Ammo Capacity |
2020 % Chance of Fire |
m 390 m 390 View Range |
m 750 m 750 Signal Range |
X
6100000
The FV217 Badger is a British tier 10 tank destroyer.
A project for a tank destroyer based on the Conqueror chassis was developed in the late 1940s. Existed only in blueprints.
Replaced the FV215b (183) at the tier 10 position in the British Turretless Tank Destroyer line. The FV217 Badger shocks anyone who faces it (or reads its paper stats) with its listed insane frontal armor of 355mm. However, the 355mm of armor only exists around the gun, and the rest of its frontal armor is only around 210mm in thickness (and around 270mm at view spots). This may give the wrong impression though since the 210mm part of its armor is decently sloped (Similar to StuG III) which adds about another 90mm of armor resulting in 300mm+ on its frontal plate. It wields a nasty 123mm gun which provides the highest DPM in the game. Fighting this vehice frontally is less than advised.
Although it seems to be almost invincible from the front, The Badger doesn't have all-around protection like the Tortoise, its side and rear armor is noticeably weaker than that of the Tortoise. In addition its still lacking in mobility and flankers will have an easy time tearing this vehicle apart.
The FV217 Badger marks the end of its British tank destroyer line.
Modules / Available Equipment and Consumables
Modules
Tier | Gun | Penetration (mm) |
Damage (HP) |
Rate of fire (rounds/minute) |
Dispersion (m/100m) |
Aiming time (s) |
Weight (kg) |
Price ()
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | OQF 123 mm Mk. 1 | 272/320/130 | 480/480/620 | 7.06 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 3175 | 320000 |
Tier | Engine | Engine Power (hp) |
Chance of Fire on Impact (%) |
Weight (kg) |
Price ()
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | Rolls-Royce Griffon | 950 | 20 | 952 | 100000 |
Tier | Suspension | Load Limit (т) |
Traverse Speed (gr/sec) |
Rmin | Weight (kg) |
Price ()
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | FV217 Badger | 70 | 22 | 0 | 12000 | 82500 |
Compatible Equipment
Compatible Consumables
Player Opinion
Pros and Cons
Pros:
- Very few tanks are able to challenge this vehicle frontally as its armor is going to block most shells below 300mm of penetration
- Highest DPM of any tank in the game, enough to kill every tank in less than a minute if all shots were to penetrate
- Although the 355mm frontal armor only applies to the gun mantlet, the rest of it is sloped which makes it hard to penetrate with about 300+mm of effective armor
- Decent HP pool
- Great gun handling, incredible aim time combined with great accuracy and an awesome rate of fire
- Great gun depression and elevation (-10/20 degrees) combined with its well-sloped frontal armor turns this vehicle into a perfect hull down tank
Cons:
- Overall raw armor stats are lower than its predecessor, which enables taller opponents to mitigate the sloping of the Badgers frontal plate
- Terrible side and rear armor, which results in a lesser angling capabilitiy than its predecessor
- Although its faster than the Tortoise, it's still slow and thus vulnerable to flanking attempts
- 2nd worst penetration value of all tier 10 TDs, premium rounds also have below average penetration
- Much more vulnerable against SPGs than its predecessor due to its very poor roof armor
Early Research
Vehicle is elite in stock configuration.
Suggested Equipment
Gallery
Historical Info
Some consideration was also given to FV206, which was also a turretless self-propelled gun mounting a high-velocity anti-tank cannon (maybe the OQF 32-pdr) in a ball mount. This would be a feature taken from World War 2 turretless German tank destroyers (Sturmgeschütz, Jagdpanzer 38t, etc). This project was cancelled in July of 1948, as was a 152mm self-propelled howitzer call FV207.
In May 1952 there was also a failed proposal to mount a L1A1 120mm rifled anti-tank gun on the Conqueror hull under the designation, FV217. It had also been abandoned by the end of the year and never made it past paper. The FV217 would be served by a commander, gunner, driver, and loader. It would have been powered by a Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 810 hp. The suspension would have been a Hortsmann style, which is shared by the Conqueror and also used on Centurion. It would have had the same L1A1 120mm cannon that had been equipped to Conqueror.
It would have an armor compartment in place of the turret. Now, due to how the vehicle is constructed, it could have 1 hatch, with vision blocks, for the commander (probably something close to what Centurion had), and a hatch, with a vision port, for the loader. The front glacis plate could possibly be thickened. The Conqueror's upper plate is roughly 130mm thick. As a guess, the upper plate on the FV would range from 180-230mm thick. A thing to point out on the upper glacis plate in the gunner location and driver location, is at the bugles, which probably would be reinforced with an additional 30-50mm of armor. The side and rear armor would have probably remained unchanged, but the mock-up does show that the side armor of the compartment would have had a slight slope to it. The lower plate could probably have been thickened, but it's doubtful.
Now, the gun would be mounted in the center of the upper glacis plate with a ball mount. This would allow the gun to elevate and depress, but also traverse side to side. Who knows what the gun arc would have been but it looks like at least 25-30 degrees left and right. The gun could probably have elevated around -8/+15. This is all just a guess going by the mock-up and shape of the vehicle.
Mobility wise, the FV217 would have been more mobile than both A39 Tortoise and Conqueror. Removing a turret, even with adding armor to the front plate (if any would have been added), would reduce weight. Also, even if armor was added, it would still have less armor than Tortoise. British combat doctrine, at the time, would have called for a fast, highly mobile, defensive vehicle, over a slower moving heavily armored vehicle. In all honesty, if not for IS3, Conqueror probably would have never happened. At the time, the British were concerned of a Russian invasion into Europe. They and other Nato Countries believed that a rapid force deployment was necessary if Russia were to invade.
Now, onto the conclusion. Most of the armor measurements and gun handling information is just theory, based on looking at the mock-up, Conqueror, and German TDs like the Jagdpanther, and Jagdtiger. No matter, the FV205, FV206, and FV217 was a failure from the start. All 3 vehicles were based on the mechanically unreliable Conqueror. Also, at the time, the British board for Military projects was leaning toward more versatile options, such as tanks. Very little information even exist.
Historical Gallery