FV217 Badger

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.

click to read more...