Here is a comparison between M103 and Conqueror, Both are massive beast heavy tanks, but which one is better? I'll see about making more improvements on my comparison videos in the future, feel free to leave your feedback. Join my discord community by signing up for my email list through my website here: www.seanfickengaming.com
If the Conqueror's 2 rounds that it has available to it worked correctly, it probably wouldn't be sitting at the same BR as the tanks that it's mean to replace
I always found it interesting that, to me, the last generation of heavy tanks before MBTs took over were so impressive… so long as they found themselves in a PERFECTLY IDEAL engagement. Front directly towards the enemy, preferably only one enemy at a time. It becomes suddenly obvious why they were the last huzzah of the heavy tank. Nobody fights like that, especially not the Soviets. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, developments in ammunition and guns made things even worse for their survivability. Just another nail in the coffin.
Unfortunately for the M103 it's main AP round suffers from ahistorically awful angled performance. The whole reason the specific version of the 120mm gun was mounted on the M103 was because it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it could fully penetrate the upper glacis of an IS-3 at ranges in excess of 1.5km. The older version of this same gun, seen on the T34 Heavy Tank Prototype, was only capable of doing so with expensive experimental APDS and APCR shot that were seen as prohibitively expensive (not the APCR shot seen in game, the one the T34 gets in game is 40s era while both prototype shells were made for the test which was held in the mid 50s). The new cold forging techniques available in the 50s compared to the 40s resulted in the capability of accepting a much higher pressure which allowed stronger propellent to be used making the standard APC shell directly comparable with the more expensive prototype rounds for the older cannon. The M103's AP was also exceptionally effective against harsh slopes due to a controlled shattering of the nose cone that made it turn in towards the plate it was striking rather than away. At angles greater than 60 degrees the M103's APC vastly outperformed the Conqueror's APDS which nominally had far superior flat penetration.
Honestly, I'm not even surprised that gaijin nerfs American vehicles, look at the M41 with it's slow af turret rotation speed. The M47 has the same hydraulic system yet moves significantly faster in game. What a joke
@@Flamehazard But let’s not say anything about how Gaijin lick the ass of top American tanks) And even so, you have only 25% of victories among all American players, maybe this is a skill problem?) I have no doubt that Gaijin can allow this and this is not a nerf (In Soviet and German cars and others) THIS happens 3-4 times more often than in the USA. For example, the Soviet tops spoiled the Stabilizer, the pre-top cars don’t have it at all (When the performance characteristics have them) and so with all cars, you Americans are not the only ones who suffer from Gaijin, their strange decision.
The T-10a was supposed to have a stabilizer and many Soviet players complained about it, but Gaijin simply supervised everything and simply deleted 80% of the questions asked (In the CIS).
@@-_Hatred_- imo heat-fs is one of the worst shells in the game, it has laughable post pen damage, and I main the British my expectations are not high. It also gets eaten by tracks and early ERA something that apds doesn't have to worry about. And on top of all this it has horrible velocity making it harder to aim at long ranges. The only thing it has going for it is pen, but apds already has amazing pen
Heats does way more damage than apds. It got buffed a few weeks ago to have relatively smiliar post pen affects to apfsds. It also has the benefit of overpressuring certain vehicles, and gauranteed ammo detonation on contact. It also has the benefit of not shattering on volumetric, unlike apds which shatters against the leopards thin mantlet. Velocity is really the only benefit of apds, which i must say is very nice but not necessary.
There is a weakspot on the m103 that you can pen with the long 88. It is the bottom corners off the hull, it is a pretty easy shot to make if m103 is not hull down.
Both the APDS and the HESH are two round types that excel at devastating soviet tanks, so naturally they are the most unreliable rounds in the whole game (together with APCR), with HESH being absurdly nerfed to the point that it can't even be called HESH anymore.
@@robertharris6092 The Conqueror did have a stabilizer IRL, howeve rthe game implementation is not correct since it was only active at lower speeds. It should work more like the Sherman's stabilizer in-game where it engages below a certain speed. Furthermore, even if the M103's gun got more pen, (which would only be for the APBC), it'd still be far worse than the APDS, which had just as devastating spalling, but at a higher velocity and with a higher pen. But APDS is shit in WT for some arbitrary ballancing reason...
@@ZETH_27 the chieftan did a video on the conq. It neverchad a stabalizer and could never fire on the move. The gun looked stable om the movie due to it free floating.
@@robertharris6092 I know. The conqueror's gun locked after a set speed, not just when it moved at all. Under that speed it could still fire and engage as regular. After it was locked up however, it did take some time for it to reset, but that probably wouldn't be modelled in the game anyway. But after that it could move around and fire as usual. The whole system was for the purpose of reliability as the gun was too heavy for its mountings to hold it reliably. But given how that's not really a factor in-game, I'm not suprised that it's not modelled.
I think you also overlooked the Conquerer’s Hunter-Killer, the ability to use your commander in order to control the turret and gun has saved me a few times.
@@solreaver83 pershings do it quite well although I checked in pen tester, and found M103 is actually pretty good on side armor useless against heat tho
Soviet heavies are the easiest to kill in the cent mk3 in my experience, mantlet easy shot to kill breech, then swing around to hit the pike flat or the side and thats it.
In real life the M103 had significant faster reload due to the extra crew and more spacious turret but the Conqueror was far superior due to a stabilized turret. Funny thing is they share the same Gun so the M103 could fire the same APDS round as the Conqueror.
I did happen to know that they use a modification of the same gun. I haven't heard that the reload would be better on the M103 though. Also fun fact the gun both of these were developed from was the 120mm M1 gun, it's known as the stratosphere gun because it has a maximum altitude of 17.5km.
@@SeanFicken The loading process could take less than 10 seconds if the crew was lap loading as there was no need to worry about blow back to the propellant being in a brass case unlike the Conqueror using powder bags though under normal circumstances it would take longer(not as long as the Conqueror) as the Rounds where to the Right of the breach and the propellant to the Left thus making the Number one Loader sometime stepping over to the number 2 loader(propellant Loader) to grab the Shells behind him.
i used to play war thunder for literal Hour’s (like 400 hour’s) But the constant suffering, uptier’s and lack of versitility for Britain at every BR and not being able to compete, Made Me rage and get sad for my british line, so i just left and deleted War Thunder 😢
@@alexmurphy6574 Lie, They suck LEGIT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. The firefly is inferior to the american 76mm sherman, The churchill’s armor was, at least for me, 90% of the time penned, even when angled with the mark 7, and it’s slow, with no reverse speed, and a PITIFUL gun. 4.7 is legit considered the “best line-up for britain” …. Sure
Ohh and don’t get me started on the Cen MK1 … Damn, that thing also suck’s. The APDS round is like hitting someone with a napkin, and your armor is Non-existent. people 99% of the time would alway’s shoot my gun Mantlet, along with my turret cheek’s, killing 2 Crewmember’s, even with bushes, people know EXACTLY where to shoot the cen mk1, Making it useless as well, and the MK3, does pitiful to non-existent damage, on tank’s. i was going to grind up to the conqueror simply because i like it’s history and design, but after so many suffering, i just gave up and left. Britain in war thunder is useless
@@PanzerHistorian I basically said the same thing my dude, British is suck from beginning till 8.0. in 8.0-8.7 I genuinely have a good time, minus the early chieftains they are sucks.
What you missed is how bad the shell shatter now is on the conq apds gone from one of my fav tanks in the game to one I spawn last. But I'd take it any day still over the m103
The Conqueror never saw service with that add-on armour. Only a single testing mule was ever fitted with it. It would be more accurate to test the Conq without it.
While you are correct that is a prototype setup to test HESH missiles against it, it's a modification in game thus needs to be part of an in game test. Another thing the base M103 didn't have HEAT ammo andthe AP it has is missing a lot of sloped pen.
don’t even have to watch, M103. I play both extensively and while I feel like a bigger chad in the Conq because it’s about 600,000x more difficult to use, there’s no questiion the M103 is superior, and even then the T32E1 is 10x the tank the M103 is at 7.7… it’s not even the best we have to offer at taking an utter dump on the conq. A guy trying to be a brit main is reporting this… I’ve… taken some detours on the way :P
I looked into the stats on the m103s gun IRL and it honeslty seems like a whole diffrent gun to the one we see in game Like its actually insane the ranges that had it cooking 100+mm angled plates with the basic bitch AP
M103 stomps. The Conqueror has a gun with the same reload but shoots nerf darts instead. Though looks wise the Conqueror looks decent whereas the M103 looks like a fat banana
I love how Soviet’s entire fighting motto is “more things go Vroom” in a war situation and The western “counter” for it is just frontal armored heavy tanks. “Ohh my front is armored, you cant penetrate me at perfectly straight angle!” Like brother, you are DEFINITELY not gonna fight only one IS-3. If you saw one, expect more for flanks or whatever. In my opinion this is a bit stupid.
Well to be fair tanks were not designed to be used the way we do in game per say, if tanks were designed for video games I'm certain the design would be very different.
I would take the M103 over the Conqueror mainly due to the AP and HEAT. From my experience of grinding both vehicles the APDS on the Conqueror is 50-50 in spall damage and sometimes it won't even pen, while the AP and HEAT always does the job even if it has less pen but at least the damage is consistent.
I am so used to understanding how apps work that I prefer it, and don't forget the AP round on the M103 will struggle frontally against heavier armored tanks, even T-54s because it will ricochet so often. You have to hit the T-54 in the flatter part of the turret. The conq doesn't have that issue while it's stock.
My Leopard 1 is worthless whilst playing against these especially against the M103 becouse when I'm zooming 65 km/h it's just impossible to kill that M103
@@SeanFicken I'm afraid that's illegal, sir. Jk jk. I think it looks too silly for me, like it has a huge ass turret on a tiny chassis. Perhaps if the chassis was like 40% bigger... Also the turret being alien head-shaped...
From my understanding it's just from it being an upscaled M48, the hull is similar in dimensions, but a lot mor front hull armor, and then the turret was changed a lot to give it more armor and that 120mm.
the Conq is significantly worse,on paper its incredible,but in practice,you wont kill anything,Almost 0 demage with 15 sec reload... and dont forget the lower plate which if youre not hull down your be deleted
Personally I find that people don't hit your lower plate and I tend to do well with it. Though the fact that I tend to use it at extreme ranges with the rangefinder it has and the fact I have managed to memorise the ammo layouts of most common tanks I face with it does help.
The conq is *not* significantly worse, infact from my experience the M103 is honestly the worse of the bunch. You see, the Conq is a tank that heavily relies on the players general knowledge of the game to play effectively and amazingly. Yes the APDS is iffy as fuck and is a dice roll in most cases, but that same dice roll can be manipulated by game knowledge (this applies to all tanks generally, but more so to tanks that use solid shot type rounds) since instead of just shooting center mass on a leo, aim to the left and have a massive chance of one shotting the guy. And again from general experience, people rarely shoot at the conqs lfp first, most of the time only doing so after they messed up a shot and identified what tank it is. In these situations is also where the Conq's stabilizer also comes into play, giving the user a much quicker response time compared to its contemporaries. This can also be negated by doing what the conq was intented to do and snipe behind hills. Heck most of the time I played the Conq I get a lot of kills and it was the tank that got me my first nuke.
@@Jump-Shack Despite the extra armour HEAT can still go through on the conqueror. I once got killed after a M103 slowly found the correct range for me and hit my track before going through my upper front plate and hit the ammo.
Okay, so you mention all the 7.7 heavies besides the maus are pain, can you elaborate on this? I ask because I really don't have issues playing with either of the vehicles in this Video.
@@SeanFicken from my experience playing t32e1, is6, is4, etc basically all thiccc armored, rather slow, long reload, don't do well against 8.0-8.3 vehicles which they meet often (doesn't need to talk about full uptier 8.7). Even other vehicles at 7.3-7.7 are jokingly outmatch them both in firepower/versatility. Because this topic is plain simple, with some common sense and pure logic, this idea about all 7.7 heavies suffers often appears at in-game battle chats. *sorry for bad english, not my first language at all
Ah, that makes more sense now, I would think the reason that those sit at 7.7 because imagine facing an IS-4 or IS-6 in a jumbo 76, the jumbo 76 can face IS-3's. They just sit in an odd spot because they don't have easy weak spots.
@@SeanFicken And i think that's why i prefer the older time period where mid rank BR range is quite balanced (jumbo 5.7, 76 jumbo 6.0, m26 6.3, T-44 6.3, etc. It's bracket was deliver a good battles and late heavies battles was good too when they sit at 7.0-7.3. (King tiger is the strongest since his eternal BR is 6.7 lmao and let's be honest it's easier to do well in it even in uptiers lol) But honestly i prefer facing is4/6, amx surbaisse, KTH, even caernarvon in a jumbo 76. Or facing t32e1 in a T-44, centurion, amx13, etc. Most of the time it's not about the frontal armor and armor pen but the mobility and the tech era (that battles above still used conventional shells/unreliable early apds). Even other 7.0-7.7 vehicles are much easier to do well (like t92, m47/48, t44-100, t54s, fv4202, centurion mk3 (even mk1), type 99, ho-ri, lorraine, amx50, etc.) rather than 7.7 heavies. While current 7.7 heavies situation (with slower reaction, much longer reload, rather slow moving, useless armor, conventional shells) is facing apfsds, laser range finder, drones, atgm, agm missiles, autocannons that pens it's side easily, thermals, good fire control, and other much more advanced tech.
I'll be honest, If you are having significant issues with the APDS you are having a skill issue, APDS is nice because it will pen when the AP on the M103 won't, most ammo has poor damage when you compare it to APHE.
@@SeanFicken id like to disagree regular ap has significantly better damage than the apds ive got no issue with opponents on the same br with french lineup yet with conc it feels like ive got to aim for each crew member
Here is a comparison between M103 and Conqueror, Both are massive beast heavy tanks, but which one is better?
I'll see about making more improvements on my comparison videos in the future, feel free to leave your feedback.
Join my discord community by signing up for my email list through my website here: www.seanfickengaming.com
its nice to see a protection analysis of 2 tanks made to counter the same tank
I figured it would be interesting to show because of that.
@@SeanFicken nice.
If the Conqueror's 2 rounds that it has available to it worked correctly, it probably wouldn't be sitting at the same BR as the tanks that it's mean to replace
Yeah, if the Sabot behaved more like the chieftains sabot it would have to be much higher.
I always found it interesting that, to me, the last generation of heavy tanks before MBTs took over were so impressive… so long as they found themselves in a PERFECTLY IDEAL engagement. Front directly towards the enemy, preferably only one enemy at a time.
It becomes suddenly obvious why they were the last huzzah of the heavy tank. Nobody fights like that, especially not the Soviets.
And then, as if that wasn’t enough, developments in ammunition and guns made things even worse for their survivability. Just another nail in the coffin.
yeah, the technology advances in the 50's and 60's truly put an end to heavy tanks.
Unfortunately for the M103 it's main AP round suffers from ahistorically awful angled performance. The whole reason the specific version of the 120mm gun was mounted on the M103 was because it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it could fully penetrate the upper glacis of an IS-3 at ranges in excess of 1.5km. The older version of this same gun, seen on the T34 Heavy Tank Prototype, was only capable of doing so with expensive experimental APDS and APCR shot that were seen as prohibitively expensive (not the APCR shot seen in game, the one the T34 gets in game is 40s era while both prototype shells were made for the test which was held in the mid 50s). The new cold forging techniques available in the 50s compared to the 40s resulted in the capability of accepting a much higher pressure which allowed stronger propellent to be used making the standard APC shell directly comparable with the more expensive prototype rounds for the older cannon. The M103's AP was also exceptionally effective against harsh slopes due to a controlled shattering of the nose cone that made it turn in towards the plate it was striking rather than away. At angles greater than 60 degrees the M103's APC vastly outperformed the Conqueror's APDS which nominally had far superior flat penetration.
Honestly, I'm not even surprised that gaijin nerfs American vehicles, look at the M41 with it's slow af turret rotation speed. The M47 has the same hydraulic system yet moves significantly faster in game. What a joke
@@Flamehazard But let’s not say anything about how Gaijin lick the ass of top American tanks) And even so, you have only 25% of victories among all American players, maybe this is a skill problem?)
I have no doubt that Gaijin can allow this and this is not a nerf (In Soviet and German cars and others) THIS happens 3-4 times more often than in the USA.
For example, the Soviet tops spoiled the Stabilizer, the pre-top cars don’t have it at all (When the performance characteristics have them) and so with all cars, you Americans are not the only ones who suffer from Gaijin, their strange decision.
The T-10a was supposed to have a stabilizer and many Soviet players complained about it, but Gaijin simply supervised everything and simply deleted 80% of the questions asked (In the CIS).
And some were simply banned forever
You can’t imagine how terrible everything is on the Russian forum and how Gaijin is strangling us
Conqueror my beloved
Yeah, 12 of 10 kill's asissts!!
British tonks are the best harvesters of assistant farm!
@@KoT_3JIoBpEg yeah, but at least they get apds instead of heatfs
@@guywithpotatoes8266, idk if this is an advantage..
@@-_Hatred_- imo heat-fs is one of the worst shells in the game, it has laughable post pen damage, and I main the British my expectations are not high.
It also gets eaten by tracks and early ERA something that apds doesn't have to worry about.
And on top of all this it has horrible velocity making it harder to aim at long ranges.
The only thing it has going for it is pen, but apds already has amazing pen
Heats does way more damage than apds. It got buffed a few weeks ago to have relatively smiliar post pen affects to apfsds. It also has the benefit of overpressuring certain vehicles, and gauranteed ammo detonation on contact. It also has the benefit of not shattering on volumetric, unlike apds which shatters against the leopards thin mantlet. Velocity is really the only benefit of apds, which i must say is very nice but not necessary.
conquerer when it has to do damage (impossible)
Lol good Ol' APDS
I remember when it did damage 😢
Aim better
Come up with a better response
@@wilberforce6991guess up you only have negative kd’s😂
There is a weakspot on the m103 that you can pen with the long 88. It is the bottom corners off the hull, it is a pretty easy shot to make if m103 is not hull down.
I also find the beak edge where ufp and lfp meet is often pennable too though it shouldn't.
Realistically the conqueror is the far better vehicle but in war thunder the lack of damage from the gun makes it SO painful to play
Both the APDS and the HESH are two round types that excel at devastating soviet tanks, so naturally they are the most unreliable rounds in the whole game (together with APCR), with HESH being absurdly nerfed to the point that it can't even be called HESH anymore.
Except IRL the co queror didnt have a stabalizer. And the m103s gun had more pen.
@@robertharris6092 The Conqueror did have a stabilizer IRL, howeve rthe game implementation is not correct since it was only active at lower speeds. It should work more like the Sherman's stabilizer in-game where it engages below a certain speed.
Furthermore, even if the M103's gun got more pen, (which would only be for the APBC), it'd still be far worse than the APDS, which had just as devastating spalling, but at a higher velocity and with a higher pen. But APDS is shit in WT for some arbitrary ballancing reason...
@@ZETH_27 the chieftan did a video on the conq. It neverchad a stabalizer and could never fire on the move. The gun looked stable om the movie due to it free floating.
@@robertharris6092 I know. The conqueror's gun locked after a set speed, not just when it moved at all. Under that speed it could still fire and engage as regular.
After it was locked up however, it did take some time for it to reset, but that probably wouldn't be modelled in the game anyway. But after that it could move around and fire as usual.
The whole system was for the purpose of reliability as the gun was too heavy for its mountings to hold it reliably. But given how that's not really a factor in-game, I'm not suprised that it's not modelled.
I think you also overlooked the Conquerer’s Hunter-Killer, the ability to use your commander in order to control the turret and gun has saved me a few times.
It wasn’t that hard but still called it
Maybe I was a little too specific in my descriptor lol.
oh ok I was angling by reflex because of the pershings & t34, thank you I now know not to do that
Don't angle any Brit tank unless it's a churchill. If it's a Churchill angle it more then feels comfortable.
@@solreaver83 pershings do it quite well
although I checked in pen tester, and found M103 is actually pretty good on side armor
useless against heat tho
m103 when i shoot the driver’s propellant cases with DM12: 💥
Conclusion: they are both beasts
Playing an urban map and seeing an M103 come around the corner toward you turns war thunder into a horror game
It,s fun and games until IS-6 and IS-4 start coming.
but still a nice analysis
T-10A and T-10M💀
If u struggling against is6 and is4 then it's skill issue at it's finest since that 2 tanks are the worst in 7.7 heavies league.
@@athiftsabit1208 lmao no, IS-6 and IS-4 is amazing when youre not against leo 1's or atgms
Soviet heavies are the easiest to kill in the cent mk3 in my experience, mantlet easy shot to kill breech, then swing around to hit the pike flat or the side and thats it.
@@-_Hatred_-I tested the conqueror after the recent buff it has gotten and I could easily one shot an T- 10m
Go the conquerer! My 3rd favourite tank to play :P
In real life the M103 had significant faster reload due to the extra crew and more spacious turret but the Conqueror was far superior due to a stabilized turret. Funny thing is they share the same Gun so the M103 could fire the same APDS round as the Conqueror.
I did happen to know that they use a modification of the same gun. I haven't heard that the reload would be better on the M103 though. Also fun fact the gun both of these were developed from was the 120mm M1 gun, it's known as the stratosphere gun because it has a maximum altitude of 17.5km.
@@SeanFicken The loading process could take less than 10 seconds if the crew was lap loading as there was no need to worry about blow back to the propellant being in a brass case unlike the Conqueror using powder bags though under normal circumstances it would take longer(not as long as the Conqueror) as the Rounds where to the Right of the breach and the propellant to the Left thus making the Number one Loader sometime stepping over to the number 2 loader(propellant Loader) to grab the Shells behind him.
the conqueror never had a stabilizer
You should use the protection analysis system in the armor protection analysis
i used to play war thunder for literal Hour’s (like 400 hour’s) But the constant suffering, uptier’s and lack of versitility for Britain at every BR and not being able to compete, Made Me rage and get sad for my british line, so i just left and deleted War Thunder 😢
RIP :(
British is sufferings until 8.0, Vickers and some south African vehicles are amazing.
@@alexmurphy6574 Lie, They suck LEGIT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. The firefly is inferior to the american 76mm sherman, The churchill’s armor was, at least for me, 90% of the time penned, even when angled with the mark 7, and it’s slow, with no reverse speed, and a PITIFUL gun. 4.7 is legit considered the “best line-up for britain” …. Sure
Ohh and don’t get me started on the Cen MK1 … Damn, that thing also suck’s. The APDS round is like hitting someone with a napkin, and your armor is Non-existent. people 99% of the time would alway’s shoot my gun Mantlet, along with my turret cheek’s, killing 2 Crewmember’s, even with bushes, people know EXACTLY where to shoot the cen mk1, Making it useless as well, and the MK3, does pitiful to non-existent damage, on tank’s. i was going to grind up to the conqueror simply because i like it’s history and design, but after so many suffering, i just gave up and left. Britain in war thunder is useless
@@PanzerHistorian I basically said the same thing my dude, British is suck from beginning till 8.0. in 8.0-8.7 I genuinely have a good time, minus the early chieftains they are sucks.
What you missed is how bad the shell shatter now is on the conq apds gone from one of my fav tanks in the game to one I spawn last. But I'd take it any day still over the m103
I partially mentioned it when looking at the is-3 when hovering over the tracks, but I'll work on going more into detail in the future.
The Conqueror never saw service with that add-on armour. Only a single testing mule was ever fitted with it. It would be more accurate to test the Conq without it.
While you are correct that is a prototype setup to test HESH missiles against it, it's a modification in game thus needs to be part of an in game test. Another thing the base M103 didn't have HEAT ammo andthe AP it has is missing a lot of sloped pen.
don’t even have to watch, M103. I play both extensively and while I feel like a bigger chad in the Conq because it’s about 600,000x more difficult to use, there’s no questiion the M103 is superior, and even then the T32E1 is 10x the tank the M103 is at 7.7… it’s not even the best we have to offer at taking an utter dump on the conq.
A guy trying to be a brit main is reporting this… I’ve… taken some detours on the way :P
Prob because the m103s ap shell doesnt have as much flat or angled pen as it did irl. And that the conqueror gets a stab. Which it didnt IRL.
I looked into the stats on the m103s gun IRL and it honeslty seems like a whole diffrent gun to the one we see in game
Like its actually insane the ranges that had it cooking 100+mm angled plates with the basic bitch AP
Pretty soon Conqueror will have over 600mm pen, and still be fucking useless
If you shoot the tracks in the front (not directly at the tracks) but above at a slight angle you can hit the ammo. (Coming from a conqueror player)
Would you like t58 heavy ?
I play World of Tanks console, specifically the Cold War game mode, but I do enjoy war thunder videos a lot.
I have seen a bit of the Cold War game mode, it looks interesting to say the least.
@@SeanFickenYou have?
Yeah, I saw a few videos, but not sure if it would be something I would okay.
@@SeanFicken I just didn’t think anybody outside the community would have known this game existed.
The m103 is a beast of a tank it’s just a mutated m48 tank with longer hull
irl the Conqueror never actually had a stabiliser
I like this type of video
M103 stomps. The Conqueror has a gun with the same reload but shoots nerf darts instead.
Though looks wise the Conqueror looks decent whereas the M103 looks like a fat banana
I don't get why people say the Conq doesn't do damage, first match I played it with when people were saying that I got a nuke plane.
I love how Soviet’s entire fighting motto is “more things go Vroom” in a war situation and The western “counter” for it is just frontal armored heavy tanks. “Ohh my front is armored, you cant penetrate me at perfectly straight angle!” Like brother, you are DEFINITELY not gonna fight only one IS-3. If you saw one, expect more for flanks or whatever.
In my opinion this is a bit stupid.
Well to be fair tanks were not designed to be used the way we do in game per say, if tanks were designed for video games I'm certain the design would be very different.
I would take the M103 over the Conqueror mainly due to the AP and HEAT. From my experience of grinding both vehicles the APDS on the Conqueror is 50-50 in spall damage and sometimes it won't even pen, while the AP and HEAT always does the job even if it has less pen but at least the damage is consistent.
I am so used to understanding how apps work that I prefer it, and don't forget the AP round on the M103 will struggle frontally against heavier armored tanks, even T-54s because it will ricochet so often. You have to hit the T-54 in the flatter part of the turret. The conq doesn't have that issue while it's stock.
The Conq is fun to play. British railgun go brrr.
Being Bri’ish make’s it OUTOMATICALLY worse and un-usable in War Thunder (as a british man, This sad reality Hurt’s More)
It's a great tank, wtf you on about haha
@@Lead1121 APDS 💀
@@PanzerHistorian I've never had an issue with this tank, in fact it's probably my favorite in my 7.7 line up
My Leopard 1 is worthless whilst playing against these especially against the M103 becouse when I'm zooming 65 km/h it's just impossible to kill that M103
Just slow down? Your round easily kills both of them
The leo1 is one of the best tabks for its BR in the game. Lol
@@robertharris6092 honestly the of40 is better (same br but also has laser rangefinder)
@@Sebmundo it trades the LRF for being a bit slower.
@@robertharris6092 yes I know I have used both and did better with of40 despite speed difference
ill pick the amx 50 120 over BOTH, it is the superior is3 hunter.
Is pretty funny that both the American and British the lower plate is a weak spot for more powerful rounds.
It's mainly because both are designed for hull down positions irl.
Conquerer is my favourite tank
The Conqueror has yet another advantage over the M103 not stated in the video. It's not ugly as sin like the M103.
I'llbe honest I prefer the way the M103 Looks.
@@SeanFicken I'm afraid that's illegal, sir. Jk jk. I think it looks too silly for me, like it has a huge ass turret on a tiny chassis. Perhaps if the chassis was like 40% bigger... Also the turret being alien head-shaped...
From my understanding it's just from it being an upscaled M48, the hull is similar in dimensions, but a lot mor front hull armor, and then the turret was changed a lot to give it more armor and that 120mm.
M103 next question
M103 also penetrates the bottom. Conqueror is much superior on the defensive side.
I havent played the conq yet but i have played m103 quite a bit. I will say its ok and i prefer this over conq beacuse of apds beacuse its apds
is4m best 7.7 heavy
the Conq is significantly worse,on paper its incredible,but in practice,you wont kill anything,Almost 0 demage with 15 sec reload... and dont forget the lower plate which if youre not hull down your be deleted
Personally I find that people don't hit your lower plate and I tend to do well with it. Though the fact that I tend to use it at extreme ranges with the rangefinder it has and the fact I have managed to memorise the ammo layouts of most common tanks I face with it does help.
The conq is *not* significantly worse, infact from my experience the M103 is honestly the worse of the bunch. You see, the Conq is a tank that heavily relies on the players general knowledge of the game to play effectively and amazingly. Yes the APDS is iffy as fuck and is a dice roll in most cases, but that same dice roll can be manipulated by game knowledge (this applies to all tanks generally, but more so to tanks that use solid shot type rounds) since instead of just shooting center mass on a leo, aim to the left and have a massive chance of one shotting the guy.
And again from general experience, people rarely shoot at the conqs lfp first, most of the time only doing so after they messed up a shot and identified what tank it is. In these situations is also where the Conq's stabilizer also comes into play, giving the user a much quicker response time compared to its contemporaries. This can also be negated by doing what the conq was intented to do and snipe behind hills.
Heck most of the time I played the Conq I get a lot of kills and it was the tank that got me my first nuke.
@@Regular93 i do agree the conq is far better againts inexperienced players,but againtss competent enemies...
M103 lacks the heat protection the conqueror can get
@@Jump-Shack Despite the extra armour HEAT can still go through on the conqueror. I once got killed after a M103 slowly found the correct range for me and hit my track before going through my upper front plate and hit the ammo.
Centurion's big brother
The anwer is somua sm ^^
It would be interesting to do more videos on the 7.7 vehicles.
But playing this and other 7.7 heavies are pain, all 7.7 heavies except maus should be 7.3.
Okay, so you mention all the 7.7 heavies besides the maus are pain, can you elaborate on this? I ask because I really don't have issues playing with either of the vehicles in this Video.
@@SeanFicken from my experience playing t32e1, is6, is4, etc basically all thiccc armored, rather slow, long reload, don't do well against 8.0-8.3 vehicles which they meet often (doesn't need to talk about full uptier 8.7). Even other vehicles at 7.3-7.7 are jokingly outmatch them both in firepower/versatility.
Because this topic is plain simple, with some common sense and pure logic, this idea about all 7.7 heavies suffers often appears at in-game battle chats.
*sorry for bad english, not my first language at all
Ah, that makes more sense now, I would think the reason that those sit at 7.7 because imagine facing an IS-4 or IS-6 in a jumbo 76, the jumbo 76 can face IS-3's. They just sit in an odd spot because they don't have easy weak spots.
@@SeanFicken And i think that's why i prefer the older time period where mid rank BR range is quite balanced (jumbo 5.7, 76 jumbo 6.0, m26 6.3, T-44 6.3, etc. It's bracket was deliver a good battles and late heavies battles was good too when they sit at 7.0-7.3. (King tiger is the strongest since his eternal BR is 6.7 lmao and let's be honest it's easier to do well in it even in uptiers lol)
But honestly i prefer facing is4/6, amx surbaisse, KTH, even caernarvon in a jumbo 76. Or facing t32e1 in a T-44, centurion, amx13, etc. Most of the time it's not about the frontal armor and armor pen but the mobility and the tech era (that battles above still used conventional shells/unreliable early apds). Even other 7.0-7.7 vehicles are much easier to do well (like t92, m47/48, t44-100, t54s, fv4202, centurion mk3 (even mk1), type 99, ho-ri, lorraine, amx50, etc.) rather than 7.7 heavies.
While current 7.7 heavies situation (with slower reaction, much longer reload, rather slow moving, useless armor, conventional shells) is facing apfsds, laser range finder, drones, atgm, agm missiles, autocannons that pens it's side easily, thermals, good fire control, and other much more advanced tech.
Vive l' AMX 50 Surbaissé !
dont get tricket the conc with its needle round does really shit damage
I'll be honest, If you are having significant issues with the APDS you are having a skill issue, APDS is nice because it will pen when the AP on the M103 won't, most ammo has poor damage when you compare it to APHE.
Skill issue I one shot nearly everything
@@SeanFicken id like to disagree regular ap has significantly better damage than the apds ive got no issue with opponents on the same br with french lineup yet with conc it feels like ive got to aim for each crew member
I'll CAS them both.
First? Besides creator comment
Concy >>>>
A better comparison is the T32E1 vs Conq
Reason I chose the M103 is that they both use a derivative of the same gun, both of which were designed to kill IS-3's.
@@SeanFicken fair enough
the maus is better
Neither
your surname in german 💀
Lmao, I have a great last name :)))
Quick easy answer. M103 100%
Surbaisse 😌
Maybe in another comparison video :)