Jump to content

British 6.7 underwhelming


Im no war thunder expert but to me it seems that,

 the British 6.7 tanks underperform compared to the other nations, especially the fv4202

For example, when I have asked for advice on how to play the fv4202 everyone says play hull down. The problem is that the top of the turret, the most visible and easily hittable part is only roughly 155mm of effective armor that means you can be penned by 

Waffentrager(5.7)

Sturer Emil(5.3)

Nashorn(5.3)

Tiger II (p)

Tiger II(h)

Ferdinand(6.3)

Jagdpanther(6.3)

(So, in a nutshell if you encounter any german tank, playing hull down will be ineffective)

t34-85(5.7)

Is-2(5.7)

Is-2 1944(6.3)

Asu-85(6.3)

Su-100p(6.7)

t44(6.3)

(most of the soviet tanks as well)

ST-a1/2)(6.3)

type-61(6.7)

type-60(6.7)

(a lot of the Japanese)

Lorraine-40t(6.7)

char-25t(6.7)

CA Lorraine(6.0)

 

Most of the listed tanks above I have been personally oneshotted by through the top of the turret, and this doesn't even include 7.0-7.7 which seems to be just as common as 6.7 tanks

 

Or else I'm reading the armor penetration values wrong it seems that just about almost anything can pen the top of the fv4202. Theres a random chance it could bounce but it rarely does. Hull down being the most viable tactic with this tank and the fact I've found it not very effective makes me think that it belongs at 6.3. It couldn't be OP at 6.3 because the hull armor can be penned by literally anything, I just think that it would be more competitive there and actually helpful to the team. I sort of feel that the Caernarvon is a little underwhelming too but I haven't quite played it enough to comment much on it

And to add on to the top of that, it gets ap and apds which rarely one shot. I'm only successful when I initiate the engagement while other tanks (soviet and German) can take hits and return fire with APHE nukes. ex: panther d and centurion mk1 (I've played both) do not feel equal at all, the panther is about twice as effective for me. I have a .85 kd w/ Centurion while I have a 1.6 with the Panther with significantly less experience with it. I don't even think they are comparable.

 

And then the Americans have the T34 at 6.7 which on paper (I haven't played it) Seems to be much more effective hull down and seems to have a better gun as well. I just don't see why the fv4202 is at 6.7, 6.3 seems better

 

 

Let me know what you guys think.

 

 

Edited by CookieMonster_24
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 7
  • Upvote 8
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my personal experience, the 6.7 and 7.0 Brit tanks are a joy to play, quick reload, *decent* armour, Sabot works quite well most of the time, decent mobility. and a stabiliser. I'd take a Centurion Mk 3 over a Tiger II at 6.7 any day of the week.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Choogleblitz said:

6.7 Britain dunks just by holding W with a brain. 

Like most tanks then?

 

It's only when you just need to hold W without a Brain that things become too easy to play.

  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

Like most tanks then?

 

It's only when you just need to hold W without a Brain that things become too easy to play.

 

Most tanks aren't stabilized at that BR, thus holding W isn't always the best strat. Some have a massive advantage due to such stabilization, and it is the best strat.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Choogleblitz said:

 

Most tanks aren't stabilized at that BR, thus holding W isn't always the best strat. Some have a massive advantage due to such stabilization, and it is the best strat.

Perhaps but just milling about the map with the Cent Mk 3 or FV4202 has usually ended badly for me whereas using the stabiliser to move from turret-down to hull-down and back has been quite effective - you could say the great turret armour of the Cent Mk 3 is wasted by not doing this.

Edited by Time4Tea
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Time4Tea said:

Perhaps but just milling about the map with the Cent Mk 3 or FV4202 has usually ended badly for me whereas using the stabiliser to move from turret-down to hull-down and back has been quite effective for me - you could say the great turret armour of the Cent Mk 3 is wasted by not doing this.

I use Centurion Mk 3 as a backup after I die in Conqueror. Turret is actually amazing and T-54s have hard time killing me at the distance while I can disable their turrets pretty well even with kinda broken 20pdr APDS. I wish Gaijin could do some reaserch about mantlet of Centurion Mk 10, because it should be way stronger for sure.

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you should give the Centurion 3 and Caernarvon a try then. The FV4202 is definitely the weakest of the 3 Brit 6.7 tanks. (Being a proof-of-concept vehicle for certain features of the Chieftain and never being intended for combat definitely causes issues...) Both the Centurion 3 and Caernarvon share the same fairly durable turret. The curved mantlet is quite bouncy, and will stop most weapons of the time. (However, there are several frustrating weak spots, but those are fairly small in most instances.) Both work well hulldown or shooting on the move. The Caernarvon is definitely the better brawler, and has superior hull armor and near equal mobility to the Centurion. Hulldown sniping is still probably the best tactic, but both work fairly well in CQC as long as you mind the poor side armor. 

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After playing more with the Caernarvon I would say based off of its turret it deserves 6.7, I would not say the same for cent mk3 and fv4202 they should both be 6.3. I am outperformed in almost every relevant aspect it seems. I have armor but it is useless armor I might as well be in a leopard, at least I would get decent mobility....

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed the British 6.7 line up, It's fun to use, it was even better at 6.3 but the tanks still hold their own. Centurions are still a formidable foe, they can kill you easily. I would love them to fix APDS but the Solid shot does superb against a lot of tiers, that's why I usually bring a mixture of both. I would not say 6.7 is underwhelming, it's bearable but have fun with the 7.0s stock, they are horrible :facepalm:

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After playing some more I feel that the Caernarvon does deserve 6.7 and I feel is very capable while the FV4202 is still not, It should be dropped to 6.3. The centurion mk3 based off of firepower can handle 6.7 but it doesn't really belong there. The mobility and armor just doesn't make sense to me at 6.7 The armor is just enough to weigh it down and give it mediocre mobility but is unable to protect the tanks occupants and modules, even when angled perfectly, just because you can do well with the tank at that BR doesn't mean it belongs there, example pz4 f2 which I have used effectively at 5.7-6.7 through flanking because I stand little chance frontally, that's the way I feel with the Cent mk3 and fv4202 I have no advantage and I have to resort to other tactics, that is also the only way I have been able to successfully play the tanks, I could also say it feels like playing the comet, the gun is about as effective as the comet ( at their respective tiers) and so is the armor, so I just feel like a less mobile comet xD.  6.3 seems to be a better match as well for the cent mk3. I think that the Centurion mk10 would be fair at 6.7 the extra hull armor solves the issue I have with the mk3 and gives it some effective armor for the br. As for the Tortoise, I haven't played it but have never seen it either and based off its stats and armor it seems pretty useless and that's probably why I haven't seen it in matches. The FV4202 at 6.7 continues to annoy me, it feels pointless.

 

Let me know if you guys agree with what I am saying and point out what you don't agree with, thanks!

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CookieMonster_24 said:

After playing some more I feel that the Caernarvon does deserve 6.7 and I feel is very capable while the FV4202 is still not, It should be dropped to 6.3. The centurion mk3 based off of firepower can handle 6.7 but it doesn't really belong there. The mobility and armor just doesn't make sense to me at 6.7 The armor is just enough to weigh it down and give it mediocre mobility but is unable to protect the tanks occupants and modules, even when angled perfectly, just because you can do well with the tank at that BR doesn't mean it belongs there, example pz4 f2 which I have used effectively at 5.7-6.7 through flanking because I stand little chance frontally, that's the way I feel with the Cent mk3 and fv4202 I have no advantage and I have to resort to other tactics, that is also the only way I have been able to successfully play the tanks, I could also say it feels like playing the comet, the gun is about as effective as the comet ( at their respective tiers) and so is the armor, so I just feel like a less mobile comet xD.  6.3 seems to be a better match as well for the cent mk3. I think that the Centurion mk10 would be fair at 6.7 the extra hull armor solves the issue I have with the mk3 and gives it some effective armor for the br. As for the Tortoise, I haven't played it but have never seen it either and based off its stats and armor it seems pretty useless and that's probably why I haven't seen it in matches. The FV4202 at 6.7 continues to annoy me, it feels pointless.

 

Let me know if you guys agree with what I am saying and point out what you don't agree with, thanks!

 

I can honestly see where you're coming from here but, I find the fv4202 great for its br, it has great turret armour (unless you're fighting against heat - fs) 

Do I think it should be 6.3? No. From personal experience, it doesn't do too bad at its tier, same with the centurion. Ofcourse when you get up tiered to 7.7, then that's a problem. At 6.7, you can still bounce rounds from tiger 2s, which helps. If you have experience, you'll do fine. British tanks aren't like American tanks or Russian tanks, I would consider them support tanks to the Americans. They are great snipers, but with the state of apds currently, its not the best. Once they fix the apds, then the tanks will be pretty good. I'd recommend to stay hull down in the 4202, it helps! 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to stay hull down but the tiger 2 always pens the top of my turret, the tiger 2 is so common that it makes playing hull down hit or miss. Also its hard to move between hull down locations due to mobility 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Anju_Yuuki said:

i would take the Tiger II over the centurion mk3 simply because that tank + my skills = high amount of kills :lol2:

 

When you get the Cent. Mk 3 one day you will probably do as good in that then ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/10/2018 at 20:26, Anju_Yuuki said:

i would take the Tiger II over the centurion mk3 simply because that tank + my skills = high amount of kills :lol2:

 

You're really quite impressed with yourself aren't you?

 

 

I would say the British 6.7 lineup is very strong, and I really enjoy playing it. It's too bad they reduced the mobility of the Caernarvon. It used to be just plain better than the Centurion Mk 3 at everything. Now the Centurion is a bit more mobile I feel. I started playing the FV4202 just recently and I do fine with it. The good thing about these tanks with the APDS is that even if you get uptiered to 7.7, you can still hurt things. On full downtiers you can absolutely devastate your enemies sometimes with the combination of pretty good armor, stabilizer, reload rate and good solid shot ammo.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After starting this thread I've played a few matches in the fv4202 where I just sat in plain view hull down and waited. The Turret is absolutely useless the Germans and russians just nuke the tank through the cupola with aphe. When performing this experiment sometimes I don't even survive a single shot. It remains useless, for a tank with its only advantageous tactic being hull down, it's not that great at it. I still think it deserves 6.3...... just because I can make it work doesn't mean it's the proper br for it.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I can continue to enjoy war thunder at this rate, I can't take this xxxx that much longer. I've played the fv4202 in every way I can and I continue to do poorly...

I've played 111 matches in it I think I can conclude that's it complete utter sh*t. For every good match I have 3 or 4 bad matches. The only times I do well is when the opponent plays incompetently or they never see me before I fire, that isn't a good sign for a tank to be excellent, I could play the comet that way at 6.7 and be just as successful.

The so called good british stuff is nowhere even close to being on par with the Russians and germans, without br decreases and apds post pen performance buff I see no reason to continue play these tanks. It takes multiple shots for me to kill an enemy meanwhile they only need one, and it never bounces even if I'm playing hull down. I'll give war thunder  few more days but I think I'm quitting, same as many british tankers.

Edited by CookieMonster_24
  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...