Britain's 3.7 to 4.3 needs some more vehicles

[Fray-Bentos]

Does anyone else find the area around 3.7 to 4.3 in the British tree to be a bit of a mess/threadbare? (Not counting premium/market vehicles)

For example, playing the Churchill Mk III at 4.0 requires bringing up 3.7 vehicles such as the Cromwell I and Sherman II. Playing the Churchill NA75 then requires you to bring up those vehicles to 4.3 or bringing the NA75 up to 4.7 to play that line-up instead.

And then, when playing British 3.7 you have three 3.7 vehicles so you have to again bring up some lower vehicles to add to the line-up. Not to mention these are three different vehicles with very different playstyles. Then when you bring up the 3.3 Cromwell V you have to remember you have a far worse gun than the Mk I. Or you can bring up the Churchill Mk I with its already struggling 2 Pounder. Meanwhile you’re fighting multiple generations of Panzer IVs, Shermans, T-34s and KV-1s with the same playstyle.

In my opinion, this area of the tech tree could really use some fleshing out and I’m not talking about adding some crazy Commonwealth prototypes (Looking at you Concept 3) but some proper historical British armour. Here’s but a few suggestions that have already been submitted:

An up-armoured Cromwell, still a QF 75mm gun but with some tougher armour. Could be at 3.7 or even 4.0. The additional armour would perhaps give it a chance to plink away at the crewmembers and modules of enemy tanks with that solid shot that we all know and love.

Cromwell Mk. VwD - Welded Hull, Tougher Front

poll [Mk Vw BESAs 16-9] T121742W ‘Slaphappy’ commanded by Lt. G. Boak, Troop Leader of 3rd Troop, C Squadron, 1st RTR, 7th Armoured Division letting off both BESAs for the camera. History Constructing tanks using riveting required building a sub-frame onto which the armour then had to be riveted which in turn increased the overall weight and reduced the maximum possible armour thicknesses without overloading the running gear and drivetrain. It also increased the production time and made water…

Tank, Cruiser, Mk.VIII A27M Cromwell Mk.VII Type Ew - "Putting On the Pounds"

poll [1Yo57VM.png] Cromwell T121801 clearly showing its improved design. Description The A27M Cruiser Mk.VIII Cromwell Mk.VII Type Ew (Let’s just call it Mk.VIIEw for short) represents a specific configuration of the Cromwell cruiser tank that can be considered the definitive edition of the vehicle. The Cromwell tank had not only Marks, as normal British tanks, but also Types for its hull, of which there were various. The Cromwell Mk.VII, being the last of the line save the Mk.VIII CS versio…

Then of course we have the later QF 75mm armed Churchills like the Mk IV or VI. These would lose the anti-tank capabilities of the Mk III but keep a similar armour profile, definitely 3.7 material:

Churchill Mk. IV (75mm) - The Official Rearmament

poll [image] History Carried out in North Africa, an unofficial rearmament program was created to get a 75mm into a Churchill in order to provide improved HE performance over the 6pdr armed tanks and earlier 3-inch howitzer. The 75s were salvaged from damaged and knocked out Shermans and once the first conversion was completed, proving its viability and effectiveness, official backing was given to convert more of them. Known as the NA75, 200 or so ended up being converted. However, there was …

Churchill Mk. VI - The Missing Link

poll [IWM (B 14728)] Churchill tank of 9th Royal Tank Regiment, 31st Tank Brigade during the advance towards Goch, 19 February 1945. - IWM (B 14728) History At the start of 1943 it was expected that Vauxhall would cease production of the Churchill and switch over to producing the Cromwell. However, they estimated that transitioning to Cromwell production wouldn’t be completed before the end of the year and so suggested that an order be placed for another 500 Churchills so that their facilitie…

We can have the QF 95mm armed Churchill Mk V around 3.7 too. Similar armour profile to the Mk III and with good penetration at all ranges (HEAT) but with a lower velocity.

Churchill V: Howitzer Heavy

poll Overview The Churchill V was a close-support variant of the Churchill IV. Like other British close-support armoured vehicles, it replaced the Mk IV’s 6-pounder with the 95mm Howitzer Mk I. 241 were produced and they served in the Italian and Western fronts. [image] History

Expand

The Churchill was an infantry tank developed in the late 1930s, being intended to engage both armoured vehicles and soft targets. To accomplish this, the Churchill I of 1940 mounted a 2-pounder anti-tank gun in…

To complement the NA75 we could have a Churchill Mk IV with the 6 Pounder Mk V and APDS (trading damage for penetration while keeping the same armour profile:

Churchill IV with L/50 Q.F. 6 pounder: APDS for British Heavys.

poll Basic History: When the Churchill was first being developed the intent was always that the tank would be fitted with a high velocity 6-pounder cannon with a L/50 barrel, and it was only the delays in that guns introduction caused by the fall of france and the subsequent invasion scare that resulted in the Churchill Mk 1 and Mk 2 with their 2 pounder cannons. A subsequent issue with production capability would result in the first 6 pounder tank cannons being made to a reduced barrel length …

Then we have the option of an up-armoured Achilles (17mm applique plates on the glacis and upper hull sides) with perhaps its added roof kit:

Up-armoured 17pdr SP M10 Achilles IIC - Britain's Applique Kit

poll [large_000000 (2)] Major-General C M Barber, GOC of 15th (Scottish) Division in conversation with the crew of an Achilles 17-pdr tank destroyer near Goch, 20 February 1945. - IWM (B 14769) This suggestion is to have another 17pdr Achilles added to the British tree but fitted with the relatively rare applique armour kit which added additional armour plates onto the hull front and sides, and the sides of the turret, improving its survivability. While I firmly believe that the 3-inch SP sho…

Additionally, we really ought to have the Sherman V as well as the II. Britain was the largest user of the M4A4 and it would nicely complement the Mk II:

M4A4 Sherman V: The workhorse of the Royal Armoured Corps

Aye, which is why it was such a simple suggestion to make, we used near on the entire production run, and we know exactly how it preforms, so it would be a half hour at most to add it to the brit tree, and would definitely be appreciated.

Then there are a plethora of British armoured cars that could complement the mediums and heavies:

AEC Armoured Car Mk III

poll AEC Armoured Car Mk III [image] Vehicle design and service history: The AEC Armoured Car was a series of British Heavy armoured cars built by the Associated Equipment Company (AEC) during the Second World War. The armoured car was designed based on experience gained by the British in the Western Desert against Italian armoured cars, as at the time British armoured cars were only armed with light and heavy machine guns, resulting in captured Italian…

Staghound Mk III

poll Staghound Mk III [image] Vehicle design and service history: The story of the Boarhound armoured car begins in July of 1941, when the U.S. Army Ordnance issued a specification for a medium armoured car, in order to fulfil a request by the British Purchasing Commission which was currently looking for Armoured Cars for use in the war in North Africa. Because of this British requirements were a driving force in the armoured car’s design, including the require…

Coventry armoured car Mk II

poll Coventry armoured car Mk II [image] Vehicle design and service history: The Coventry armoured car was a British armoured car developed near the end of the second world war, as a potential replacement for the lighter Humber and Daimler armoured cars then in service. Due to this, the Coventry was a combined development effort between the Daimler Company and Rootes Group to produce a standard armoured car design for mass production. In terms of design, the Coventry wa…

Additions such as these would flesh out this part of the tree would strengthen British line-ups there while recognizing the historically accurate progression that these serving vehicles went through towards the end of the war.

What do you think?

[StormRyder13]

I’ve been waiting on a Sherman V and a Chaffee in the UK tree myself, would make the UK have one of if not there best 3.7 line-up in WT. (I’d finally be able to play the properly named Ram II more)

Well 4.3 could use a line up iirc. The real gap (aka you don’t have line-ups if you don’t have premium and event vehicles) starts after 4.7 and goes untill 7.7/8.0.

[Fray-Bentos]

Definitely more tech-tree Fireflies, Churchills and Challengers needed around that BR too such as:

• The Sherman IC (as in the Italian tech tree) with the stronger front glacis and APDS
• Churchill Mk III Late with the same armour as the Churchill AVRE but with a 6 Pounder and APDS
• The Churchill MK VIII with same armour as the Mk VII but with a 95mm Howitzer.
• Early A30 Challenger with the weaker front armour (63mm Turret nose)
• Late A30 Challenger with applique armour (102mm turret nose, 88.9mm turret cheeks, 101mm hull front)

[AblativeKitten]

@StormRyder13

Well 4.3 could use a line up iirc.

A Saladin would fit there IMO

just an adorable lil dude aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Fray-Bentos]

Even without Britain’s post-war vehicles (I’d love the Saladin prototype with the pipsqueak gun) there’s enough to flesh out these BRs. We can get one of the Operation Sentry Centurion Mk 1s too with the 57mm upper glacis (It’d be our equivalent to the VK 3002):

A.41P (BESA) - the Unremarkable Prototype Centurion

poll [A.41P (BESA)] Introduction The development of the Centurion began in 1943, as a response to the immediate threat posed by German heavy tanks, such as the Panther and Tiger. British tank doctrine at the time relied on cruiser tanks for mobility and infantry tanks for protection, but neither could effectively match German armour in both firepower and survivability. Interim, improvised solutions, such as the Challenger and Sherman Firefly were adopted, but a purpose-built solution was neede…

[l2ulan]

I’ll certainly agree that UK 4.0-4.3 is an unloved deadzone, but there are plenty of easy solutions available in the form of Lend-Lease equipment.

Allow me to show special enthusiasm for the Sherman III (M4A2) at 4.0.

[Master_Teaz]

just gib a saladin of any variety please gaijin

the A38 Valiant might also have a stab at being 3.7/4.0, it has a fair bit of armour, but its let down by mobility

[Raptor5255-psn]

I used to play a lot of WWII Britain GRB and this was always my least favourite BR range. I’ve said it multiple times already but they really need to give the Churchill Mk. III its proper 6pdr stats and move it down to 3.7 so its spot can be taken by the Mk. IV 6pdr. I’ve not played enough of the NA75 to know whether that could viably be moved down to 4.0 or not.

The Sherman II could also do to have its APCR removed and be shoved down to 3.3 alongside everyone elses M4A1s and have either the V, III, or even a large-hatch II take its place.

[Fray-Bentos]

Indeed, we’re missing lend-lease equipment across the board. M3 GMC (75mm Autocar) M3 Lee/Grant (The only Grant being a premium is a crying shame). The various Shermans, The Chaffee, The Staghound, later Stuarts etc.

[Fray-Bentos]

Indeed, the Churchill Mk III and the Cromwell I need to swap stats for their 6 Pounders. The NA75 is a breath of fresh air with its APHE but that’s all it brings to the table really. Having the Sherman’s mantlet doesn’t really do it any favours as at that BR everything can go through its turret anyway. I did see a post previously about the Churchill Mk IV’s turret face being thicker than it is in War Thunder but it seems no one has made a bug report as of yet.

I’m not even sure of where they got the idea for the Sherman II’s APCR. It was a prototype round that didn’t even see service, yet alone lend-lease service. It should be removed so that the Sherman II can go to 3.3.