Centurion Mk1 is too Good for 6.0

Every other shot shatters after gaijin obliterated APDS, so the gun is pretty mid. I’d rather have the Panther’s 75 for the postpen and reliability until Gaijin fixes APDS.

And what do you mean “trolly armour”? Bouncing someone’s UFP because you didn’t bother aiming isn’t trolly, the cent’s lower plate is weak, the turret has a huge weakspot in the angled roof being pennable by pretty much anything, the turret cheeks aren’t particularly thick for the BR. You just have to aim a bit, though maybe that’s where the German and Russian mains start to struggle.

I just want them to fix APDS…


These buffs were somewhat recent.

For example, the “deletion” of early M82 with 813 m/s muzzle velocity happened with the infamous “October BR changes” last year, in which the M26s went to 6.7 and such.

The drag changes happened in update in November 15th.

Assuming the “76 mm” means the 17 pounder, my two cents is that those aren’t “Panthers”, they are VK 30.02 (M)s, which have noticeably weaker mantlets for reasons I have already provided previously.

M82 has just an outright easier time against the T-34 UFP than Pzgr.39/42 so you’re simply incorrect there. At point blank both cannons have basically the same penetration past 45° (as seen by the graph), and as distance increases M82 will gain more of a flat pen advantage.

For example, the T-34’s UFP (which is 45 mm at 60°) will provide 117 mm of effective protection against M82 and 123 mm against Pzgr.39/42. At 2 km, that means M82 still cleaves through (140 mm of penetration) but Pzgr.39/42 can start to non pen since it has only 126 mm of penetration, so much so that at 61° the penetration and effective protection of the armor will match, while you need to hit the plate at 65° for that to happen with M82 at 2 km.

So, at point blank there is no perceivable difference, and as distance increases M82 will be able to penetrate the T-34 easier than Pzgr.39/42. There’s not much else to say there.

And yes, it can’t go through a Panther’s UFP, but neither can the Panther go through its own UFP.
Earlier you said the M36 (if HEAT-FS is ignored) would be better with the Panther’s cannon. How is that the case with everything I’ve said? The 75 mm is only “better” on the Panther specifically because the Panther doesn’t face many Panthers, so it has enough pen to go through most other tanks relatively easily, but an M36 with the Panther’s 75 mm wouldn’t actually get any benefit from it.

Also, little fun fact: M304 APCR (yes, APCR) can go through the UFP of a Panther at close range (up to 260 meters). This is something I’ve made use of myself.


Are you saying to use apds in 6.3 and use solid in down tiers?


I was trying to make a point on how the UK doesn’t have the best shell in the game.

and the 6.0 is the start of UK’s nightmares but thinking about it I can’t remember if the Cent mk 1 gets that affected shell type so I might have actually lied. I just remember seeing a lot os “Shell Shatter” around that point in my grind.

All tungsten carbide cored projectiles have the “shattering” problem.

This to say: all APCR and APDS that isn’t 105 mm M728, m/66 and 120 mm L15, as these three APDS rounds have cores made of tungsten heavy alloy, and don’t experience shattering. Edit: I forgot autocannon APDS also doesn’t have shattering issues, at least that I know of.

For example, 17 pounder APDS right now struggles against the Jumbo’s UFP specifically because the first plate of the Jumbo will “break” the core a bit. That’s basically how Gaijin has modeled it.


Reminds me it was mentioned in my British tanks >3

Ah I see, but I have to say that O_HOgameplay is actually wrong.

The L28/M392/DM13 APDS for the L7 will still absolutely experience shattering issues, as only the tilt pad is made of tungsten alloy, but the actual core is still very much tungsten carbide. You can see this by testing it against something like the T26E1-1.

Edit: Here, as I mentioned.

Non-pen even though the equivalent protection is much lower than the penetration of the round. This indicates shattering.


That’s a great point that I had forgotten about, M304 is actually surprisingly useful as an APCR round due to it’s massive pen advantage over M82. It’ll go through most trouble tanks pretty easily if you pick your shots well. Panther/Jagdpanther UFPs, Tiger II H mantlets, Ferdi/Jadgtiger casemates, Obj 268s, even stuff like IS-6 turrets and the bloody Maus. You’re generally still better off with HEATFS on that tanks that have that option, but for tanks that don’t like the standard M36, Pershing, T25 etc, I always carry 5-10 rounds of the stuff.


Yes, M304 is perhaps the only “good” APCR in the game. Ironically that’s due to the fact that Gaijin has incorrectly modeled it but… I won’t complain, and certainly won’t bug report it (can’t bug report it either way as datamines aren’t accepted in the bug report webside).


Guess which major nation doesn’t have that problem

If you want to say Russia, then I’ll tell you now that 3BM-8 and 3BM-7/11 has the same shattering issues as L28/M392/DM13.


i’ve never had 3BM-8 shell shatter

Shell shattering is just a fancy way of the game saying that the APDS round lost too much penetration from going through secondary armor plates and air gaps to penetrate the main armor.

The code for 3BM-8, 7 and 11 for these “penetration loss” mechanics is identical to that of the early 105 mm L7 APDS.


nah the issue is earlier cents don’t use the 105 and their APDS shatters a lot

Yeah, earlier APDS has worse shattering. Historical I guess but it’s not phenomenally well implemented.

1 Like

yeah but 3BM-8 seems very nice compared to the 7.7 centurion round

3BM-8 is also a higher BR round, at least 8.0, and at that BR there’s Centurion with the 105 mm.

Just play it,its right at 6 BR

Historically many APHE rounds would fail to fuse due to round deformation. In game they are 100%. If you aren’t modeling failing to fuse, you shouldn’t be modeling shell shatter.


APHE was also prone to detonation in the breach back in the early days and destroy the whole tank from with in