for tis new modified stats, it holds no ground being the next research project after the challenger. with its poor gun stats, and bad armor, it should be at 4.7. its no better than a firefly at this point, and its stock grind is just terrible.
6 Likes
I actually agree with this, I barely take it out in battles, because at 5.3, when it can’t do anything to a panther, nor a tiger (if played right), it is unable to counter much without the APDS, and the stock grind for it just sucks
1 Like
The Comet IRL is what put the Challenger out of commission. Plus it’s still much better than the Sherman Firefly, as it is/has faster, lower profile, better depression, better armor, with a slightly weaker gun, but has APDS which can front hull a Panther and easily take out even a Tiger or Tiger II turret front. Something that normal shells for 76.2mm’s struggle with a ton. The Comet is fully better than the Challenger with the only exception being that the Challenger is slightly lighter and has a slightly more powerful gun.
In game, the Comet has better turret armor and a lower profile.
Challenger is more survivable because of more crew, has better penetration, better reload rate, and the same mobility more or less. Comet cannot pen the Panther front hull with APDS from any range more that like 10 ft (and I don’t know if that is correct or not because someone in 1945 did not punch in numbers correctly). In game, Challenger is better.
The performance of APDS from short 17pdr against Panthers UFP is historically accurate: Comet's 77mm HV APDS vs Panther's UFP - Medium Vehicles - War Thunder - Official Forum
It’s faster with APDS.
Has better armor than the Firefly and Challenger as well.
Not really. The angled pen of the avenger, with the full lenght barrel 17 pounder mk 8 shell, has more chance to pen the panther UFP at 100 meters, than the adps of the 77mm comet at 1m distance.Thats how terrible the comet stats are. Thats how big the comet nerf is. 17 pounder simply is better than the 77mm. Both as stock grind.
The comet armor is equal to the cromwell. Turret is better armored sure, but the rest of the tank is same armored as a br 3.3 tank. 60mm of easily pennable armor.
Challenger has equal armor, better mobility, more crew thus better survivability, better gun.
Comet and challenger arnt equals any more at br 5.3.
I have a thread about this basically asking for information.
Short story is, the british determined that a 17 pounder apds needed to be going 3410 ft/sec to penetrate a panthers plate.
There is one firing graph that shows Comets apds muzzle velocity as 3400. There are 2 tables showing this as 3675 ( or something like that)
So which is right?
It seems that this is an obsolete info that got spread around, as this document here explicitly sets the actual m.v. of 77mm APDS to 3400fps.
Ah, yep, I have the table that ammends, so it seems thats that. Comet cant penetrate the UFP of panther from anything apart from point blank flat on.
The question about the BR : For both ? Including the Finnish one ?
Of course. Is identical tank
1 Like
With how nerfed it is. Losing the ability to pen a panther frontally, the reload nerf it got and on top of that too the mobility nerf it got it should 1000% be 4.7 in its current situation
I’m amazed people are suggesting 4.7, I’d maybe argue 5.0 but 4.7 is pretty crazy with APDS.
Maybe 4.7 with no APDS and 5.0 with APDS. 5.0 would also be nice if the British get the Firefly IC Hybrid that the Italians have at 5.0.
Just because its APDS does not mean it is the greatest round ever.
The Comet’s APDS is much, MUCH weaker than the 17 pounder APDS. It is roughly 200 m/s slower after all, and as such it can’t punch through the UFP of the Panther, at all.
And? None of the other 17-Pdr armed 4.7 vehicles have APDS. Concept 3 at 4.3 doesn’t get 77mm APDS. Why should Comet?
At 4.7 the Comet would already be the best British vehicle. Faster, better armour, can neutral steer, has better gun depression, more crew for better survivability, etc. APDS just makes that comparison worse.
This is why I say you could justify 5.0, as you can compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
But their 17 pounder guns are also flat out stronger than the Comet’s 77 mm. Shot Mk.8 APCBC fired from the 17 pounder has higher 60º penetration than the Comet’s APDS round at all distances, for example (and obviously it is not even worth it to compare the APCBC round from the 17 pounder to that of the 77 mm).
And on top of that, the Comet still has to contend with a significantly slower reload than said 17 pounder equipped vehicles.
Again, just because it is APDS does not mean it is the greatest round ever. Yes the Comet has APDS, but it is perhaps the most useless APDS round in the game as it currently stands.
Edit: Forgot to point out that on top of the APDS not having great penetration, you also have issues with APDS shattering when facing multiple plated armor.
1 Like
The Comet might not be so bad that it’s worth 4.7, true.
However, it having APDS is really not the reason why it shouldn’t be 4.7.
Doesn’t matter, as you’re not taking into consideration everything else the Comet is better at. Which is everything except penetration.
The 77mm does fine, it’s workable. As I said, the Concept 3 with its 77mm does fine even in higher BR line ups. I still use the Concept 3 in my 5.3 line up and don’t see an issue with it. Compare the 77mm to things like the US 76mm, Japanese 75mm, or Soviet 85mm it’s got similar/better penetration to all of them.
Sure, but penetration is not everything.
This is extremely evident with the US 76 which has at least 3, extremely good advantages that simply cannot be understated: reload (5.88 vs 7.41 seconds with fully maxed out loader, 7.65 vs 9.63 seconds with a completely stock loader), explosive filler (63.5 vs 0 grams, Comet cannot use cupola weak spots effectively), and the stabilizer, which is something that comes with the Shermans which are the main users of the 76 mm at that BR range.
Japanese 75 mm is more of the same but lacks the stabilizer, has a slower reload than the 76 mm (still faster than Comet), has more TNTe, and the 60º penetration is better.
Russian 85 mm has the same reload (unless on the T-34-85 (D-5T), in which case the reload is slower than the Comet’s), but then has very high explosive filler (with BR-365A, but even BR-365K has a good amount of filler), and while BR-365A has poorer flat armor penetration, it has superior high obliquity penetration.
So all these cannons reload faster (except one), have explosive filler which allows them to make use of weak spots that the 77 mm cannot use, and the US 76 mm has a stabilizer on top of all that.
I’d like to point out that I have agreed that the Comet might not be bad enough to where it’s 4.7 worthy, I’m just also pointing out that the APDS of the Comet and it’s armament in general is not great, and really aren’t the reason why it shouldn’t be 4.7.
2 Likes