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
there is a mistake with your thinking, tho. because penetration is everything, especially with gaijin changing solid AP and APDS all the goddarn time. if the shell is having difficulty penetrating, it will create no spalling. thats how the shells work nowadays.
so if the gun is so terrible, that the shells are terrible, then yes, it will lose alot of effect. even with the apds shell, at 4.7, the standard 17 pounder has a higher chance of penetrating the panther UFP than the 77mm APDS has. thats how terrible it is.
does the comet have better turret armor? yes, but thats it. the hull is still the same 60mm you get at br 3.3. still the same reverse as you get at 3.3. and not receiving a full blown 17 pounder, but a nerfed one, where APDS is almost mandatory to use due to the low penetration and huge shell drop.
Comets front armour is 3 inches, not 2.5 like the Cromwell’s. Nearly every section of armour is improved over the Cromwell’s.
Again, just compare the Comet to the Firefly:
- Better turret armour. 4 inches over 3.5 inches.
- More crew: 5 over 4.
- Lower silhouette.
- Double the gun depression. -12 over -6
- Better mobility. 52km/h over 36km/h.
- Better power-to-weight: 17.9hp/t over 11.5hp/t
- Can pivot steer.
- APDS has better penetration than 17-Pdr APCBC.
The only things the Firefly is better at is:
- Has a .50 cal.
- Better penetration on APCBC.
- Better reverse: 6km/h over 4km/h
- Better reload.
Not sure why everyone is complaining about the Panthers front plate. It’s suppose to be the best protected part of the vehicle. Just shoot the turret or side-armour.
Again, Comet could go down to 5.0 with the VK but absolutely not 4.7.
The combined total armor thickness of the mantlet of a Sherman firefly is 127 mm/5 inches (88.9 mm/3.5 inch gun shield + 38.1 mm/1.5 inch gun shield). Turret front is 76.2 mm/3 inches but it’s also not flat.
Edit: The thickness I mentioned only applies to the Sherman VC. The premium Sherman IC has a combined thickness of 139.7 mm (5.5 inches), as the rotor shield is 50.8 mm (2 inches) instead of 38.1 mm (1.5 inches). On the Italian Sherman Tipo IC it’s actually 38.1 + 38.1 mm for a combined total of 3 inches. Gaijin should really sort out the thicknesses of the M34 gun mount.
As I pointed out, only the case for flatter angles. 17 pounder APCBC has better 60º penetration at all distances. And APDS makes other sacrifices to reach that superior flat penetration as well, being very prone to shattering and non-penetration if hitting more than 1 plate of armor in its trajectory.
Then there’s no reason to use the APDS as the APCBC can also do just that.
Ingame, it cant even do that. 17 pounder mk 8 can tho. So technically, 17 pounder mk8 has maybe less flat pen, but better angled pen.
He is talking about APDS shell.
You can say that about most british tanks in WT.
I have to agree, cut it from my line up after about 3 battles. Its somehow preforms worse than vehicles a few brs below it when fighting at 5.3, at least the Finnish one.
And was 5.7 not long ago!
I love the Comet, even if it’s mediocre at best for a 5.3, and putting it at 4.7 is a dumb idea. If used correctly it can already grant a few kills thanks to it’s mobility, especially on a hilly map due to it’s great gun depression. What holds it back the most to me is the reload, which is worse than on tanks with the 17 pounder (with their bigger and heavier propellant charges), this makes fighting more powerful tanks like the Panther much too difficult. Also it’s missing a smoke shell for some reason.
Anyway, here’s a great topic about it’s historical reload times: The Comet Tanks Reload is Unjustifiably Bad
1 Like