Comet should become a 4.7 vehicle

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
21

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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

He is talking about APDS shell.

26

You can say that about most british tanks in WT.

27

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.

28

And was 5.7 not long ago!

29

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