Why is it that when people say “skill issue”, they themselves have so huge skill issue, that it bends spacetime more than a black hole?
1 Like
Went negative in a FALCON??? LMAO
1 Like
Churchill Mk. III is a mess and needs to be split into 2 vehicles. The vehicle model is armed with a 6-Pdr Mk. III but the in-game performance is that of the 6-Pdr Mk. V. It’d also be nice if they added a “Late” version. So it should look something like this:
3.7:
- Churchill Mk. III (L/43): Add M86 APHE, would have worse performance than the US version due to less shell velocity thanks to the shorter barrel.
4.0:
- Churchill Mk. III (L/50): Add M86 APHE, same performance as the US version, and APCR Shot Mk. I.
4.3 (new vehicle):
- Churchill Mk. III Late: Has the turret and hull applique armour. Add M86 APHE, APCR Shot Mk. I, and APDS Shot Mk. I.
Cromwell Mk. I is in a similar situation, and should be split into 2 vehicles. The in-game model is armed with a 6-Pdr Mk. V but it’s in-game performance is that of a 6-Pdr Mk. III. So, again, should be something like this:
3.7:
- Cromwell Mk. I (L/43): Add M86 APHE, would have worse performance than the US version due to less shell velocity thanks to the shorter barrel.
4.3:
- Cromwell Mk. I (L/50): Add M86 APHE, same performance as the US version, APCR Shot Mk. I, and APDS Shot Mk. I.
AEC Mk. II is fine, but, if it got access to newer shells it’ll probably need to go up in BR as well. So I’d do a similar treatment as above, such as:
3.0:
AEC Mk. II (L/43): Add M86 APHE, would have worse performance than the US version due to less shell velocity thanks to the shorter barrel.
3.7:
AEC Mk. II (L/50): Add M86 APHE, same performance as the US version, APCR Shot Mk. I, and APDS Shot Mk. I.
Valentine Mk. XI would be fun with M86 APHE. Like the other 6-Pdr Mk. III vehicles it’d have worse performance than the US version. Then Gaijin could add a new Valentine Mk. X:
3.3:
Valentine Mk. X: Add M86 APHE, same performance as the US version, and APCR Shot Mk. I. You also get a coaxial Besa unlike the Valentine Mk. IX.
Valentine Mk. XI, Cromwell Mk. V, and Churchill Mk. VII would all benefit from having M61 APHE.
5 Likes
I agree 100%.
Tho they will never implement it, because if “historcial accuracy”, meanwhile the Strumtiger has a very realistic reload.
If they can cut corners in one vehicle to be playable, then they should do it with every tank that is horribly unplayable.
4 Likes
For the Conqueror specifically. Ed Francis recently found documentation of the Conqueror using APCBC. The exact same ammunition that the US T34 fires, T14E3. Which would probably solve the spalling issue until Gaijin can fix up APDS damage.
If someone can get that documentation from him, or find it themselves, a bug report could be made.
3 Likes
It would make next to no change in the tank’s performance.
It needs a huge reload buff, and maybe that AP.
If they got rid of the the (clearly not working) shell shatter mechanic it would be alright… Just alright tho. The post pen damage of that gun doesn’t justify the reload waiting time. Combine that with the shells being made of glass atm it’s a woeful experience atm. I can deal with it’s long reload if the round im firing is actually worth the wait. Atm i just wouldn’t even play this thing. How bad are it’s statistics currently thanks to its ammo that it’s sitting at a lower BR than the leopard 1 with a stabiliser and bigger gun? If that’s not a wake up call to gaijin i dunno what is lol.
1 Like
The stab isn’t that big of an advantage at that BR, but certainly helps.
And yes, fixing the APDS would help, but they will not, because it is not “realistic”.
I think a nearly halved reload time (8.5s with expert crew) and the removal of the ready rack (just like on the M103, it has no ready rack, so every shell can be reloaded in ~15s, instead of the patheticly low amount of 8 rounds on the Conq) would make it playable.
A stabiliser at 7.7 is a huge advantage imo. Like i say i am happy to have a long reload provided the round it worth the wait, with shell shatter it’s absolutely pointless to use. I’ll use the is4 for example, I’d rather use the is4 over the conqueror regardless of how much more pen it has or the stabiliser because i know when that is4 round connects it doesn’t shatter, doesn’t non pen because of a side skirt… It kills what im shooting, normally in one round, the conquerors gun in comparison ain’t even in the same league imo. I don’t want the conqueror to have a better reload i want the shell shatter for apds gone, the way it currently works is even if it hits 2/3 20mm spaced plates you’ll get a shell shatter because they’re spaced.
1 Like
Just compare it to the M103. Even if the shatter is gone, the APDS deals waaaay less damage, it is waaaay less survivable, has a pathetically small ready rack (while the M103 can shoot all it’s rounds with the same reload), it has AP, HEAT, and HE, each better than the APDS/HESH combo, it has a .50 cal, it is faster than the Conq, has better gun depression…
The Conq needs a better reload too. Giving it a more consistent APDS would not change much.
And maybe even remove it’s ready rack…
If they fixed the trash round you could at least play it as a sniper. You can’t fix it’s armour if that’s what it had, but you can fix it’s firepower in game.
There is still the issue with it’s accuracy, or rater, the lack thereof.
Need someone to find test firing charts for groupings lol
I have sent you a video about it.
1 Like
Year 2024 and the British Rounds still love to shatter on the most minimal disturbance.
Shoots UFP of Leopard 1 SHATTERS
Shoots M48 NO PEN
Shoots T54s BOUNCE/SHATTERS
HESH is unusable and APDS is just straight unreliable to use, i only use AP rounds since they deal more damage (or at least more reliably but no where near as good as APHE or APFSDS)…
2 Likes
The 105mm and 120mm (of the Chieftains) is actually very good, since it is alloy APDS, while the crap used with the Conq, the 83mm, and the 17pds is carbide APDS.
sorry but not as good as the apfsds you see in the same BRs.
Simply underperforming.
Centurions are manageable if they are in a downtier with AP, but apds? lmao you can’t do anything.
The ones with the 84mm are just plain useless.
I played these 4 in the same lineup (when the Mk 10 was 7.7).
With the 84mm gun tanks, i could not even get 2 K/D (except the Caernarvon, by some miracle, but even that is just barely over 2), yet with the MK10, it was over 4, for around 320 matches (and then came the BR changes, and nothing but full uptiers against at lest 5 Object 279s, because why not).
1 Like
I see a lot of people using this vehicle as a breakthrough tank which it was never designed as. The vehicle is good as a medium to long range overwatch tank the type that peaks over the hill when its time to shoot and then pulls back.
Even then, I have seen conquerors used effectively as close assault vehicles, and someone I know who has grinded through the British tree and says that it is scuffed almost the whole way through, really likes the Conqueror even though he plays it like an idiot so it is clearly doing something right.
The Conqueror also has a feature that it shouldnt have, but I wont give any hints for reasons. At the same time the round should do more damage, it seems like focus is placed on shot weight and diameter when it comes to AP damage, but in reality it shoots one of the heaviest subcaliber rounds in the game at a very high velocity, so it should be more consistent. APDS can sometimes crew wipe, the issue is that it needs room to disperse ive noticed, and it also needs a 6 on a dice roll too.
I did not use it as a breakthrough tank.
But it was horrible as a long(er) range support too thanks to the awful accuracy, trash pen, and damage.
1 Like