I play all nations in the low-midtier range, and cannot help but notice that even with years more experience than the average player in that region of the game, I end up needing 3-5x more effort to secure a kill with a British 2.3-4.7 machine that uses a British cannon (and not an American one).
Specifically, my problems lie with four cannons:
- 75mm ROQF Mk. V (found on the Cromwell V (& RP-3 premium), Valentine XI, Churchill VII, and Excelsior)
- 57mm ROQF 6-pounder Mk. III (found on the Crusader III, Valentine IX, Cromwell I, M4A5 Ram II, SARC VI 6-pdr, and Russian LL Valentine IX)
- 57mm ROQF 6-pounder Mk. V (found on the AEC Mk. II, Churchill III, German-captured Churchill III)
- 76mm/45 QF 3in 20cwt (found on the 3-inch Gun Carrier)
I own the event Russian Valentine, event AEC Mk II, event Excelsior, premium M4A5, and premium German Churchill, and have fully spaded all platforms using these guns in question. Sometimes I will try to make them work for a change of pace when I tire of stuff in the 6.3-7.7 range with any other nation. Almost without exception, it requires 3x-5x as many rounds to kill each opponent as every opponent needs to delete what I’m using. If I’m having this much trouble with my experience knowing where to shoot things, I can only imagine how much table-flipping rage a newbie starting in the British tech tree has.
I’ve read from various discussions on this forum that during WW2, British and US soldiers often used the same ammo stocks, but to date I have not seen any irrefutable proof that a British soldier ever used American M61 APCBC-HE in their QF 75. Much less still if a British soldier ever fired US M86 out of a 6-pounder. But are there any reports showing the cross-compatibility of American ammo in these two guns? I also have seen people talk about a missing SAP round on the 3-inch Gun Carrier, which ingame would function like APHE (as seen on the Chi-Ha Long Gun and SU-100Y that also put naval guns on tanks/TDs), but cannot find any info on the shell.
Sure, since I have spaded all the machines in question, I could always just ignore them and use the vehicles that do work, like the Sherman II, Churchill NA75, Achilles, etc etc. I want to have honest-to-god fun using vehicles unique to Britain, but the consistently-unreliable guns keep getting in the way.
No, British tanks are fine, France and Japan need more love
Edit: How tf was I flagged
The problem is that the APHEs do unrealistic damage, and in addition the Full APs do less damage than in reality, which would require a complete change in the game’s damage model, which would be necessary.
They didn’t use them IRL, they shouldn’t get them. American tanks and their usage of the 57 mm is special because they specifically made APHE for it, for themselves, not for Britain. You’re already lucky the British Sherman gets an experimental US APCR that never left the US which it absolutely shouldn’t have, don’t go asking for anything more than that.
Don’t need it, Brit guns are very good they just require people to relearn the way solid shot does damage the they are great
Oh believe me, if I was gifted with the ability to code in the changes to ammo the game globally needs, I would definitely nerf sub-120mm APHE in a heartbeat, increase solid AP, APCR, APDS, HEAT, HESH, and HE postpen (specifically adding the entirely missing kinetic portion of its penetration, as 90% of most HE shells’ weight is shell casing that doesn’t just magically stop upon impact), and then maybe still give these two guns shells they are at least capable of firing without issues.
What motivated this topic was that War Thunder Mobile decided to give the Churchill VII M61 APHE, the fact that 6-pdr APDS has been found in datamines for the game for years now, the fact that the 75mm M61 solid shot is literally the same round as the American just with the filler removed and replaced with a cement plug, the fact that the T18E2 Boarhound was actually used in North Africa by the British, the fact that US 57mm M1s were equipped with and used British 6-pdr APDS during Bulge, and lastly that America sent large stocks of its 57mm & 75mm rounds of all types to Britain along with the guns in question.
Since Britain had all the guns in question, they had the ammo in question, and by how similar said guns are, that is why I think there is a strong basis for balance reasons to give these two guns those shells.
Every nation in the 2.3-4.7 range except Britain can reliably delete opposition in one good side shot. Britain (when not using American guns) generally requires 3x the effort for the same payout. From a gameplay balance perspective, I see this as outright wrong, not to mention unfriendly to newer players who have not memorized where to shoot every vehicle.
For the Comet 77mm, 17-pdr, 3.7-inch AA, 20-pdr, and 32-pdr, yes, I very much agree with you.
But for the 6-pdrs, QF 75, and 3-inch 20cwt, I sharply disagree. None of those three has a sufficiently large penetration advantage over their opposition to make the reduced postpen justified. Solid AP rounds are frequently eaten by Russian fuel tanks, while APHE with less pen all too often sails right on through and explodes perfectly in the center of the tank. Since now Finland gave Russian tanks to the Swedish tree, and of course the German premium T-34 exists, and with how popular Russia is in general, this is a significant problem in what for every other nation ingame is the ideal BR range.
I only want to see Britain have parity with the other nations in one-hit-kill ability.
If by great you mean a terrible shell that can’t be used for flanking, has very little spalling and doesn’t even pen better, than yes it’s great…
6pdr is fine at its br, I quite like it. 75mm does have issues but the tank it’s on is generally over tiered and they even acknowledged that in its devblog. These other guns other then the 75 are quite reliable one shorting most tanks at the appropriate br, biggest exception being 17pdr vs king tigers and jagedtigers frontally.
France also suffers from those useless shells. Especially in mid tiers.
Exactly - I have nothing against how British tanks drive. I can make do with bad reverse speed.
No amount of “skill” can make up for a gun that does not deal reliable damage when you have just put in the extra effort to get around someone’s side (or better) rear.
The 6-pdr is decent but not really “good.” You still on average require 3-5x more rounds on target than the Swedish 57mm or German (long) 50mm guns to kill anything.
My beef is solely with the QF 75 on the Cromwell V, Excelsior, Churchill VII, and Valentine XI, NOT the 17-pdr. Which ingame is a worse copy of the American 75 in every respect.
To my knowledge that is only the ARL-44 (ACL-1) and stock AMX-13 FL-11, as every other machine from 2.3-4.7 generally gets a decent APHE to use instead, after which the long guns comparable to the 17-pdr take over.
No mate, you don’t. 6 pdr at its br can one shot all the usual suspects it should.
I’m guessing you weren’t being literal because the oqf 75mm is better 8n every way except no he filler.
“Can” =/= “does.”
If a 6-pdr hits an ammo rack, then yes, it “can” oneshot common opponents. So can a QF 75 (as I had one instance of last night). But in a practical sense, neither gun reliably does so.
And no, the QF 75 is not better in every way than the American 75mm M3. Pen is virtually identical, reload speed is identical, shell velocity is identical, and the postpen is worse due to the artificial discrepancy between solid AP and APHE that did not exist in reality. The game does not even model the reasons for why Britain went through the trouble of removing filler from some American rounds it received - shell breakup on impact or fuzes not activating. Britain is stuck with the “solution” for problems the game does not even model.
If WT Mobile decided to give the Churchill VII the M61 APHE, clearly there is enough similarity and implied cross-compatibility to give this gun this shell which it’s already shooting in a technical sense.
At its br the 6 pdr will reliably kill so thing when used properly. If you don’t understand solid shot spalling mechanics or shoot poorly you will suffer. This is why it’s important people learn how solid shot works differently.
Virtually identical pen? So not identical? Who’s is better? And the velocity shouldn’t be the same, it has more powder hense the higher pen.
75mm M3 firing M61 shot:
- 618 m/s muzzle velocity
- 6.79kg projectile mass
- APCBC shell type
- 64g bursting charge
- 103mm penetration point blank
QF 75 firing M61 shot:
- 618 m/s MV
- 6.53kg shell mass
- no filler
- same 103mm penetration.
There is no advantage whatsoever to the QF 75. The reload speeds of 6.5s stock & 5s aced are also identical.
The 6pdr does pen a little more than the Swedish or German 50-57mm guns, but the lacking postpen means you require far more time on target to secure a kill. That 20-40mm pen difference can occasionally mean life or death if you run into a KV-1 perfectly flat side on, but otherwise the Swedish and German guns are straight-up better. The 57mm M1 on the Russian premium halftrack SU-57 and US event premium T18E2 Boarhound is literally the same cannon as the 6-pdr, just with a good APHE round America made for the gun to bust bunkers with. Oh, and the German 50mm out-reloads the 6-pdr, adding insult to injury. The German 50mm using APCR pens the same or more, adding further insult. The Swedish 57 firing sabot on the Pvkv IV pens as much as a 17-pdr, adding even more insult to injury, with only a slightly longer reload.
US 57mm M1s used British APDS during Bulge. If the US 57 can fire British 57mm ammo, that implies strongly that the reverse is also true, doesn’t it?
I think the main issue and the point of this thread is the Skill-gate. Nations that mostly use APHE usually just have to hit the target to get a kill. Nations that exclusively use Solid shot or APDS have to be incredibly accurate to do any meaningful damage.
I think its a common idea that if you want an easy time, play Germany or Soviets, if you want to learn shot Placement, play Britain
Solid shot and APDS are underperforming quite a bit, and likely doing less damage than they should (especially combined with the shell shatter mechanic iirc). Combine with the skillgate of having to nail the exact right rivet or the shell does bugger all is the problem. I’d strongly argue that one of the main reasons Britian is such an underplayed nation at top tier, is because their BR4-8 is an extremely brutal learning curve, requiring 10 times more skill/effort than most other nations require.
I dont know if I agree with APHE being added Ahistorically, but solid shot and APDS cant remain in their current state or APHE needs to be nerfed to be more inline with AP shells
Then this is wrong. The oqf 75mm had more pen in real life because it had a solid projectile which meant they could run a hotter charge of powder meaning higher velocity. I swear this was the case once in game
WT Mobile decided to give the Churchill VII the M61 APHE. And it’s not really ahistorical - Britain tried using US ammo but the early war shell quality was so spotty they said it wasn’t worth the filler and removed fillers from rounds they were given, filling it with cement. They tried using it under battlefield conditions and found it unreliable. The game however, does not model random chances of full-caliber shell breakup from shoddy shell quality.
American 57mm M1s being used in Bulge were equipped with British APDS and used it there - if the US gun, which Wikipedia states “was a British 6-pdr with the Mk II breech but the original L/50 barrel” was capable of using British rounds, that strongly implies that the reverse is also true, and may have very well happened given that Britain used the 30 T18E2 Boarhounds operationally in North Africa.
So giving these two guns said rounds would not even be all that much “ahistorical.” Slightly, yes. But less than some far more egregious examples already present ingame (like the M48A2GA2 firing APFSDS its ammo racks could not fit).