I would very much prefer global changes to ammo postpen performance, mate. Solid AP is underperforming slightly. APCR, APDS, HEAT, and HEATFS are badly underperforming, causing more problems than they are worth in my opinion.
Giving two guns ammo types they were quite capable of firing is simply much easier from a coding standpoint than the proper overhaul of all ammo types ingame.
Sid shot is a lot more reliable then a lot of people think though and that’s all I’m trying to say. There is a right way to use it and it will one shot tanks quite reliably.
I’m curious, do you shoot for modules or crew when your head on to the enemy? This is the biggest mistake I see. Even big youtubers do this and it drives me insane watching them.
Generally-speaking, I shoot for where my round will “hopefully pen” when using both gun types. This is almost always side shots. Occasionally front shots if I am shooting something thin-skinned enough. I have not memorized exact ammo rack locations on every tank - the fact that ammo hit by non-APHE rounds has an annoying tendency to turn black and disappear gave me little reason to bother memorizing things. So for the most part I tend to aim for crew, sometimes the engine first so the opponent cannot angle themselves to where they are immune to followup shots.
Again, in my experience I do not one-tap most opponents using either gun unless I get lucky with an ammo rack actually blowing up as it should.
Here are some discussion boards I found with sources about the US 57mm using British APDS and HE shells:
And we already have common knowledge that the QF 75mm was a 6-pdr gun re-bored specifically for compatibility with plentiful American 75mm ammunition. Which again implies that a QF 75 can easily fire M61 APHE w/o issue.
If giving those two guns those two M61 & M86 rounds is “ahistorical,” then its only very slightly ahistorical at best, far less than how the game models all APHE as perfect factory-quality and all armor as perfect factory-quality with no defects or breakups.
T-34-100 and T-44-100 never used BR-412D APCBC in real life. They didn’t even get the chance to do it due to both having been scrapped before that round even existed.
Same with the SU-122P and BR-471D APCBC. Again, a round that was developped after the tank was scrapped, yet the tank can fire this round in WarThunder.
WarThunder acts very much on a “if it could fire it, then maybe it can get it”. Realism or history doesn’t stop Gaijin from making a specific cannon fire all the rounds that were made to be shot from it.
Yeah don’t shoot for crew or modules, this includes ammo if front facing. You don’t need to memorise tanks most nations have a similar crew layout from tank to tank so pretty quick and most crew are in the turret. Solid shot kills by spalling which creates a cone on penetration and is very easily absorbed by everything it hits. This is why you shoot for space. Space gives room for the cone to form and spread out to it widest size and hit the most about of crew for a one shot kill. Tigers and panzers for eg. Aim centre mass which is upper front plate, slightly high so the cone spreads to the turret crew and slightly right of centre so to hit the driver too. Most times this will one shot kill German tanks. Brit guns can pen most tans they face this way.
British tanks are 100% underperforming due to the way Gaijin simulates spalling from solid AP, hopefully they will find a better way to emulate it in the future
QF 75mm could absolutely use the M61 APHE. It’s completely historical too. It’s been reported to Gaijin several times over the years.
6-Pdr doesn’t really need the M86. Though it’d be nice to have. You’d have to remember the M86 fired from 6-Pdr Mk. III guns would be worse than the US 57mm M1 due to the shorter barrel. I’d prefer seeing the missing APCR and APDS.
Yep, as I said in the other thread, assuming a similar velocity drop of 46 m/s on M86 fired from the 6-pdr L/43 (as the solid APCBC it gets is 46 m/s slower than on the L/50 variant), M86 would fire at 776m/s and pen 113mm with 42g filler - more than sufficient for the BR range.
I would argue it does really need such a round, because every other nation has one-hit-kill ability on the majority of their vehicles while Britain does not outside copy-paste American stuff. From a gameplay balance perspective, that just makes zero sense whatsoever. There are many times where I would rather use an Italian 75 with 80mm pen or a Swedish 75 with 63mm pen APHE over a British 75 with 103mm pen because the former two will actually kill if they pen.
people flag things they disagree with.
APHE is the main russian shell from 1.0 to 8.7 so forget any kind of nerf.
No, they simply don’t do it because it would be doing something good for the game, and seeing everything they are doing in the latest updates, doing something good would be completely going off the path they have decided to take.
Remove the APCR and bring the Sherman II to 3.3 I say. Ain’t no reason to inaccurately buff a vehicle only to put it at a higher BR where it will struggle.
Oh the realism issue."In real life this and in real life that " Then your WW2 tank is in a battle with a South African vehicle from the 80s.
Warthunder is about realism when it comes to armour and ammo but pure fantasy everywhere else.
Why not give WW2 UK roof mounted 50 cals and explosive filler as they trawl around 60s America, Sun City or the Rocket Base.A WW2 UK tank must have solid shot on pain of death but it has to face a tank firing ammo that did come into being until the 60s.
Confused I am.
If it had a SAP or APHE shell then yes however almost all British cannons used solid shells instead of shells with filler some did but it wasn’t common.
This, would love to see some new Shermans in the British tree. Such as:
The Sherman II and M4A1 are the same tank so that doesn’t make much sense. For it to be .7. Never noticed that so strange.
The RP-3 vehicles would be more accurately called Sherman (Firefly) Tulips
The point here is merely to achieve parity with every other nation’s killing power. Penetration =/= killing power. The QF 75 already shoots M61 with filler removed, with how the game operates there’s less justification for withholding M61 APHE than adding it at this point. 6-pdr M86 is a bit more of a stretch, but even Wikipedia says it’s the same cannon in two different nations, and US 57s in Bulge used British APDS operationally which implies their ammos are cross-compatible.
Only in the 17-pdrs (and FL10/SA50 for France) does solid shot get enough extra pen to justify the lack of HE filler. Extra pen means more postpen damage like in reality.
The problem with both the QF 75 and 6-pdr is that both do not get enough excess pen vs the armor they’re fighting to achieve their best possible postpen. Oh, and both the Swedish 57 & German long 50 out-reload the US & British 57s.
Speaking of the Concept 3, it has a related problem to the QF 75 - not quite enough excess pen to spall well when it pens, unlike the full length 17-pdr. I’d personally give it the Comet APDS & Laser Rangefinder it had on the dev server introducing it and punt it up to say, 5.0-5.7 at least. 6.0+ if APDS got un-nerfed.
Ironically, nerfing APHE would help, not harm, Russia. Too many machines sit at questionably high BRs due to APHE’s near-guaranteed killing power.
Several examples: IS-3, IS-4M, IS-7, Object 279, T-10A, IS-6, IS-2, IS-2 1944/Revenge, T-44/85, Object 268 all come to mind. Not yet played T-10M but wouldn’t shock me if it also doesn’t belong at 8.3 these days.
Non-Russian examples: Jumbo 75, Jumbo 76, EBR (1951), Maus, E-100, Jagdtiger, Ferdinand, Churchill NA75, Super Pershing, T32s, T95, and probably many, many more.
Nerfing APHE, especially APHE smaller than 120mm, would remove the “overwhelming armament” excuse for why so many pieces of heavy armor sit at such questionable BRs. If you cannot survive long enough to bring that gun to bear with your ability to shoot back intact (meaning neither LOLpen HEAT/sabot/darts/missiles nor barrel damage), then that “superior postpen” doesn’t actually matter at all.