why do people dislike various nations having strengths and weaknesses?
Everyone expects a 1 shot kill also.
This isn’t Wargaming,
Vehicles are meant to be modelled accurately
This is a step toward greater accuracy
The complete lack of Filler in any QF 75 M61 shot is erroneous, all the vehicles in game with the QF 75 were late enough in the war to receive the post rectification Fuzes and thus filler
Nations do have strengths and weaknesses in game, but historical ones based on the doctrine of the era,
there is enough difference from basic vehicle design to not need Erroneous “strengths and Weaknesses” (only actually ever a weakness) to give a nation a flavour which is already served by vehicle design
2 Likes
People voted against making APHE historically accurate, if they arent going to do that and make APHE balanced vs APDS, then the least they can do is make sure everyone has APHE
4 Likes
- Because it’s ahistorical for those tanks to be without an APHE round.
- Because that ammunition is present in the UK Tech Tree, but limited to vehicles of US origin.
- Because all three of the Big Three (USA, USSR, Germany) have no issues whatsoever having their historical APHE ammunition, and benefit quite well from it.
- It’s not even just the Big Three;
Spoiler
USA
Germany
UK
China
Italy
France
Sweden
Can you see a weak link?
2 Likes
*cannons of US origin
4 Likes
what do you mean?
There was a proposed change to how APHE is modeled, to make it more accurate:
People voted against it
APDS is apparently modeled to be “accurate” but APHE is not
2 Likes
Ah yes, that ugly duckling.
Honestly, I would rather have done the damage models correctly.
They need to one-tap us with APHE while we need to poke crews one by one.
Maybe because of these goddamn “Tech-tree uniqueness”.
Bollocks…
Uniqueness for being inferior. How marvelous.
7 Likes
Someone seems to really hate the Churchill Mk VII.
You seem to not understand that the only reason these tanks that have this gun, are this low in BR is the very fact that they don’t have explosive filler.
If you wish to try “having fun” in your Mk. VII at like 5.3 (judging by how high the Jumbo is with a 12,7 and more mobility) and get trashed on by Tigers that’s your choice. I prefer the current status quo.
1 Like
I adore the playstyle and challenge of the Churchill VII, I probably spend a few hours every week track-and-barrel torturing tanks who underestimate it.
That said, it would be more (but not unreasonably) competitive with its historical ammunition. It’s not a big change, and for Churchill VII in particular I can simply point you to the armaments manual and show you that this ammunition should be available.
Cover
2 Likes
No matter how you decide to slice it Churchill will not be 5.0 material even with APHE
Compare it to the KV-1 '42 Klimi, or the KV-1 ZiS-5 (if Churchill VII were to get APHE)
-
Much worse Mobility
-
Marginally better Firepower
-
Much Better Armour
factoring them in makes them equal, as mobility is key in how war thunder operates, and with how abysmal the Churchill Mobility is, it gets hit HARD
(if double diff comes to the Churchills this would change, as they could keep most their speed in a turn, rather than immediately halting, and their mobility would just be Poor, not abysmal)
or if we compare it to the 5.0 M6A1 and KV-85
-
MUCH worse mobility
-
Much worse firepower
-
Much better armour
The Churchill VII is Not equal to these.
and this isn’t even including the mediums at 4.7/5.0, which all are wholly superior,
such as the VK 30.02 which has MUCH better Mobility, a Gun that can pen it easily with relatively little aiming required, and armour itself which is impervious to the Churchill VII frontally apart from Turret corner which can be hard to hit properly as long as you don’t sit still
3 Likes
Jumbo 75 isn’t a 5.7 material either. And guess what.
Heavy tanks that require some thought to be put into killing them by default will have higher server stats which 9 times out of 10 leads to them getting severly overtiered like aforementioned Jumbo 75, IS-6 and alike
1 Like
This Jumbo?
Yes, the 5.7 one.
I’ve heard that the 6pdr also used proper APHE, was this true? is it APHE, ABC, APCBC, what was it? and how hard would it be to get it to later 6pdr users
Forgetting the 75mm Jumbo has
-
MUCH better mobility
-
Access to APCR for harder targets
-
More effective armour directly front on (~165mm effective UFP vs ~153mm effective UFP (transmission housing is weaker, but the transmission usually eats shrapnel)
-
best in class gun handling (short stop stabiliser, allowing for very quick reaction times)
-
.50 to track targets to allow for easier shots with the Identical Weak gun
If you think Churchill VII is 5.0 material with APHE, and the 75mm Jumbo 5.3 material (albeit indirectly) you need something checked. Churchill VII has never, and will never be 0.3 worse than the 75mm Jumbo, from the mobility and gun handling alone
The Jumbo will always be significantly better than the Churchill VII, if for the Mobility alone, forgetting the other benefits the Jumbo reaps, Especially the Short stop stabiliser. especially as the Jumbo can out manoever many opponents, while Churchill VII will always be outmanoeuvred
It is very similar to comparing comparing Valentine XI and M4A1
At its old BR of 7.0 is was undisputably too strong
It has bugger all for practical frontal weak spots (side armour is still extremely strong) and the one real frontal weakspot (Gunner’s side breech) was very small and hard to hit, especially if it was moving combined with an optic that would usually eat a large fraction/most of the spall, excellent mobility, with a fair cannon
at 7.7 it faces 8.3 and 8.7, which see’s a MASSIVE jump in capability, between Stabilisers, LRFs and Thermals, which all contribute to making it poor in an uptier, combined with a poor gun for 7.7 with rather long reload causes it to be nearing obsolescence
at the same BR you have the IS-4M, which only has Armour over the IS-6, while the IS6 is much more mobile, with a better turret traverse speed and 3/4 of the reload, and Neither can defend against the HEAT commonly found in uptiers
I believe We did, but i don’t have direct information to say we used M86 (6pr APHE used by the US, seen in game on SU-57 and T18E2, @Sebbo_the_Plebbo and @l2ulan may have more information on this
2 Likes
This, stab and 12,7 is the sole reason why it’d be higher in BR
This is worthless like 99% of the time. I only ever used those at Tiger Es and even then in very few select scenarios when i can’t simply outplay and outmanouver him.
Transmission never eats shells in jumbo, especially if you get shot by something that has internal OP rounds which there are plenty of at this BR.
This one is valid, but Churchill is also very stable for it’s BR.
Also, by the way didn’t Churchill also use to have vert stabs? Idk whether it was the mk. VII, but i am pretty sure there was a stabilized churchill in this game at some point.
Balance in this game is not relative between 2 vehicles. Due to compression tanks cannot be perfectly classified. Jumbo can be too weak for 5.7 while at the same time being over 1 BR step better than 5.0 APHE churchill VII. I can 100% assure you that with APHE the tank wouldn’t remain at 4.7 due to how big of performance jump is this. Especially if what it gets is the M61 which is just a mini nuke and makes the current Shot mk.8 look like a terrible joke.
100% agreed. You seem to forget though that for a few months it sat at the BR of 7.3 where i think it was pretty well balanced.
This is the biggest reason why it deserves to go back to 7.3. If they want, they can take away the BR-471D they added while moving to 7.7, i don’t care.
Again, the balance isn’t relative. The IS-4M is a bad joke of a tank at 7.7 outside of a full downtier. But due to it’s insane armor profile it physically can’t go lower than that.
IS-6 is different, it actually has frontal weakspots that can be exploited with old gen rounds, whether it is T34, T32, T29 or Tiger 2 which i’d say are the most common heavy tank counterparts to it, they all can deal with it. Although it is pretty hard, with it being 2 BR steps above T2 and 1 above T29 i think it would be fair.
2 pdr on the Churchill I and 6 pdr on Churchill III have shoulder stabilisers, no stabilisation on the QF 75 mm but it is quite stable solely due to the slow speed and weight of the vehicle.