The Comet Tanks Reload is Unjustifiably Bad

I don’t know if this is better placed as a suggestion, but the A34 Comet, seen in the British and Swedish tech trees, currently has a base rate of fire that is not supported by any documentation.

Right now, the gun reloads at a base rate of 9.62 seconds, and can with a full crew reload at a maximum rate of 7.4 seconds. However, I have a book, ‘A34 Comet Tank: A Technical History’ by P. M. Knight that describes many of the trials undertaken by the tank during its development and after its deployment. Included in this book are three rate of fire trials.

The first one was conducted at the lulworth firing range with pilot tank number 1. This tank carried 58 rounds. 21 vertically at the front of the compartment, 9 vertically at the rear of the compartment, 16 horizontally on the floor underneath the turret basket, 6 vertically on bins in the turret basket by the loader, and 6 in a rotary magazine underneath the gun. Results were as follows, quoted from the report

The average rate of fire for all rounds carried on the turntable is 8-10 rounds per minute. The 4 rounds in vertical bins beside the loader are quickest to load. Using these, 5 rounds were loaded and fired in 30 seconds. using the rotary magazine only, 5 rounds were loaded and fired in 48 seconds. This time could have been improved. in engaging a target, altering range and making necessary aim corrections - the whole complement (12 rounds) on the turntable was fired in 1 minute 50 seconds.

So we currently have the following fire rates.
5 shots in 30 seconds for 10 RPM or a reload time of 6 seconds.
5 shots in 48 seconds (that can be improved) for a reload time of 9.6 seconds.
12 shots in 110 seconds with pauses for the gunner to do corrections , for a average reload of 9.2 seconds.

A second trial was conducted with the same tank in august of 1944. The rotary magazine underneath the gun was replaced with a box carrying 9 rounds horizontally. After firing 282 rounds in total, the rate of fire when using the 9 round box was determined to be 7-8 rounds per minute, or 8.5 to 7.5 seconds between shooting. Using the vertical racks in the turret still offered 10 RPM.

A final trial was conducted postwar, using untrained crew and comparing the rotary magazine to the 9 round box. This trial concluded that the 6 round rotary magazine had a reload rate with a untrained crewmember of 7.4 seconds between rounds. The 9 round box had a average rate of fire of 9.75 seconds between rounds, starting at 8.9 seconds and getting longer as less convenient rounds had to be used. Rate of fire using the vertical bins was still the fastest.

So from this information, what are we to conclude?

  1. The Comet tank could, with a good loader, fire off 7 rounds (1 in the tube and 6 reloads in the vertical bins) with 6 second reloads. This is a 20 percent improvement off of the current Comet.

  2. With the rotary magazine, the Comet could probably extend this from 6 rounds to 12 rounds. Yeah, the test numbers do not match the vertical rack rate of reload, but on the one test they admitted it could be better, and on the second one a inexperienced crew matched the reload rate that the Comet has in game with a ace crew.

  3. The current ammunition stowage of the Comet in game is incorrect. Comet in game has two 6 round racks beneath the turret horizontally, then the following racks surrounding the turret stacked vertically (from 1 o’clock with the turret facing forward)

  • a 7 round rack
  • a 5 round rack
  • a 8 round rack
  • a 4 round rack
  • two 1 round racks
  • a 4 round rack
  • a 8 round rack
  • a 5 round rack
  • a 6 round rack

This is basically nonsense, and should be adjusted to the following.

  • the two racks with horizontal stowage under the turret be extended from 6 to 8 rounds per. also, they need to be mounted perpendicular to the tracks as opposed to parallel.
  • All other ammo be deleted and replaced with the following.
  • the 6 vertically stowed rounds in the turret by the loader in their armored bins.
  • depending on the variation, either a 9 round box on the turret floor under the gun, or the 6 round rotary magazine in the same spot.
  • A 9 round vertical armored bin outside of the turret by the commander.
  • A 21 round vertical armored bin outside the turret between the gunner and the driver.

These changes would make the tank more historical and help it to perform better against its peers. Let me know what you think below.

15 Likes

What I think is that Gaijin hates British tanks. They’ll say no, and cite some obscure technical documentation but they always seem to be “balanced”.

I would provide your documentation directly to the team, but I doubt they’ll make any changes.

7 Likes

How do I provide documentation directly to the team? I know there is the suggestion page but that seems to only be for new vehicles.

With this new crappy forum I have no idea, but try the suggestion page. If it’s wrong, they’ll probably just close it and hopefully tell you were to post it.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

File it as a ground vehicle report, and since it’s a historical report, you would attach your supporting documents in the relevant field. Make sure to include a screenshot of the current reload with crew skills applied in the crew skills panel.

3 Likes

Great! Thanks.

Chieftain’s video on the subject:

Gaijin are a wind up, look at them buffing so many APHE firing vehicles including Tiger II 105 and T-54. DESPITe the fact the previous T-54 reload speed was directly quoted from T-54s operating manual, the British assesment of T-55 is much less optimistic than that operating manual about the vehicles reload speed.

Yeah. Don’t hold your breath, people. I remember the hoo-ha over giving the Cromwell its correct 76.2mm of turret armour. It had been bug reported numerous times, but they cited an original document from the Department of Tank Design stating that it should only be the 65mm as modelled.

I had a friend, who was studying at the National Archives, check this document out that they kept quoting.

It was a diagram for a shock absorber station on the Cromwell.

What happened? I got sin-binned. That’s what.

1 Like

Cromwell’s turret has actually been fixed, look behind the main armour and see a 12.7mm plate all around

I know it has. They’re now up to where they should be in terms of protection. But that didn’t help me last time.