Centurion had a BV fitted - that makes any loader far faster.
After all, he’s the one making the tea so the more time he spends fumbling around with the shell the less time he’s spending on important warfighting duties.
Anyone got some documents showing Comet was fitted with an early prototype kettle?
Can we get BV’s as a module that gives a crew buff like the Commanders Leadership skill? :P
Electronics cube
So, they have added a 9 rounds rack on the turret floor ? Like @l2ulan said, it doesn’t look like much.
As with the rest, I do believe the most important issue is the reload speed. It should be as fast the A30 Challenger, at least.
In regards of the vehicles motorization :
Putting the game’s models under X-Rays, shows that the number of forward gears differs between Cromwell and Comet : 6 and 5, respectively.
According to some sources and David Fletcher’s book The Great Tank Scandal, both Cromwell and Comet share the same exact Merritt-Brown Z.5 gearbox and Meteor engine. 5 forward and 1 reverse.
While I cannot confirm the same for the A30 Challenger/Avenger, I suspect they share the same issues as the Comet of a (artificially?) curbed engine.
This maybe the reason it cannot reach 64 kph, like Cromwell. There is the question of weight, but is a difference of 3 tons enough to kill 12 kph?
Comet has the higher ratio final drive which is also found in late Cromwells, and the Challenger/Avenger series. That’s why it has a lower top speed.
3.71 to 1 vs 4.5 to 1, as referenced in my report for the Cromwell V.
Good point with the gears, we should check that out.
i would say you should check how cramped the Comets are
Dont look up the driver hatch if you are claustrophobic
Now compare that to the Firefly’s turret.
The Firefly should really take longer to reload, but of course, the APHE and the extremely ridiculous damage only make any realism that could be achieved in the game go down the drain. All the bullets in the game should be given realistic damage, and then given a realistic reload time.
You’re not wrong.
APHE should be fixed, the “vote” be dammed. Putting a 35mm aphe into a cupola and it nuking the entire turret crew and often the driver too is… well its stupid and makes a mockery of the “realistic damage models”. It’s just a crutch for some players.
It’s bizarre how gaijin will muder an entire BR bracket by a completely unnecessary change to the flakpanzer-431 in the intrests of “realism”, but ignore the sucking chest wound that is APHE.
While they’re at it, they can also take a look at russian APHE angled performance. That shit is physics defying.
It would fix so many things.
APHE ammo and the low damage of other bullets are the cancer of the game, the problem is that the devs have been on a runaway streak for years, adding more and more buggy vehicles, without fixing old bugs, and above all, not touching the key mechanics of the game that would greatly improve it, such as the damage model. But of course, changing that would be a time-consuming process that wouldn’t generate any money, and would make those who depend on APHE for a living cry out loud.
I don’t know much about that topic. In principle, Russian bullets, having a flat nose, would make them better at piercing inclined armor at the cost of losing penetration at 0° (curiously, both 122 bullets penetrate the same). However, having a large internal space with explosives could cause these bullets to fragment upon impact before penetrating, causing them to lose a significant portion of their damage.
On the other hand, other ammunition that should gain penetration at 60° are AP ammunition in general, since upon impact at 60° the nose breaks, making the bullet flatter and allowing it to penetrate more at those angles, like the 90mm T33 ammunition or the 120mm M103.
It would also create new and unforeseen problems.
To be clear I still think they should fix the disparity between rounds - either making APHE less lethal or (my preferred solution) making other rounds more lethal.
I’m just saying that we should also not be naive. The entire BR system is based on performance. A massive change to the performance of a very common shell type (or more shell types) will massively affect BRs. In the intervening time, a lot of players would experience a lot of frustration as well.
For example, a lot of German, Soviet, and some American vehicles would inevitably go down in BR if they were less lethal. That’s going to create interesting situations because some vehicles (Tigers, T-34s, KV-1s, Tiger IIs, T-29s) will have much more formidable armour relative to the opposition they’ll face. Postwar light vehicles that lack APHE would start creeping up in BR relative to their current opposition (or continue to). Tutels would probably end up in a really weird spot since they would be completely immune to a nerfed APHE.
None of these things are necessarily bad, to be clear, just saying that one should not make the mistake of assuming everything would remain unchanged except the ammo.
Still. Community voted against even testing the APHE changes, so I think Gaijin will never touch the issue again.
Basically, they don’t richochet when they should, and their fuses work at absurd angles.
Here’s what really pisses me off :
APHE fuses, especially ww2 ones were shit. They often detonated too early or failed to detonate. For some god forsaken reason this isn’t modelled and yet, APDS shattering is modelled.
Why? What possible justication is there for implementing the flaws in one ammunition type, but not the others? It’s a double standard.
Combine the russian aphe ammunition slope modifiers being a work of fiction, with the fuses not failing at all even at absurd angles and you have rounds which don’t richochet when they should, penetratre when they shouldn’t and create a spehere of death when they absolutely shouldn’t.
One of the game’s problems is that the developers use realism to their advantage, sometimes making things realistic and other times making things fantasy, and then they balance it out by accumulating that mess.
100% this.
Well, but that’s inevitable in a videogame.
We can keep reloading the gun even while in the air as we jump off a cliff, and the spines of the crew are not pulverised on impact, and I think we can all agree that this greatly aids the gameplay - but it’s also complete, total fantasy.
good read
I’ve never liked this approach personally as you begin to enter Call of Duty with tanks territory. Everybody one-shots and crew layout etc doesn’t matter.
A penetration would still be a penetration, BR’s wouldn’t need to change as all APHE flingers would be affected. One shots would still be possible but it’d actually take a modicum of aiming ability.
Not immune, they’d actually be as tough as they’re supposed to be. No more BS crew deletes with cupola shots etc and as mentioned penetration wouldn’t change. You can still seriously harm/kill the heavies with well placed shots. But don’t forget they also have to hit you more accurately as well.
I understand the point, and it’s fair. But it’s also a delicate balance to strike.
Here’s the thing. A lot of the motivation behind changing APHE is realism. I can certainly get behind that. However, if the objective is realism, you need to keep in mind that realism does not stop at the physics of the shell. It also applies to realistic effects of the shell.
In a realistic set up, it doesn’t matter if your cupola shot only kills the commander. The (say) Tiger you’ve just hit has lost most of its vision source, the crew have lost their CO, they know an enemy has them ranged, and there may well be other concealed enemies acquiring them as they speak. They’re going to smoke and bail. That tank will not fight on, even if four crew survive.
Ironically that’s one of the reasons why you could decide not to bother with APHE IRL. One penetration is usually enough to put a tank out of action.
Of course WT would be frustrating if the first time your turret ring got jammed you were considered “killed”. Or hell, even being tracked.
But playing “crew whack a mole” with solid shot is just as unrealistic as APHE mini nukes! So we need to decide whether our priority is balance, the flow of gameplay, or a mix of the two. And then from that premise we get to a solution.
My view is basically that current APHE achieves an indirect, almost accidental realistic effect through an unrealistic mechanic. The explosion is fiction. The OHK is not. Because other shells do not get this mechanic however, we have a problem of game balance. That’s why I would prefer other rounds to be buffed.
But if a community vote said no to that and bring APHE down instead, I would be okay with testing that.
It’s not a question of need, BRs are based on performance, so of course they would change.
Let me put this another way. If the rounds fired by the M41 were as lethal as APHE, do you think it would still be at its current BR? I doubt it very much.
The reverse of that is equally true. Anything with HVAP, good APDS etc would go up in BR (after all these rounds were the pinnacle of WW2 ammo development, not APHE).
WT is not real life, so you would not get any “as it’s supposed to be”. All our vehicles have perfect quality of armour, no armour fatigue, no maintenance issues, situational awareness and third person over cover, a crew that acts like one because orders happen at the speed of thought, and a huge premium to mobility. The T-34s work very well in game because they lack many of their IRL disadvantages (same could be said for Panthers or Tiger IIs).
