What's Wrong with British Tanks?

Why are British tanks so bad?

So far I’ve spaded all British tanks up to BR 8, and I can’t really recall a single one that I’ve enjoyed playing. To generalize, they are slow, do very little damage and their reload is nothing to speak of either. It’s not that they’re ALL horrible, but even the ones that are playable are just inferior to pretty much any other tank in the game.

Does England just suck at making tanks, or is it just Gaijin’s implementation that’s way off?

9 Likes

One word. Solid-shot and APDS functions horribly in this game.

Since Spalling doesent bounce inside the tank Solid-shot and other basic kinetic penetrators have terrible damage output.

You have to KNOW where your enemies most voulnerable spots are. Altough Most british tanks work well against Germany and russia.

Play britain as either Careful Flanking tanks with The Firefly being good to go along the sidelines. or take the churchill and slowly while analysing the situation around you and make Strategic pushes breaking threads and barrels as you go. Or take a Crusader and try to flank the enemy and shoot them in the rear!

Most british tanks are great at long distance targeting.

  • Karnitin 75 “Swedish main, That know how to play some vehicles.”
8 Likes

more accurately, outdated, Challenger 2’s basic design is based on Challenger 1, and Challenger 1 is basiclly a chieftain with additional armor.

1 Like

It is a combination of limited simulation that gaijin can do and british tank doctrine not fitting well into a video game. The lack of reverse gears is what really hurts me when playing them.

The guns on mid rank tanks are pretty nice. The firefly is very good and low tiers work great with some good armor and firepower. I am not a fan of the higher rank tanks though

4 Likes

Concept3, Centurion mk1, the first Ratel, conqueror, centurion mk3, Falcon, vikers mk1, olifant mk1 , rooikat mk1, warrior, chieftains de 8.7, wikers mk11. Challenger mk3. You can check my tab I have played them quite a bit.

They have great tanks. It’s true that in low tier it’s a bit desperate for not having explosive ammo.

1 Like

In my experience it is a horrible nation much more than the rest when you are in stock. But come on as an example they recently raised the Ratel to 6.3 and the vikers mk1 to 8.0. They won’t be that bad…

The conqueror stayed at 7.7 and is a beast.

England is very competent at 7.7 8.0 8.7 and 10.3.

3 Likes

I hope you’re right regarding 8.0+, but I don’t agree about 7.7. Definitely playable yes, but any other nation with a 7.7 lineup is just that much better.

1 Like

Thats why you bring the Churchill NA75 So you get those sweet Anti- H1 tiger cupola rounds XD. I personally use the Chruchill (when im at my friends house, cuz i dont have above rank 3 Great britain.) I just break barrels and tracks and then get closer and get behind cover and repeat. Or if i play with my friend he shoots their barrel and threads and i just go and flank them in my Strv 42 DT or Strv m/40(im a silly man, what can i say. 37mm Apds at 5.3 is really quite special!)

1 Like

Man in 7.7 they have stabilizer. Good maneuverability, good reloading and decent guns. Apds in 7.7 is not bad.

It depends i guess,
It used to be a lot worse, before the French TT got added, after that it improved somewhat.
And off course the doctrine, Infantry tanks like the Churchill, heavily armored but slow.
at low tier tanks are spacious and have lots of crew so with solid shot / APDS it’s harder to take out enough crew in one hit.

With the 17 pdr, it’s always a consideration, do i use solid shot which Spalls more then APDS, but penetrates less.
With the 20 pdr, APDS is more consistant and since all MBT’s have a Stabilizer ;
When you get to the L7 and above, NO stock HEAT drama, always KE rounds available;

Pro’s:

  • Very early on Stab;
  • No HEAT drama;
  • So slow that most of the time Stab, doesn’t cut out;
  • Churchill’s / Matilda’s have good frontal armor for their BR;
  • Good reload;

Con’s:

  • you have to know internal layout of the enemy, how is the crew seated, where are the ammo racks;
  • slower then comparable vehicles in other nations;
  • Solid shot or HESH, less consistant then APCBC-HE or HEAT;
  • High tier MBT’s have really slow ready rack refill;

Gaijins implimentation of them and also they dont really work for WTs gameplay loop.

It’s mainly due to the british armies reliance on doctrine and refusal to deviate from it.

British tank design in the inter war period and early ww2 was focused on large heavy tanks combined with infantry to break through static defenses and enemy lines (tanks like the churchill) and then to have small, fast light tanks push through the gap to cut off supplies and encirle enemy groups (tanks like the cromwells)

Overall the doctrine worked as intended in the war with great success in north africa notably, but in game this doctrine clearly doesnt mean much and as such the tanks are being forced into roles they are not suited for.


Cold war tanks get better, mainly the centurion and the cheiftain, both being considered by some to be the first MBT and best NATO tank of the time respectively (I’m personally not saying they are dont get mad at me)

Spoiler

((The cheiftain is best NATO tank of the time))

But in game they are over tiered and suffer from the terrible implementation of APDS which does very little post pen damage and manages to ricochet from BMP’s frequently or just shatter on armour, mainly the 1000000mm volumetric bugs.


Another reason they suck is the lineups, britain is missing a lot of light tanks and tank destroyers from the tree, the additon of south africa has helped to fix some gaps but they dont fill enough and domestic light tanks need to be added, mainly the CVRT family and some more top tier tanks, perhaps Ajax :)


I wasn’t planning to write so much lol.
TL:DR:
Doctrine doesn’t fit war thunder
Overtiered and APDS
Lineups lacking support tanks

11 Likes

They aren’t slow in general. A13, crusaders, Cromwell’s, avenger, challenger cruiser tanks are all fast. The infantry tanks aren’t suppose to be much faster then a person. Centurions aren’t slow, not being the fastest doesn’t mean slow. When aced they will reach cap points with the other mbt and maintain speed better off road then other mbt. They have the best average reload of non autoloading tanks like France, best gun depression and have stabilizer from the start and have them for most br in the game. They use to have best penetration but sadly they keep getting nerfed in that regard.

This is wrong. Britain created the concept known mostly as blitzkrieg. At wars start the Germans had ingerior tanks in every way. British cruiser tanks were faster, better armoured, shoulder stabilised and had the best anti tank gun in the world. The matilda was the best protected tank in the world which was virtually impervious to any gun Germany fielded other then the 88mm.

Britain lost the bulk of their tank force when evacuating France so had to rebuild. North Africa saw that tanks were in high demand but with less then 10% of the defense budget it was more efficient to improve tanks they were already building rather then trying new production lines and designs which would have slowed and complicated tank production.

Britain was developing new tanks like the Cromwell, challenger, avenger and comet tanks which were all very good at the time but couldn’t produce for the reasons listed above. Churchill was the only allied tank that could expect to survive the 88mm.

Centurion is a ww2 tank design as was the A45 which became the Caernarvon. These became the most successful western tank in the world for decades. Chieftains pioneered the modern western tank layout of sloped armour and reclined drivers and were the foundation of the guns used by the West though the cold war. The 105 and 120 used by Germany and America were either British designs or modified designs of them.

They were the first to realise aphe was an inferior ammunition type and penetration and reliability was more important which is why British guns are smaller calibres while having superior penetration to their bigger peers. While it took about 20 years for everyone else to realise penetration was king the British had realised this before ww2.

Britain then developed the first composite armour with stillbrew first and then chobham which was borrowed by the Americans for their tanks. And to this day no chieftain has been destroyed by enemy fire due to its armour protection.

So to answer the question you were answering the problem with British tanks is gaijin, their mechanics and balancing.

3 Likes

The concept of maneuver warfare was created by the German generals in the first war war and then developed by everyone else.

Nevertheless, UK always intended (and partially still intend) their tank forces as a support weapon for infantry. Their tank were (and are) slow and very well armored because there’s no point in creating a 60km/h tank when the leg infantry can only move at 4.
Clearly this proved highly ineffective most of the time.

The only tank designs that does not fit this description, and for that reason the only successful designs, are the cruiser tanks, a concept sadly dropped after the war.

Britain pioneered tank and combined arms warfare in ww1. The Germans in ww2 used what they called blitzkrieg after attending a display interwar by the British showing the techniques employed by Germans in France. This is documented history.

Your generalised statement that tanks were for infantry support is a wildly generalised statement that is continuously, incorrectly propogated in general conversation.

Britain as I said had developed what people call blitzkrieg. They had 2 main tank doctrines not one. Infantry tanks were for supporting infantry absorbing fire while having the power to engage infantry and other tanks when encountered. Cruiser tanks had a different role. They were to replace cavalry. Harass the enemy, find and then exploit weaknesses. To get into the rear of the enemy and then cause chaos weakening the front and destroying the enemy supy lines while engaging enemy tanks encountered.

2 Likes

Neither. British tanks are good.
Speed isn’t everything, their chosen speed is due to more armor.
APDS is great once you learn it.

1 Like

Woah woah woah just wrong

5 Likes

yea british tanks are so good gaijin is redoing the damage model of challengers.

imagine getting so many bug reports you just say “f. it, well scrap everything and do it all over again”

unrealistic apds, hesh got nerfed on a word of a russian website about us recoiless rifles that was closed within 3 days, roadmap says nothing about regenerative steering because one nation would suffer and the other would be more mobile. etc

5 Likes

The whole “disabling a tank requires killing all of its crew members” is a deliberate game design choice meant to give advantage to the nation that shall not be named that relies heavily on APHE shells.

For it to be objective and fair representation of real life, a game like this would need a different criteria for “destruction” of an AFV.

3 Likes