I mean the dispersion is insane for what it is. I haven’t played the Mk.I from the tech tree but I have the Mk.2 from the battle pass. The dispersion at 500m is like 3 meters so you can’t aim for any weak points at long range. The APDS doesn’t spall at all so not having any accuracy to hit specific spots really gimp the tank. It’s a monster at close range with the stabilizer and I have heard people calling it OP but my playstyle is keeping distance so the tank don’t work for me at all.
the 17 pounder is a powerful gun, but it does have high dispersion, and APDS is broken at the moment, and doesn’t work properly.
1 Like
Yeah I’ve noticed. Sometimes an APDS can penetrate cleanly through a tank without doing any damage, or failed to pen completely on armor that it should have gone through.
I once hit the turret of an M41 Walker Bulldog three times with the 152mm APFSDS of the Obj.120. Over 400mm of penetration but all three shots failed to pen. Another time I hit the side turret of a Panther flush with the Mk.2’s 17 pounder. The APDS hit the track piece on the turret then dissappeared, again doing no damage.
With APDS, if it hits more than 2 plates (in this case the Panther’s track) the shell shatters, it’s really stupid but that’s why I don’t play British ground anymore
1 Like
brit-tax
1 Like
FWIW, the inaccuracy of the APDS is historical. This is due to several factors, principly the effect the muzzle break which disrupted the separation of the sabot from the penetrator. This was especially prevalent in the 17 pounder’s case due to the high velocity, as well as the shell design. This was partially addressed post war with better shells.
All early APDS suffered accuracy issues, it was just more notable on the 17 pounder due to the aforementioned issues.
Can’t confirm or stand my ground on this, but I’ve heard the reason for 17-pdrs being so inaccurate in-game, is because the sources that Gaijin used for the 17-pdr were American tests of old, “hand-me-down” 17-pdrs. The tests were allegedly performed after WW2 ended. An old and worn out gun will obviously not perform as well, especially at range, as a newer gun.
The old 17pdr used on the fire fly and such did have accuracy problems with the sabot round due to their high velocity pared with the muzzle brake which created instability. This was fixed by shortening the barrel in the 77mm on the comet which reduced the amount of pen but made the round actuate enough for the army to think it good enough. Now with the centurions I’m not sure they used the 77mm cannon however if they were put on the centurions then I would like to think they managed to fix the accuracy problems they were having before going back to the old 17pdr. However they did replace the 17pdr quite quickly with the 20pdr so who knows.
1 Like
Sadly this tank is literally unusable at 6.7 with it;s 5.3 gun
It cant pen any of the US heavies it faces, it could pen the weakpoints on german tanks but thegun is so inaccurate that you need 15 tries to get through a tiger 2 turret.
It can be lolpenned by anything in return.
Strangely it does btter in uptier as there is less armor.
The one thing I’ll disagree with you is the lol penned bit. Just have a look at the armour of the centurions, it’s more a heavy tank than a medium (especially with it being 52 tonnes and all). Side scraping is a dream in it and the solid shot is good enough for most engagements. The apds is far too inaccurate probably as it carries on with the 20pdr when I doubt we would have continued using something that can’t be used at range however I have no sources and wouldn’t know where to begin.
I would simply recommend using solid shot and keep 10 sabot for when you need it, plus solid shot tends to not be hot trash like apds.