Churchill?

[skpcarey1]

Is this thing gonna have a chance against the Tiger or even the panther?

 

[352ndOscar]

Churchill Mk IV tank with QF 6 Pounder (57mm)……

I wouldn’t count on it as it’s an Infantry Support vehicle

[BlitzPig_EL]

In close quarters in an urban setting where the Churchill could get good side on shots on the Panther, or shoot the Tiger in it's rear end, sure, just like I can do with a Sherman.

In a long range duel in open country, probably not.

 

As in all things related to combat, it's all about the context, and the tactics.

[Feathered_IV]

6 hours ago, skpcarey1 said:

Is this thing gonna have a chance against the Tiger or even the panther?

 

 

Maybe if he cuts down on the alcohol, quits smoking and goes to bed earlier.

[Cybermat47]

6 hours ago, skpcarey1 said:

Is this thing gonna have a chance against the Tiger or even the panther?

 

 

I would guess no. AFAIK its IRL advantages against the Tiger and Panther were that it actually had fuel and its crew wasn't constantly getting demoralised by constant air attacks (at least on the Western Front).

Edited March 12, 2022 by Cybermat47

[Yogiflight]

19 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

it's all about the context, and the tactics.

Yes, but moving tactically in this game goes only so far until your opponent notices the white circle in your direction.

[ShampooX]

Not as much of a chance as the Stug is against the current Allied line up.

[ickylevel]

Completely useless addition, showing that the dev team has no clue of what balancing is about.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Dunno about useless as its quite armoured, and we seen already how tough kv-1s is to take out and sherman at range, churchill is even better armoured. And its 6 pounder gun isnt anything to laugh about, maybe not perfect but its still able to pen tiger frontally:

 

https://warspot.net/156-tiger-killers/images?name=%2F000%2F001%2F765%2Fcontent%2F9-ff421e1b8adeae218cf90548009176b3.png
 

 

[LachenKrieg]

On 3/11/2022 at 4:21 PM, skpcarey1 said:

Is this thing gonna have a chance against the Tiger or even the panther?

 

TBH, yes I think it will. At open ranges beyond 500 m, historically it would struggle against a Tiger/Panther, but isn't a lot of the MP action in Tank Crew within 500 m?

 

Personally I think the Dev's know exactly what they are doing in terms of bringing more options to create balanced matches. And I would be ecstatic about the announced collector vehicles if it wasn't for the issues I see with gun/armor performance. My only hope here is that gets fixed.

[JV44HeinzBar]

4 hours ago, ickylevel said:

Completely useless addition, showing that the dev team has no clue of what balancing is about.

S!,

I don't think the inclusion of the Churchhill is based completely on balance. I believe the Churchill was chosen because of its presence at Kursk and to give our fellow British tankers a vehicle to drive.

 

It's been shown that the 6lb could pen both big cats, especially from the side in rear. However, from the front, the 6lb will struggle to pen the front glacis of either one. With that being said, the Sherman's 75 can do respectable damage to either cat from distance in this sim. It might not kill their target, but it can disable the gun, dislodge tracks, etc.

 

HB

[Voidhunger]

I just tried penetration power of the Churchill and was surprised that it possible to penetrate lower front hull of the Panther from cca 150-200m.

Its only 60mm but very sloped.

I dont know if the AP round had balistic cap to overcome inclined armor.

Any info how it was effective against lower hull of the Panther?

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I put some 6 pounder rounds through the side armor of the Tiger's turret at very close range the other day.  Some of the crew bailed, no big explosion either.

A Panzer III took some shots at my frontal armor from longish range, I laughed in British...

[352ndOscar]

150-200 meters…….    ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

[MajorMagee]

Bocage?

[Thad]

On 5/18/2022 at 4:46 AM, ickylevel said:

Completely useless addition, showing that the dev team has no clue of what balancing is about.

Salutations,

 

I doubt if its usefulness was why it was presented to us. Rather, its actual historical presence on the Eastern front was causal.

On 5/18/2022 at 8:12 AM, LachenKrieg said:

TBH, yes I think it will. At open ranges beyond 500 m, historically it would struggle against a Tiger/Panther, but isn't a lot of the MP action in Tank Crew within 500 m?

 

Personally I think the Dev's know exactly what they are doing in terms of bringing more options to create balanced matches. And I would be ecstatic about the announced collector vehicles if it wasn't for the issues I see with gun/armor performance. My only hope here is that gets fixed.

Collector vehicles? Collector vehicles? Where...... where. When.... when.

 

Where is my credit card?

[Thad]

54 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

I doubt if its usefulness was why it was presented to us. Rather, its actual historical presence on the Eastern front was causal.

Collector vehicles? Collector vehicles? Where...... where. When.... when.

 

Where is my credit card?

Especially for Player capable vehicles.

[MajorMagee]

I was just looking at the battlefield stats in Stephen Hart's book for AFV engagement ranges in 1943-44 this morning.

 

Engagement resulting in Soviet AFV destruction as percentage by range by caliber

 

Distance_(m)____75mm______88mm

100-200__________10.0_________4.0

200-400_________26.1_________14.0

400-600_________33.5________18.0

800-1000_________7.0_________13.5

1000-1200________4.5_________8.5

1200-1400________3.6_________7.6

1400-1600________0.4_________2.0

1600-1800________0.4_________0.7

1800-2000________0.0_________0.5

 

The breakdown in 1943 for T-34 tank losses was

50mm long 10.5%

50mm 23.0%

75mm 40.5%

88mm 26.0%

 

As much as anything this distribution represents the number of each type doing the shooting versus just their relative killing potential.

7 hours ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

I doubt if its usefulness was why it was presented to us. Rather, its actual historical presence on the Eastern front was causal.

 

Hopefully they sold more that the 42 the Soviets had available for Kursk.

[moustache]

1 hour ago, MajorMagee said:

Engagement resulting in Soviet AFV destruction as percentage by range by caliber

 

Distance_(m)____75mm______88mm

100-200__________10.0_________4.0

200-400_________26.1_________14.0

400-600_________33.5________18.0

800-1000_________7.0_________13.5

1000-1200________4.5_________8.5

1200-1400________3.6_________7.6

1400-1600________0.4_________2.0

1600-1800________0.4_________0.7

1800-2000________0.0_________0.5

 

The breakdown in 1943 for T-34 tank losses was

50mm long 10.5%

50mm 23.0%

75mm 40.5%

88mm 26.0%

 

As much as anything this distribution represents the number of each type doing the shooting versus just their relative killing potential.

not sure to understand

 

1 hour ago, MajorMagee said:

Hopefully they sold more that the 42 the Soviets had available for Kursk.

I met 3 other players on the multiplayer... so there are at least 4 of us...

[Peasant]

20 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

I just tried penetration power of the Churchill and was surprised that it possible to penetrate lower front hull of the Panther from cca 150-200m.

Its only 60mm but very sloped.

I dont know if the AP round had balistic cap to overcome inclined armor.

Any info how it was effective against lower hull of the Panther?

 

 

 

Hmmm, if the lower nose of the early Panthers is modelled in game as 60mm/55°, the 6pdr gun should be unable to penetrate this target at all. Late Panther models had the thickness of this part reduced to 50mm, maybe the developers have used wrong value here.

 

Spoiler

 

[ShampooX]

I, like you all, would like to think that the ballistics in the game are "real world".  But as we saw in the past with the Sherman's indestructability for example, we know that things are still pretty hit or miss.  The other day on Finish my Tiger got one shotted by a Sherman from the front at 500m.  It's not  science here - it's hit boxes.  Anyway for me it's "close enough."

 

And on the subject of balance I submit this:  your "balance" is the map size.  Use it to your advantage....if you're in that T34 and you see a Tiger try and get to his flanks.  Or better yet, pick a position that puts you on his flank to begin with.  Or instead of shooting him coming down the road, wait for him to go by.  In other "balanced" games like War Thunder, the maps are so small this kind of tactic is impossible and thats why you might be in a tank from 1944 and are seeing tanks from 1955 or even the 1960's who have much better ammunition, speed and ROF.

 

The best thing about TC is the balance is historically accurate and I think that should continue.  It would be cool to see some 1944 additions next: T34/85 and Jagdpanther for example.

[Voidhunger]

8 minutes ago, ShampooActual said:

I, like you all, would like to think that the ballistics in the game are "real world".  But as we saw in the past with the Sherman's indestructability for example, we know that things are still pretty hit or miss.  The other day on Finish my Tiger got one shotted by a Sherman from the front at 500m.  It's not  science here - it's hit boxes.  Anyway for me it's "close enough."

 

And on the subject of balance I submit this:  your "balance" is the map size.  Use it to your advantage....if you're in that T34 and you see a Tiger try and get to his flanks.  Or better yet, pick a position that puts you on his flank to begin with.  Or instead of shooting him coming down the road, wait for him to go by.  In other "balanced" games like War Thunder, the maps are so small this kind of tactic is impossible and thats why you might be in a tank from 1944 and are seeing tanks from 1955 or even the 1960's who have much better ammunition, speed and ROF.

 

The best thing about TC is the balance is historically accurate and I think that should continue.  It would be cool to see some 1944 additions next: T34/85 and Jagdpanther for example.

Im quite OK with the damage model except those oneshot explosions from the sides in some german tanks, but it seems that developers are satisfied with that, so it doesnt matter anymore.

 

[SCG_SchleiferGER]

7 minutes ago, ShampooActual said:

I, like you all, would like to think that the ballistics in the game are "real world".  But as we saw in the past with the Sherman's indestructability for example, we know that things are still pretty hit or miss.  The other day on Finish my Tiger got one shotted by a Sherman from the front at 500m.  It's not  science here - it's hit boxes.  Anyway for me it's "close enough."

That is actually possible. Gun mantlet shot to the double optics port can do that, if lucky.

 

[No_Face]

Personally, I have no problem with ballistics. The penetration and armor data given in the tank sheets seem to match what we can see in game. If the data says "it doesn't penetrate" then it won't penetrate. If the data says "it does penetrate," then it will penetrate.

 

Of course, you'll have to take into account the angles to explain why sometimes it might not penetrate or ricochet.

Also keep in mind that just because shots penetrate doesn't mean they are deadly.

 

I'm also happy with the damage and the neutralization of the tanks: sometimes there is only a hole, but the crew evacuates, sometimes the tank catches fire and then goes out, sometimes it catches fire and then explodes a few moments later, sometimes it explodes instantly.

 

I'm not saying that there are no bugs and that there is nothing to review, maybe it is the case but if it is the case, then it seems uncommon.
The Panther seems to explode instantly if it receives an APHE in the side, no matter the precise area (to be verified), maybe it needs to be dug out on that side, maybe not, I don't know anything about ballistics.

 

On the other hand, I have the impression that some people think that the ballistics are bad ONLY because unlike War Thunder or Gunner HEAT, there is no post-penetration damage/effects camera.

If there is no post damage visualization camera, they think there is no post damage/effects.

If a crew evacuates after a single shot that does not result in a fire or explosion, it may be a sign that there are post-penetration effects.

 

EDIT : I'm not saying that the game is perfect and without bugs, I'm just saying that sometimes, a bad observation of the events can give us an erroneous vision of the facts which, if it is shared by several users, becomes in their eyes a truth and that's where we have to be careful.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by No_Face

[CountZero]

SO many Tiger and Panther players are playing with Churchill its so great to see LOL

 

Yes the game is pinicel of tank realisam, drive 2 h to enemy airbase, vulch spawning air players, and then on first sign of enemy airplane strafing you, just exit fight and all is good, lol War thunder MP at its best.

No wonder it turn into axis players only desert.

Edited October 18, 2022 by CountZero

[Saedriss]

1 hour ago, No_Face said:

On the other hand, I have the impression that some people think that the ballistics are bad ONLY because unlike War Thunder or Gunner HEAT, there is no post-penetration damage/effects camera.

If there is no post damage visualization camera, they think there is no post damage/effects.

The issue that people have is that without a way to visualize the damage model in action, the way GUNNER HEAT allows, or War Thunder, we are forced to rely on faith about its accuracy and the amount of factors it takes into consideration.

And many situations over the last years have given people reasons to question it.

 

Questions and doubts that would all be answered by letting the player see the damage model in action in an after action report, because then there would be nothing left to guesswork.

 

PS: I mean, if this damage model is good, show it off ! And it will shut up every critics.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Saedriss

[MajorMagee]

My only point in sharing the tables is that by a large percentage most of the Soviet AFV fatalities occurred at ranges between 100 and 600 meters, so they were getting at least that close to their German opponents on a regular basis.

[Arditi]

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

SO many Tiger and Panther players are playing with Churchill its so great to see LOL

 

Yes the game is pinicel of tank realisam, drive 2 h to enemy airbase, vulch spawning air players, and then on first sign of enemy airplane strafing you, just exit fight and all is good, lol War thunder MP at its best.

No wonder it turn into axis players only desert.

It would be nice if it works like in the graviteam tactics series when finishing the game it shows you the impacts on the vehicle, what type of ammunition and damage or ricochet it produced

[ShampooX]

I don't think I've ever seen a game forum with so much input by so many players who don't actually play the game.  LOLZ

[1./JG42flesch]

To many Trolls (C.Z.) here, who wrote BS.

[moustache]

11 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

My only point in sharing the tables is that by a large percentage most of the Soviet AFV fatalities occurred at ranges between 100 and 600 meters, so they were getting at least that close to their German opponents on a regular basis.

Aaaah, ok... yes it seems logical, between the performance of the shells, the ballistics, the optics, the advantage was to get closer before firing: the t 34 tanks are not known to be "snipers"

it seems to me (from what I remember from my reading/watching) that one of the tactics at kursk (and other Russian fronts) was to "bury" Russian tanks up to the turret, making them visible only at short distances by the panzers, and then equalizing the chances.

 

23 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

The breakdown in 1943 for T-34 tank losses was

50mm long 10.5%

50mm 23.0%

75mm 40.5%

88mm 26.0%

it would be interesting to compare these figures with the proportion of each of these guns, it would give an idea of their "efficiency (weighted by the level of the crews, the tactical and strategic situations of course...)

 

16 hours ago, No_Face said:

sometimes it catches fire and then explodes a few moments later

I'm having bad luck then... to have a fire that lasts and ends up with an explosion, I have to do it 3 times, otherwise the fire goes out each time...

[Frinik22]

1 hour ago, 1./JG42flesch said:

To many Trolls (C.Z.) here, who wrote BS.

Don't be so harsh on yourself ! I am sure you have something useful to contribute from time to time. BTW it's too many who write BS.

 

MMM not necessarily some of what they say axctually makes sense but may be too many complain rather accept that this is a video game not a NATO Army Training simulator.

[MajorMagee]

6 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

I don't think I've ever seen a game forum with so much input by so many players who don't actually play the game.  LOLZ

I was confused by your comment until I went back and looked for who has TC badges and who doesn't. 

[Saedriss]

45 minutes ago, MajorMagee said:

I was confused by your comment until I went back and looked for who has TC badges and who doesn't. 

I might be wrong but buying module on Steam does not give a badge. I bought BOM on steam (and BOP and TC on the site) and I don't have the BOM badge. So these are not a reliable indication for game ownership.

[Arditi]

1 hour ago, Saedriss said:

Puede que me equivoque, pero comprar un módulo en Steam no otorga una insignia. Compré BOM en Steam (y BOP y TC en el sitio) y no tengo la insignia de BOM. Por lo tanto, estos no son una indicación confiable para la propiedad del juego.

Of course I don't have any logo and I bought it on steam