This tank has suffered far too much at BR 4; give it the charged APCBC M61 round so it can stand a fighting chance against the Tiger.
- Yes
- No
0
voters
1 Like
- Not historical.
- Not in War Thunder.
- It already has APCBC M61 shot - it’s just with the HE-filler removed, as British crews would have done even when supplied with American made ammunition.
The issue of solid-shot only is vastly overstated, especially since neither shell variation will be penetrating those feared Tigers - the pen is still the same. The issue with the Churchill is that it’s a BR 3.5 tank, that won’t be changing for as long as we keep with the flat five-tier BR system.
And for the people about to state that they don’t care and want this anyway, let me remind you that you’re already playing a sub-optimal tank, leave the tea-flavoured choice tea-flavoured and go use a Jumbo instead - which is the same thing but far better in all respects, and has the exact shell you want.
6 Likes
Honestly i wouldn’t even mind bring Churchill Mk 7 down to BR 3 from BR 4 due to how shittier it is compared to Jumbo sherman which is also BR 4. Nobody wants to use this crap on BR 4. It is one of the slowest vehicle in the game and also with only solid AP shots, no wonder it’s never being used.
2 Likes
It probably couldn’t be BR III… 150mm (even if flat) is just too much, especially in a down-tier.
But yes, the Churchill won’t be competing with a tank with the same gun, same or more armour, and better speed, no matter what shells you give it. So, I frankly think this change is mute, so just leave this tank to the Commonwealth enjoyers to enjoy as the King intended.
5 Likes
I unironically believes that Churchill Mk 7 is less of a problem compared to KV-1 on BR 3 due to how much the damage model of KV-1 is busted.
2 Likes
I mean, sure, and the lack of HE-filler in AP shells would still be a downside.
Maybe, if BRs were locked… but even then, I prefer just stretching out the tech tree so the Churchill mk VII is just in-between the normal Shermans and the Jumbo.
Also, it isn’t Enlisted but in Warthunder, Jumbo sherman sits on 5.7 BR but Churchill Mk 7 sits on 4.7 BR. A whole 1.0 BR lower than the Jumbo sherman and there’s very good reason for that. Churchill Mk 7 suuuucks. I’d argue that it sucks even more in Enlisted.
1 Like
- It’s historical
- It’s in War Thunder (dev server testing next major update)
- They surely used M61s both with and without HE filler, and if they did remove HE component, it was either earlier on (bad fuzes), or actually it was to transform a high explosive shell (not M61) into AP.
Plenty of direct sources referenced in wt forum discussion and issue reports.
4 Likes
No.
The more accurate correction would have been “it’s not in War Thunder, yet.” Saying otherwise is a word-game.
I’ll admit that I didn’t know that it is planned for its upcoming major update, but in my defence, OP didn’t say that. They just claimed it was in (as in, “already there”), this claim remains untrue - for now.
Oh, I’m sure that in a battle situation, the crews were on low ammunition, and they got direct access to American field stores, then they would use them, in that scenario.
I’ve also seen these sources, and they’re not helping the case for HE-filler.
They all state the following:
- The M61 shot with HE filler is compatible with Commonwealth guns of the same type.
No one is disputing this.
- Commonwealth countries were supplied with American made ammunition via lend-lease and/or purchases.
Again, no one is disputing this.
However, it still remains true that when given the opportunity to, the British would take out the HE-filler of American made shells before supplying them to troops. Literally one of the three sources that the devs used for the change confirms this.
There is no ambiguity here.
However, since the change is coming to War Thunder first, I have less capacity to complain, because my complaint then is with War Thunder devs - and not Enlisted.
War Thunder devs are still wrong, though. They should have reworked the balance of solid-AP and AP with HE-filler, rather than folding and giving them to as many people as possible… APHE as they work in both WT and Enlisted is unrealistic and should instead explode in a cone (rather than in a sphere that takes out everything), and spawling from solid-AP should be more effective.
2 Likes
I’ll just focus on the evidence provided
It is referring to H.E. shell, the M48. I just mentioned that in my post before: “it was to transform a high explosive shell (not M61) into AP”. It is also understood that way in the issue report that was approved.
The brits referred to the APHE M61 as an ‘A.P.C. shell’, in case you think HE shell refers to M61.
source: Churchill VII Armaments Pamphlet (Provisional), July 1945
I read that even the USA used M61 without filler earlier on, as with bad fuzes some factories just delivered them without.
As someone else commented, based on what people know, it would make more sense that the sherman II be without APHE, than the churchill VII.
You are correct in that adding APHE is related to what was decided, that the APHE blast will be kept as a circle rather than a cone.
2 Likes
Churchill’s damage model is more busted what are you smoking, it lacks same rear protection but the tracks eat up most projectiles
Fair enough, it’s the M72 that’s refered to as S.A.P, so that’s not related.
Though, as an addendum (not a correction), generally speaking British terminology also seperated shell types with the words “shell” (containing a bursting charge) and “shot” (inert/solid-AP). One would then assume that if a original document speaks of a “M61 shot”, then its been made inert.
The problem with this discussion is that… a lot of things are assumed. The British practice of removing HE-filler from AP rounds is poorly understood, when and why this process was implemented and discontinued isn’t adequately explained (in either direction).
The current environment has the lend-lease supplied Sherman II supplied with lend-lease shells (reasonable choice), and domestic tanks supplied with domestic shells (also reasonable). I far prefer this situation, but I am just one man.
Anyway, as it seems that the upcoming change in War Thunder will be to replace the current M61 shot with the HE-filler one, not supplimenting it. Since Enlisted adopts every minor change of War Thunder vehicles, this will be done in Enlisted too, that’s just how things go (this suggestion is actually superfluous).
So, I am indeed in a hopeless battle. I just wanted my piece said, but the fate of the solid M61 shot has been sealed since the WT newpost droped.
Unfortunate, but I don’t play WT, so I can’t complain (directly). Sad to see this flavour being gone, even in WT (since they’re completely removing the choice).
1 Like
Bloody hell, 4.7? Then just dump the 5.7–6.0 Churchills into BR 4. Lately on the test server, BR 2, 3, 4, 5 have been split into separate brackets, right? I think if we add some stronger TDs at BR 3, they could counter this tank. That way, this thing could go to BR 3.
I would just like to point out the irony that WT is correcting one historical error (“the British used inert-only M61”), with another one (“The British used fully APHE only M61”).
Anyway, this is going to happen in Enlisted as well, it is inevitable.
No it does not. KV-1 is def got much worse busted damage model than Churchill Mk 7 or in fact, compared to any other tanks in the game. Churchill actually dies from thrown TNT very easily whereas KV-1 just able to take it to the face and shrugs off unless it’s thrown at the very specific area due to the thick roof armor combined with BS ammo storage placement.
I wonder if it’s because the road wheels lack proper physical models. Vehicles like the Tiger and Churchill should have outer armor thicker than 45mm, which shouldn’t be penetrable by satchel charges. Yet strangely, they get destroyed far more easily than the KV-1.
not really it dies to 1 detpack easily but yeah it won’t die if you throw it over the spot where there’s engine or nothing
You are either lying or actually don’t know the interactions between the KV-1 and detpack. You have to throw it exactly on the roof of hull where the machine gunner is sitting or it basically does nothing at all. Throw it at right beside the track also does nothing whereas AFAIK, all other tanks in the game can be killable with detpack this way. Go test this yourself, it won’t even take more than 10 mins. This is so easy to prove.
have you perhaps seen KV1 armor scheme? it’s literally designed that way to protect from heavy artillery, i don’t see how it’s “busted” when it dies to 1 detpack naturally at frontal roof over driver or radio operator
What does that anything have to do with detpack? As if only the KV-1 were made to be resistant to heavy artillery. Yet, only KV-1 has access to this kind of BS damage model out of all tanks in the game. Also are you not going to talk about that detpack landing right next to the tracks does absolutely nothing to KV-1? All tanks in the game can be killed this way except ofc, KV-1.
Also, it does not die to detpack landed on above the driver. It HAS to be landed on right above the machine gunner(since there’s an ammo stored right next to the machine gunner)and it also has to be landed precisely, if KV-1 moves back and forth even slightly then it fails to kill KV-1.