Why are British tanks so insanely bad despite stats

[addictedtotanks]

Guys I might be a little confused on how the stats for tanks work, but good got are BR 3 british tanks absolute trash.

I consistently find myself being completely oneshot killed from vast distances, through frontal armour, without being able to dish out nearly as much damage. For example, most recently A T-34 1940 one shot killed my Mark IX Valentine BR3.3 from about 600m straight through the front armour, while my shot, with a more powerful cannon, barely damaged its side armour.
I see it over and over again. How do I counter this? Weak guns blasting straight through the front of my armour (body and turret) and igniting all the ammo, and I have trouble getting through side armour even with the british 6 pounder gun that should theoretically be more powerful then what is shooting at me.
It's easier now that I've got the Archer, which packs a punch, but the engineers also built it backwards soooo


Any advice on strategies or methods would be appreciated

[TwoChins]

Suffer until 4.0. Gl mate

[Stridswombat]

Don't play the Valentines like heavy tanks because they aren't. They really don't have much frontal armour. Instead play them like medium tanks that have some armour that can sometimes save you, but only with angling. They're not bad tanks because the guns are still alright, but you have to angle and don't rely on the armour too far.

I mean were you really expecting 60mm of frontal armour to stop a shell at 3.3 from a medium tank? In a way they have to be played a bit like a Tiger, just with a worse gun. Alright enough guns, not a ton of armour, but sometimes you can get lucky if you position yourself well. Overall though the Cromwells are far superior and imo very good tanks. The Matilda and Valentine just doesn't hold up in armour against medium tanks which is what they mostly fight.

Also I forget but the Mk IX is with the 6-pounder right? Yeah don't use that against angled armour. British shells usually perform badly against sloped and angled armour, and most guns below 57mm perform badly against it in general since you can't overmatch it. The 6-pounder is especially bad in this regard. It has good penetration, but it's crucial you hit as flat an armour plate as possible. Nearly all the penetration is lost if it's even a little bit angled. Using it at long range isn't a bad idea thanks to the high velocity and high penetration so long as the armour is flat.

[RandomPinieapple]

Early British tanks are not very representative of the whole tree but using vehicles like the crusader with speed to make up for the lack of speed, but later vehicles usually rely on having superior firepower at the cost of armor. Also the fact that literally every other nation has filler in the their rounds except the British. Try to stay at range, but with the early vehicles try to get close in odd locations to use the good penetration, hope this helps a bit.

[addictedtotanks]

Автор сообщения: Stridswombat

I mean were you really expecting 60mm of frontal armour to stop a shell at 3.3 from a medium tank? In a way they have to be played a bit like a Tiger, just with a worse gun. Alright enough guns, not a ton of armour, but sometimes you can get lucky if you position yourself well. Overall though the Cromwells are far superior and imo very good tanks. The Matilda and Valentine just doesn't hold up in armour against medium tanks which is what they mostly fight.

Also I forget but the Mk IX is with the 6-pounder right? Yeah don't use that against angled armour. British shells usually perform badly against sloped and angled armour, and most guns below 57mm perform badly against it in general since you can't overmatch it. The 6-pounder is especially bad in this regard. It has good penetration, but it's crucial you hit as flat an armour plate as possible. Nearly all the penetration is lost if it's even a little bit angled. Using it at long range isn't a bad idea thanks to the high velocity and high penetration so long as the armour is flat.

I wasn't, But I was expecting them to be relatively on par with what I'm up against, and they can't seem to penetrate everything. But if it's because british shells are poor against angled and sloped armour, then that explains it since everyone is in either a T34 variant or Sherman variant. Panzers still don't seem to mind the shells either though.

[halolo39]

yeah those t-34 hull are quite bouncy for 6pdr or any round really, aim the turret or turret rings are reliable flat spots on the side of the t-34.

[Ichigo]

17 pdr changes everything, as does the 77mm HV and 20pdr

[Stridswombat]

Автор сообщения: addictedtotanks

I wasn't, But I was expecting them to be relatively on par with what I'm up against, and they can't seem to penetrate everything. But if it's because british shells are poor against angled and sloped armour, then that explains it since everyone is in either a T34 variant or Sherman variant. Panzers still don't seem to mind the shells either though.

All 57mm guns do poorly against sloped armour. They can't overmatch it like 75mm guns can. It's just that British APCBC is particularly bad against it. T-34/57 can't penetrate its own hull for example despite having more penetration than the 76mm guns that can and using Soviet APBC which overperforms against sloped armour. It's entirely because the caliber is too low to be effective against sloped armour.

Pros:

*Higher flat armour penetration

*High muzzle velocity (good for long range)

*Fast reload

Cons:

*Poor sloped armour penetration

*Worse post-pen damage.

So the penetration isn't bad per se. You just have to learn to aim for weakspots and flat armour with 57mm guns. As long as it's a flat part of the armour they outperform 75mm guns, if the armour is sloped 75mm guns outperform them.

Автор сообщения: Ichigo

17 pdr changes everything, as does the 77mm HV and 20pdr

The "77mm" gun is actually 76mm. It's just a compacted 17-pounder with a bit lower muzzle velocity. Even then the 17-pounder also does comparatively poorly against sloped armour with its APCBC. It can't penetrate a Panthers front hull for example even though it technically should have the penetration for it. Bad slope modifiers all around.

[Ichigo]

nah its more like the panthers frontal plate is overperforming, ik its the same gun but i just separate them soo people know exactly what guns im talking about

[Stridswombat]

Автор сообщения: Ichigo

nah its more like the panthers frontal plate is overperforming, ik its the same gun but i just separate them soo people know exactly what guns im talking about

Even so, that angle at that thickness doesn't result in over 190mm of frontal armour. It's just the APCBC that has poor modifiers against it that increases the effective thickness much higher. Compare this to Soviet APBC that have much better modifiers.

Reason the Soviet 85mm guns are more effective against a Jumbo's front hull and a 17-pounder with much higher penetration. Caliber and slope modifiers. Also same reason the Tiger is more effective against it too. The caliber helps a ton against sloped armour as long as the thickness is thin enough. 88mm overmatches a 63mm armour plate, 76mm doesn't. 75mm overmatches a 45mm armour plate, 57mm doesn't.

[Ichigo]

ye russians still got their OG shell modifiers too which doesnt help. its good to have this info out there too

[addictedtotanks]

Автор сообщения: Stridswombat

Автор сообщения: addictedtotanks

I wasn't, But I was expecting them to be relatively on par with what I'm up against, and they can't seem to penetrate everything. But if it's because british shells are poor against angled and sloped armour, then that explains it since everyone is in either a T34 variant or Sherman variant. Panzers still don't seem to mind the shells either though.

All 57mm guns do poorly against sloped armour. They can't overmatch it like 75mm guns can. It's just that British APCBC is particularly bad against it. T-34/57 can't penetrate its own hull for example despite having more penetration than the 76mm guns that can and using Soviet APBC which overperforms against sloped armour. It's entirely because the caliber is too low to be effective against sloped armour.

Pros:

*Higher flat armour penetration

*High muzzle velocity (good for long range)

*Fast reload

Cons:

*Poor sloped armour penetration

*Worse post-pen damage.

So the penetration isn't bad per se. You just have to learn to aim for weakspots and flat armour with 57mm guns. As long as it's a flat part of the armour they outperform 75mm guns, if the armour is sloped 75mm guns outperform them.

Thanks, very valuable information all around.
Obviously sloped armour is better, but understanding the differences between the shells and guns amongst the countries isn't super intuitive. It seems then that the penetration indicator in aiming mode isn't completely accurate.

[Ichigo]

never rely on the pen indicator and remember each shell type has its own advantage but some rounds are simply better.
to its part brits get very dangerous AP and APDS rounds (same as france)
your advantages with brit/french guns is generally outside of sheer OHK power, heavy armour or optics (stabilized guns, high pen fast firing) but these tanks are extremely effective in their own right (brit tanks are just amazing support/sniper tanks)

[Ouroboros]

The Valentines shouldn't be played like heavy tanks. They are not - they don't have much frontal armour and even then it's flat. Most things they meet will have no trouble slicing right through.