37 mm Gun fixes

[Warhawks97]

Can we perhaps fix the 37 mm guns?

They have extremely weird performances and the same gun mounted on different vehicles behave completely different. Idk where to start but it seems everything is just broken.

So lets start:

37 mm M6 Staghound:

1. The long and max range pen modifier is the same: 0.66
2. 33% pen chance against regular Tank IV at max range. A 57 mm for example is with 45% just barely better.
3. Doesnt suffer pen from skirts on a Tank IV.
4. 99% pen chance vs regular Tank IV rear.
5. Guranteed pen vs Sdkz 234 at any range.
6. Guranteed pen vs Tank IV D frontally.
7. 6.6% pen vs stug (skirts)
8. 19.8% pen vs stug (skirts) from rear.
9. Poor against Hetzers rear armor.

37 mm M6 Stuart:
1. Ridiculous pen drop at max range with 0.38 modifier.
2. 19% pen chance vs Tank VI at max range.
3. Just 57% pen vs regular Tank IV rear
4. Just 80% pen chance vs sdkfz 234.
5. Just 61.98% pen chance vs Tank IV D front armor.
6. 3.8% pen vs stug (skirts).
7. 1.14% pen vs stug (skirts) rear.
8. Poor against Hetzers rear armor.


37 mm M6 Greyhound:
1. Ridiculous pen drop at max range with 0.38 modifier.
2. 19% pen chance vs Tank VI at max range.
3. Doesnt suffer pen from skirts on a Tank IV.
4. Just 57% pen vs regular Tank IV rear at max range.
5. Just 61.98% pen chance vs sdkfz 234 front.
6. Just 61.98% pen chance vs Tank IV D front armor.
7. 3.8% pen vs stug (skirts.
8. Poor against Hetzers rear armor (22,8 %)

37 mm M3 AT gun:
1. Long range pen modifier is 0.65.
2. 6,5% pen vs Regular Tank IV.
3. Doesnt suffer pen from skirts on a Tank IV.
4. Useless "AP shells" bc even with those active it doesnt get better than regular stuart due to poor standard performance.
5. Guranteed pen vs any Tank IV from rear.
6. Guranteed pen vs sdkfz 234.
7. Doesnt suffer pen from skirts
8. Guranteed pen vs Hetzers rear.



I think i could contiue the list but that alone would take anyones breath.
Just to underline how stupid it is: Staghound outperfoms every other gun, Stugs rear are harder to pen than Tank IV´s frontal armor, 37 mm AT gun has completely usless AP. In fact german 37 is better vs shermans with basic rounds as US 37 with AP vs normal Tank IV´s. Meanwhile 37 mm AT gun kill pretty much everything from rear.


Fix:
I think we should use Staghound as reference (with 37 mm AT range pen drop modifiers) as it comes closest to its real performance with 50 mm pen at 1000 meter and 90 degree and still 18 mm at 30 degree angel. And we need to improve rear armor penetrations against targets with very weak rear/side armor such as pretty much all medium tanks. It needs 3 to 4 pen hits anyway to destroy a Tank IV, so flanking should be rewarded.

[Walderschmidt]

Standardization would be good, though I'd imagine an AT woul be more accurate on the whole than a 37mm mounted on a tank or Grayhound.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

Standardization would be good, though I'd imagine an AT woul be more accurate on the whole than a 37mm mounted on a tank or Grayhound.

Wald

Why? The gunsights are essentially the same so far. Or whats this argument based on?

So far the accuracy seems to be the same. Like most guns they have 1/1/0.75/0.75. Ive been requesting that accuracy drops more continuesly instead of sudden drops but lets see if devs gonna change these over simplified accuracy system.

From ambush AT guns do gain accuracy bonus iirc anyway.

[Walderschmidt]

Generally, from my understanding, there was a difference in explosive load in rounds fired by guns from AT guns and their respective versions in vehicular turrets to allow the turret to withstand the recoil. More explosive charge = flatter trajectory and more accurate. Less moving parts also means tighter machine tolerances and therefore more accurate grouping ( but I could be wrong, my understanding of this is basic at best).

Wald

[Warhawks97]

Generally, from my understanding, there was a difference in explosive load in rounds fired by guns from AT guns and their respective versions in vehicular turrets to allow the turret to withstand the recoil. More explosive charge = flatter trajectory and more accurate. Less moving parts also means tighter machine tolerances and therefore more accurate grouping ( but I could be wrong, my understanding of this is basic at best).

Wald

Thats not true. That would have meant to complicate supply which was the reason US did not introduce the 17 pdr.

The only thing thats true is that the pak 40 used a bigger cartridge than the 75 mm Kwk 40 from Tank Iv´s while its barrel was shorter than that of the Tank IV´s H/J. The Pak 40 was a 75 mm L/46. The kwk 40 was first 75 mm L/43 on the first hundred lpong barreld tank IV but then lenghtend soon to 75 mm 75 mm /L48. The Pak 40 achieved higher muzzle velocity than those of Tank IV´s due to the greater cartridge.



How powerfull a gun on a tank could be was depending on the turret size and strenght and the recoil guard. If these requirments were met, you could place any gun in it. Its true that the turret gets cramped like in the firefly. And the Panther had to pause after continues shooting in order not to break the recoil guard.
And what "moving parts" are you talking about. At the end its all up to the quality of the tank and how well the gun is mounted. If you have a weak carriage for your AT gun you mess up the accuracy just as well.

[mofetagalactica]

Standardization would be good yes

[BrentDil]

Generally, from my understanding, there was a difference in who should use these awesome lightweight wheelchairs and explosive load in rounds fired by guns from AT guns and their respective versions in vehicular turrets to allow the turret to withstand the recoil. More explosive charge = flatter trajectory and more accurate. Less moving parts also means tighter machine tolerances and therefore more accurate grouping ( but I could be wrong, my understanding of this is basic at best).

Wald

Standardization is what sense though? Isn't everything a bit more boring when it's standardized? haha

[Walderschmidt]

Standardization in the sense of, every 37mm is the same with the same target tables, penetration, shell velocity, range, etc. The only variables being the platforms using the 37mm, movement, cover, distance, etc. Makes the game more intuitive to play and less gamey.

Just like they did with .50 cals.

G

[kwok]

Which unit/weapon/version of the 37mm should all be standardized to?

[Warhawks97]

Which unit/weapon/version of the 37mm should all be standardized to?

mix of stuart Greyhound i would say. 37 mm AT is wrong bc its AP rounds are usless while rear hits always pen.
Greyhound bounces too often from sdkfz 234.

Staghounds is well, just its too good vs tank IV front armor.
The rear pen sucks for all of them. When i stay right at a tanks as i would expect to pen them. In a real war scenario a greyhound shot a KT´s rear from very close (like 25 meters) and disabled the kT by knocking out the engine.

Having a flanking run completed on a medium tank and shooting point blank should be rewarding. The 37 mm AT gun is too good against rears though.
So find a well mix. Stuart doesnt look so bad in general, just sucks against rears as well.