2pdr Tetrarch/Daimler

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hello!

I would like to speak about the CW 2pdr Tetrarch light tank as well as the 2pdr Daimler armored car.

As I think they deal extremely high damage against Stug and Pz4 tanks... I mean, it's fine that they penetrate; but somehow they deal as much damage as 57mm AT guns?? How come the 2pdr is able to kill a Pz4 in just 2 hits? Corsix wise, I would be really interested to know how much damage this gun actually deals and what kind of modifiers are applied.

Generally, I think this gun should be able to kill the Pz4 in about 4 hits, not 2 hits! And the rate of fire can be twice as high.. in return.

Any thoughts, or further info.. are all welcome.

[MarKr]

They have 2pounder as basic and possibility to upgrade the Littlejohn adapteur, this thing increased the penetrative potential of 2pounder up to a level of 6 pounder. 2pounder deals between 200 and 325 damage, 6pounder deals 375 damage. Given the fact that dimlers/tetrarchs get one shotted by stubby 75mm and long 75mm too, even by 50mm guns if they are unlucky, it doesn't seem as much of a problem.

[Kr0noZ]

I think the issue might arise from the somewhat early availability and decent mobility, this leads to early P4's being unable to deal with them before they get killed.
Maybe if the damage got lowered so that it takes at least 3 hits to kill a P4 it might help.

On the other hand, the good performance is one of the few things making these light tanks worthwhile, so nerfing them could quickly make them useless.

[Krieger Blitzer]

As far as I'm concerned, I think 2pdr Tetrarch has a reload speed of 4 to 5 seconds, while the Daimler has 5 to 6.5 seconds reload time.. despite it's the exact same gun!

I believe that both should maybe have a reload of 3 to 4 seconds.. while in return lowering the 2pdr damage to around 150 or something.. penetration values are all fine as they are though, even after the gun upgrade.. but just the damage is a little bit over the top to be honest. So, lowering the damage to be more believable for this low gun caliber; while also increasing the rate of fire.. wouldn't be exactly a nerf but rather a justifiable adjustment, because currently it looks a bit too unreal if I might say...

[|7th|Nighthawk]

Damage seems a little high for the small caliber, true, but they are the only effective tool the Brits have against mortar HTs and as Markr said, they are easily one shotted by the 75mm guns. I'm generally not in favour of too much one shots, but in the case of mortar HTs - on any side, that is, I'm very happy about it Lowering their damage by half in return for doubling the RoF seems like a good idea on first glance but it might lead to other issues. At least it would remove some of the dicey nature of those vehicles because, while they can really mess up Pumas badly, once they miss, they are done. One thing to take into consideration is that they are able to one shot Marder I at the moment. I'm not sure whether it's only on high damage rolls only but I don't think the Sherman can do the same with it's 75mm.

[Redgaarden]

It can not be considered a buff in any way since it doubles the time it takes to kill anything. Dont see why Daimler should have it's damage halved and ROF doubled intead of stupid 88mm and 90mm guns.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I would say it's not a buff or a nerf either! It's only an adjustment so that 2pdr would act in a more believable way, as it's currently a bit too unreal.

The damage would go down to 150 which is still high enough actually.. and in return they would shoot faster, meaning that the time they need to kill something is eventually reduced, not the opposite! Not to mention that higher rate of fire would suit them better against Puma armored cars in case they miss some of their shots! And if there is anything stupid here, then I believe it's how such low caliber guns are reloading as slow as 76mm guns or Axis 75mm L/48 cannons... After all, I'm rather sticking to a certain principle here. Which is to reduce the amount of "unreal" stuff within the game.

That's also why I told MarKr yesterday when we talked on Discord that I would be more than happy to see the flank speed removed from the Tiger1 tank in return for earlier ALRS ability, as I always believed that "flank speed" for a heavy tank such as the Tiger1, is just too unreal to be true.
And that's also why abilities such as "hit and run tactics" and "vehicle suppression" were either totally removed or modified.

[Shanks]

the daimler is a weapon too lethal, in my opinion, it can even extract 40% of the life of a panzer L / 70 in lateral armoring ... it is too much, taking into account that it is a vehicle difficult to hit by the AT, because of its speed...

[Warhawks97]

2 pdr is a 40 mm gun, 6 pdr is 57 mm. The 2 pdr shell is 40x304 mm while the 57 mm is 57x441mm.

the size difference isnt that big when comparing the ammo. So there is no reason to have the 2pdr dealing half of the 57 mm damage. Thats nonsense.

I dont see much of an issue here. It just shows how broken some stats are:
Every damn gun in british inventory from 2 pdr to 6 pdr (40-57 mm) are stronger than US 75 mm and 76 mm guns.

The vehicles can be countered by 20 mm guns quite easily.

And that daimler needs 6 sec to reload is not the big issue. Its fast, strikes hard and runs away.
If an idiot runs his tank IV arround without support, not my fault. I always reccommend to have 20 mm guns (or 37 mm guns like ostwind) in support of tanks. Follow this advice and its all fun. Tets get oneshoted quickly and both have literally no armor. So their only value is to be fast and dealing damage in a shot.
Also the pen chances arent that glorious afterall. 35% vs normal tank IV at max range. Its almost as good as the 75 mm sherman.

Perhaps the only issue in the past was that the 40 mm was as good as the 57 mm in terms of penetration (same values). But that changed in 5.14 with change on the 57 mm.

The only real fail in all this matter is that the 40 mm is almost as good as the shermans 75 mm and that the 57 is almost as good as the US 76. Markr might say now: "The 76 has approx 15% better pen vs tank IV H/J than 57 mm has". Well, yes, but both fall under the category "unreliable" bc both guns are between 25-50% pen chance (Lets say 0-25% ineffective, 25-50% unreliable, 50-75% reliable, 75-100% effective/very effective).


Also when you come up with damage based on calibre etc:
Well, why do we have single 20 mm that are like 40 mm guns against vehicles and quad 20 mm being like HMg42 with AP rounds? Why do we have Boys AT rifles and cal 50 when the cal 50 is considered to be basically the same just with full-auto mode?
And 40 mm Bofors guns that only fire HE rounds instead being able to have AP and HE and AP being able to pen the rear of some tanks?

And rof is not only depending on calibre. Its the loaders space to work and the availability of shells. And early CW tanks (or most) have been quite crampy. I dont see how the Daimler is any different. Besides the min reload time is 5 seconds. The max is 6.5 So you can be lucky or not.

So, bottom line, neither from a gameplay nor a realistic point of view exsists an issue. They are fragile and also quite costly and deliver in return a punch. Hit and run tactics. Low damage but high rof would be absolutely unsuited. It would fail the purpose. Basically we would just create the same issue we just had with our Medium vs Heavy tank debate. Why trying to solve the issue there when we would just create the exact same here in light tank/vehicle vs medium tanks?
That would be nonsense and hypocritical.

[Redgaarden]

The damage would go down to 150 which is still high enough actually.. and in return they would shoot faster, meaning that the time they need to kill something is eventually reduced, not the opposite! Not to mention that higher rate of fire would suit them better against Puma armored cars in case they miss some of their shots! And if there is anything stupid here, then I believe it's how such low caliber guns are reloading as slow as 76mm guns or Axis 75mm L/48 cannons... After all, I'm rather sticking to a certain principle here. Which is to reduce the amount of "unreal" stuff within the game.

150 will need 3 hits to kill an halftrack and 4 hits to kill a medium. I would find it more fun if it one hit kills mediums. And if the "Buff" removes all onehit kill potentional AND also increases the time it takes to kill something, It can NOT e considered a buff.

That's also why I told MarKr yesterday when we talked on Discord that I would be more than happy to see the flank speed removed from the Tiger1 tank in return for earlier ALRS ability, as I always believed that "flank speed" for a heavy tank such as the Tiger1, is just too unreal to be true.
And that's also why abilities such as "hit and run tactics" and "vehicle suppression" were either totally removed or modified.

Flank Speed is far more suited for the Tiger 1 than ALRS. And I find the fact that the tiger even penetrates most tanks is too unreal. And vehicle suppression was an ability that was in the game because Brits lacked anti tank guns and have no bazookas so piats could actually hit something.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Even with a basic damage of 150 it would be still possible to apply some modifiers against half-tracks which increase damage vs them, or not possible? At this point, with also higher rate of fire.. then it would be considered rather a clear buff generally vs Puma and Axis half-tracks.. but some sort of a nerf vs medium tanks... Despite that I believe 150 damage combined with only 3s reload isn't exactly a nerf vs medium tanks either, because the damage is not much lower, yet the reload is twice higher after all.. but anyways, it would be still better than now in my opinion.

Flank Speed is far more suited for the Tiger 1 than ALRS. And I find the fact that the tiger even penetrates most tanks is too unreal.

Ya, sure... Tiger1 should only penetrate half-tracks; and should also have same speed as jeeps!
Wait a moment here Red, are you actually talking about the Tiger1 or the Recoil-less jeep? Looks like you mixed them up.. somehow

[Warhawks97]

I dont get why a 40 mm anti tank gun should deal less than half the damage of an 57 mm. The 57 was the successor of the 40 mm. It was better in terms of penetration. Penetrating a tank which is filled with ammo more than 4 times with such a round would simply look hilarious. Right now you need approx more than 5 shots to actually kill a tank IV when we consider at least every second as a bounce.

[Krieger Blitzer]

What I don't get on the other hand, is that the 2pdr (40mm) is only 3mm more than 37mm AT guns.. yet, deals almost twice more damage!
Come on... Why do u want a low caliber gun to deal as much damage as other medium caliber guns such as 6pdr or US 57mm vs medium tanks??!!
That's like asking that Shermans should die with only 2 hits by an Ostwind.. which is realistically possible by the way; but this is not Men of War.
Gameplay wise, the Tetrarch and Daimler are light vehicles.. just like any PE armored cars!

2pdr vs Pz4 should be similar to 28mm car vs Sherman.
You see how the 28mm car could currently penetrate the Sherman reliably with a high rate of fire, but in return deals very low damage per hit?
The 28mm car needs at least 4 to 5 hits in order to kill a Sherman. I believe the 2pdr should be just something similar vs Axis medium tanks too...

[MarKr]

What I don't get on the other hand, is that the 2pdr (40mm) is only 3mm more than 37mm AT guns.. yet, deals almost twice more damage!

This is not a very good argument. Damage is NOT dependant on the "milimeters" of the gun. If it were so then 75mm Sherman should deal same damage as 75mm Panther gun.

That's like asking that Shermans should die with only 2 hits by an Ostwind.. which is realistically possible by the way; but this is not Men of War.

That is a misleading example. Ostwind has waaaaaaay higher rate of fire so obviously it would not be OK to kill Sherman with two hits. If the 2 pounder guns had some insane rate of fire and current damage, then yes, it would be off, but the RoF is not that high, also not every shot goes through so it is not like "2 shots = dead StuG every time".

[Krieger Blitzer]

Yes, not a good argument.. but it's not my argument! It's the argument Hawks used...

2 pdr is a 40 mm gun, 6 pdr is 57 mm. The 2 pdr shell is 40x304 mm while the 57 mm is 57x441mm.

the size difference isnt that big when comparing the ammo. So there is no reason to have the 2pdr dealing half of the 57 mm damage. Thats nonsense.

He compared the size of 2pdr with the size of 6pdr which is 17mm difference. So, i just replied HIS argument saying that it would make more sense to compare it with 37mm guns since that the size difference is only 3mm on the other hand.

He also said something about Bofors destroying some tanks from a realistic point of view, so again I replied saying that the case would be the same with the Ostwind as well... Which means that it's also not my argument!
So, I think u actually proved my point.

I believe that gameplay wise, the 2 pdr gun is recognized as low caliber gun, just the same category as 37mm and 28mm guns.. which are low tier guns, therefore the current 2pdr damage is obviously exaggerated.. and some other people here also agreed with this by the way, as they have stated clearly that the damage seems too high.

[drivebyhobo]

2 pdr is a 40 mm gun, 6 pdr is 57 mm. The 2 pdr shell is 40x304 mm while the 57 mm is 57x441mm.

the size difference isnt that big when comparing the ammo. So there is no reason to have the 2pdr dealing half of the 57 mm damage. Thats nonsense..

The size difference is actually quite large. The volume of the 40 mm shell is approximately 1/3 of the volume of the 57 mm shell based on your description.

Clearly size isn't everything and it would indeed be nonsense to cut the Tetrarch/Daimler to 1/3 of present damage based on size alone. Since a certain person has made it a hobby of quoting War Thunder to justify various things, he should know that very well. One extreme example from that game would be the M26 Pershing's cannon, which has the options of APCR - 264 mm of penetration vs M82 - 165 mm of penetration but with high damage potential from a large amount of HE filler. Those are very different characteristics in the same exact shell size.

So if someone wants to make the historical argument for drastically nerfing the Tetrarch/Daimler, they should verify that the shells fired from the Tetrarch/Daimler are greatly inferior to the standard 57 mm shell.