Jump to content

AC IV Thunderbolt BR


Hello, I'm new in these forums. I've noticed that the AC IV Thunderbolt medium premium is outclassed in almost every way by the Sherman Firefly, yet is .3 BR higher? Why is this? Can it be brought down?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andreslucero said:

Hello, I'm new in these forums. I've noticed that the AC IV Thunderbolt medium premium is outclassed in almost every way by the Sherman Firefly, yet is .3 BR higher? Why is this? Can it be brought down?

It's superior to the firefly in almost every way. The armour protection alone makes it that br.  I still use my sentinel in higher br battles as a reserve, it's very good.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

Thunderbolt is a piece of useless ****.

Dont buy it! Its armor looking good, but totally paper. If you get a shot from a russian 85mm, from any direction on any distance, you are dead and no other option. No good angle, nothing can help you. 

Oh and your shots is buoncing off from almost everything. Its gun effectiveness is not better than the pz IV's gun. And really slow in mud, snow and on uphill.

Dont buy it!

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vazeg said:

Thunderbolt is a piece of useless ****.

Dont buy it! Its armor looking good, but totally paper. If you get a shot from a russian 85mm, from any direction on any distance, you are dead and no other option. No good angle, nothing can help you. 

Oh and your shots is buoncing off from almost everything. Its gun effectiveness is not better than the pz IV's gun. And really slow in mud, snow and on uphill.

Dont buy it!

Completely disagree. The armour bounces a lot, I've even bounced 122mm guns off the upper front plate.  It won't bounce everything ever time because it uses angled armour to bounce which is a dice roll but it's more reliable then not

 As for the 17 pdr it is probably the best gun in its br imo

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Razielkaine said:

Completely disagree. The armour bounces a lot, I've even bounced 122mm guns off the upper front plate.  It won't bounce everything ever time because it uses angled armour to bounce which is a dice roll but it's more reliable then not

 As for the 17 pdr it is probably the best gun in its br imo

 

Its simply not true. I playing with that right now and its totally uneffective.

I dont need your propaganda. You get golden eagles for this? Or something else?

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vazeg said:

 

Its simply not true. I playing with that right now and its totally uneffective.

I dont need your propaganda. You get golden eagles for this? Or something else?

No I just love using it. It's my backup in my 5.7 lineup

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jarms said:

If they fixed everything that’s wrong with the AC IV it could probably go up to 5.3. 

whats wrong with it?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

whats wrong with it?

 

- The name: It should just be called the AC IV. The Sentinel and the Thunderbolt were different tanks.

 

- The armour: Sections that are 63.5mm should be 65mm, 44.45mm sections should be 45mm, which are very small changes admittedly. However, the drivers hatch should be 65mm, and the transmission housing should be 65mm.

 

- Ammo capacity: Which should be 50 rounds.

 

- The engine: It should have the Perrier-Cadillac, not the Cloverleaf-Cadillac.

 

- The engine power: Which should be 397hp. Because of the above.

 

- The gun constraints: Gun depression should be -10.

 

- Top speed: Which should either be 48km (governed) or 56km (ungoverned).

 

So, if Gaijin did fix all this the AC IV could probably go up to 5.3. 

Edited by Jarms
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jarms said:

 

- The name: It should just be called the AC IV. The Sentinel and the Thunderbolt were different tanks.

 

- The armour: Sections that are 63.5mm should be 65mm, 44.45mm sections should be 45mm, which are very small changes admittedly. However, the drivers hatch should be 65mm, and the transmission housing should be 65mm.

 

- Ammo capacity: Which should be 50 rounds.

 

- The engine: It should have the Perrier-Cadillac, not the Cloverleaf-Cadillac.

 

- The engine power: Which should be 397hp. Because of the above.

 

- The gun constraints: Gun depression should be -10.

 

- Top speed: Which should either be 48km (governed) or 56km (ungoverned).

 

So, if Gaijin did fix all this the AC IV could probably go up to 5.3. 

well feel free to dig up some sources for that and make a bug report :)

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KillaKiwi said:

well feel free to dig up some sources for that and make a bug report :)

 

Did that maybe 4 months ago. It’s been accepted. Who knows if and when it’ll be fixed.

Edited by Jarms
  • Haha 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that current ACIV deserves 4.7 (while Fireflies should be lowered to 4.3). It is more an issue of general balance with "centers of attraction" for players on different nations, where British 4.7-5.0 will never meet German 4.7-5.0, because noone plays on that BR. So, guess, where they are thrown most of the time?

Or AC IV can be separated into two. Planned well armored one - to 5.0-5.3. Early prototype on the base of AC I - to 4.3-4.7. Everyone is happy. 

 

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jarms said:

 

Did that maybe 4 months ago. It’s been accepted. Who knows if and when it’ll be fixed.

Probably in 2 years like most bug reports if they aren't forgotten, ignored or not approved by the devs :D

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CrazyZombiE said:

I'd say that current ACIV deserves 4.7 (while Fireflies should be lowered to 4.3). It is more an issue of general balance with "centers of attraction" for players on different nations, where British 4.7-5.0 will never meet German 4.7-5.0, because noone plays on that BR. So, guess, where they are thrown most of the time?

Or AC IV can be separated into two. Planned well armored one - to 5.0-5.3. Early prototype on the base of AC I - to 4.3-4.7. Everyone is happy. 

 

The current Firefly easily deserves 5.0 with how much damage solid AP now inflicts. The AC IV could be 5.3 even now without those changes :D

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

The current Firefly easily deserves 5.0 with how much damage solid AP now inflicts. The AC IV could be 5.3 even now without those changes :D

We speak about tank which has to demonstrate it's pretty high hull, armored on the level of american 3.7, and is penetrated even by 76mm guns from same BR. 

And you always forget that literally NOONE as Soviets and Germans play on 4.7-5.0. Most players prefer old good 3.7-4.0. Or 5.7. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyZombiE said:

Or AC IV can be separated into two. Planned well armored one - to 5.0-5.3. Early prototype on the base of AC I - to 4.3-4.7. Everyone is happy. 

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/387129-australian-cruiser-tank-family/

 

Shoutout I guess? Still at least two variants I need to add in there, also need to change some stats, just need some spare time to read through the archive info again.  :p:

Edited by Jarms
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jarms said:

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/387129-australian-cruiser-tank-family/

 

Shoutout I guess? Still at least two variants I need add in there, also need to change some stats, just need some spare time to read through the archive info again.  :p:

I like what I see here. I think, I'll double that to .ru forum. I want to see more low-tier tanks in the British tree, so all sources and proofs will be helpful. 

Right now I'm wondering about finding armor schemes for Grizzly tank. It is said that it was "better armored" but no exact numbers. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CrazyZombiE said:

Right now I'm wondering about finding armor schemes for Grizzly tank. It is said that it was "better armored" but no exact numbers. 

 

I don’t think you’ll find much, whilst I’ve seen some sites mention it had a better slope and thicker armour than regular Sherman’s, I’ve seen more evidence suggesting it was essentially no different than the regular M4A1. There were some small differences, the tracks for example.

 

Where I think the confusion lies is in the many changes the Sherman’s saw in their production runs.

 

The early M4A1’s had the turret and ammo rack weak spots, these were then covered up with welded appliqué, then they did cast-in appliqué (where as the name suggests the extra armour was just added into the casting), then there was cast-in large hatch Sherman’s which still had the old sloping but bigger and thicker bulges to accomodate the extra space, then ultimately there was the later large hatch hull which reduced the slope but increased the thickness. 

Edited by Jarms
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

The current Firefly easily deserves 5.0 with how much damage solid AP now inflicts. The AC IV could be 5.3 even now without those changes :D

 

Its barely can stand in 5.0 really. If you go in 5.0 with a pz iv g you get same effectiveness. Armor nothing, bounce from every russian but if you hit 1-3 times with penetration than its dead.

Same speed, same agility, same bounce off capability, same everything but in 5.0.

When i saw that thing i wonder why i cant see ever on the battlefield because it look so promising based on its bare data. Now i know.

If a russian 85mm touch that thing anywhere, in any angle than its dead with 100% chance. But bounce from those tanks exactly like the pz iv do.

I bought for that 15 backups and use them all. The result is 37 respawn 33 death 27 kill and 28% winrate.

 

THIS TANK IS PATHETIC.

 

Its not 5.3 material its more 4.3 instead.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vazeg said:

 

Its barely can stand in 5.0 really. If you go in 5.0 with a pz iv g you get same effectiveness. Armor nothing, bounce from every russian but if you hit 1-3 times with penetration than its dead.

Same speed, same agility, same bounce off capability, same everything but in 5.0.

When i saw that thing i wonder why i cant see ever on the battlefield because it look so promising based on its bare data. Now i know.

If a russian 85mm touch that thing anywhere, in any angle than its dead with 100% chance. But bounce from those tanks exactly like the pz iv do.

I bought for that 15 backups and use them all. The result is 37 respawn 33 death 27 kill and 28% winrate.

 

THIS TANK IS PATHETIC.

 

Its not 5.3 material its more 4.3 instead.

Maybe you are pathetic :D

The 17pdr can easily penetrate a T-34-85 and the armor is alot better than most 5.0 tanks. I don't understand how you expect a 5.0 medium tank not to die when hit by a medium tank with higher BR.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

Maybe you are pathetic :D

The 17pdr can easily penetrate a T-34-85 and the armor is alot better than most 5.0 tanks. I don't understand how you expect a 5.0 medium tank not to die when hit by a medium tank with higher BR.

 

This is your statistic with the thunderbolt. You just buy now too. And your success with that what is the pathetic. The T-34-85 turret front is easily bounce off the 17 pdr's shell. I experienced it many times.

 

thubo.PNG.f3d663d48098231eafb68bf6044765

 

4 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

I don't understand how you expect a 5.0 medium tank not to die when hit by a medium tank with higher BR.

 

Like when the german 88mm bounce off from the t-34/85 for example? That was really a question? Or you just bullying me?

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Vazeg said:

This is your statistic with the thunderbolt. You just buy now too. And your success with that what is the pathetic. The T-34-85 turret front is easily bounce off the 17 pdr's shell. I experienced it many times.

I wouldn't call a K/D of 1.5 when always getting uptiered to 5.7 pathetic especially compared to your K/D of 0.8. However I play RB and you AB.

 

Duh the T-34-85 turret is very well armored and rounded compared to the hull. However the 17pdr has no problem penetrating it if you just hit the right spot. Also you can just aim for the hull and kill it even with US 75mm AP round....

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

I wouldn't call a K/D of 1.5 when always getting uptiered to 5.7 pathetic especially compared to your K/D of 0.8. However I play RB and you AB.

 

You had 11 battles with 11 deaths and 8 defeat. That K/D is not make it mutch better. And yes, my K/D ratio is pathetic too becouse of that tank as i said earlier.

 

12 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

However I play RB and you AB.

 

However playing in AB is not easier at all. 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Vazeg said:

 

You had 11 battles with 11 deaths and 8 defeat. That K/D is not make it mutch better. And yes, my K/D ratio is pathetic too becouse of that tank as i said earlier.

 

 

However playing in AB is not easier at all. 

 

Hell in certain un-armored tanks AB is harder. but I'm not sure your right about the thunder sentinel bolt seems about on par with other 5.0-5.3 tanks although it lacks APHE it is definitely better than anything using a normal sherman hull in the handfull of games I've had in it it actually bounced a few shots from a PZ4 unlike a sherman. 

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...