Jump to content

AC IV Thunderbolt BR


19 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

Heres a Replay how to kill T-34-85 with the AC IV

For Vazeg.wrpl

 

Good game with good luck. Big luck specially with that IS-1 and some of the t-34 highly angled hull shot. In arcade those shots would bounce off. And survive the hit from IS-1 or any 85 mm..... 1/20 maybe.

 

medal

Share this post


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

 

Good game with good luck. Big luck specially with that IS-1 and some of the t-34 highly angled hull shot. In arcade those shots would bounce off. And survive the hit from IS-1 or any 85 mm..... 1/20 maybe.

 

yeah right. well if insist on denying facts than I can't help you.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

yeah right. well if insist on denying facts than I can't help you.

Didn't you know arcade uses different physics and all British armour is halved in efficiency.

  • Confused 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
On 14.3.2017 at 9:23 PM, Freyn said:

The Thunderbolt IS superior to the firefly, but not by as much as it once was. The change to overmatch ratio means it's UFP can be penned by the Pz.IV's 75mm quite reliably at mid range now, it's essentially just more trolly.

oh hey if it isn't the infamous Freyn :D

The AC IV certainly has a lot more armor than the Firefly. But like with all/most medium tanks you can't rely on the armor in an uptier in which case the AC IV isn't much difference than the Firefly.

However the Pz IV 75mm won't penetrate the front when slightly angled and the turret is also very tough with that overlaying armor.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

However the Pz IV 75mm won't penetrate the front when slightly angled

 

The hetzer can do that. I clearly remember this. I think the RNG not too gently with this tank.

Edited by Vazeg
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 12/25/2017 at 3:38 AM, 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. 

 

Okay so im not TOO knowledgable about the Australian Cruisers. However with some research, the AC/IV "Thunderbolt" seem to never came out of the sketch. Now before i talk about what i really wanna say, gotta start up with the developement of the AC/4.  So..they wanted a QQF 17lbr really badly in their ACs. They installed 2×25lbr to test the tank's reaction to the recoil. While the ACs endured it, there was no room at all in the turret. That is while they were thinking about 17lbr btw. So they went from 50ish to 64inch, It was cramped but still managable. However there were doubts to efficiency of loading the 17lbr, so they increased it to 72in turret ring. At the same time (not sure for 17lbr or 25lbr) they were disappointed with ammo count of 47, so they removed the bow gunner and crammed in around 74 rounds. That is the developement of the thunderbolt. Now, because of the 17br and the removal of the bow gunner and the shifting requirements throughout the war, they somewhat enlarge it alittle and made the effective armor thicker. Basically why there is a nice slope in the front. Another thing is, with the additional weight, the 3x V8 caddy wasn't cutting it and they needed a much more powerful powerplant to run the Thunderbolt. So there were 3 proposed powerplants,( 1- Ford GAA-525 hp) (2-16 cylinder Gypsy Major, 510 hp) (Michell type crankless engine, 600 hp)

 

correct me if im wrong but from my research.

1) Gypsy Major 510HP, it was built but the army didnt have interest nor the fund to install it.

2) Michell crankless 600HP, it was very desired but the design never came out of the sketch like the thunderbolt

3) Ford GAA 525HP, was already in production for the shermans/pershing. it was considered since they bought a lot of american parta for the ACs but i dont know what happened after that.

 

What i do know what happened is that they did make the AC/lV "thunderbolt's" Hull with the 25lbr..which is the AC/III. the sketch for the 17lbr uses the same hull but the turret is much larger. Now the only surviving AC/4 is a mockup at the measuem. Meaning, they bolted a non-functioning 17lbr to a 25lbr's turret and left it in the measum..dumb, i know. Here are the pictures.

 

This is the "Thunderbolt's" hull but it has the 25lbr turret.

130.jpg.cfd39cb5950c5de2aba91961ef4b51f1

AC3_tank_(AWM_101155).jpg.7770d371a7fc20

 

Now this is the AC/4

20160604180614.jpg.a85d68c243c28a118f8b1

 

This is the closest thing a AC having a 17lbr.

5a98623297ef3_P03498.009-640x521(1).jpg.5a98622b8bed3_ACe1-tank(1).jpg.913a9234a

 This is where develope the ideas for AC/4 thunderbolt through trail and error. They came to a conclusion to this design as you can see under here.

sentinal-ac-iv.jpg.f4e068cd084f60dcd7c24

As you can see, an AC/3 hull with a larger turret for the crew and the 17lbr. This also increase the gun depression due to the nice hump on top but idk how much.

ACIV-tank.jpg.b11567fde0c3f5b36f019cda20

this model here is a mock up but it's the closest thing the Australians got with a 18lbr. Reason why it's a mock up is because if you look closely at the pivot point of the gun, you can see there isn't one. They just bolted a 17lbr into a tank for measum purposes. The gun is too big, you would have to be a 4ft tiny girl to slide around the breech inside the turret.

 

 

So here are my questions.

 

°Since the actual 17lbr thunderbolt never left the sketch, why not include the crankless motor or at least the Ford GAA into it?

 

° due to the increasing requirements, can we raise the ammunition to around 74.

 

° why the  fk can't i depress this cannon? I can't use this AC unless me and my enemy are on flat ground. They live in Australia, there ain't no flat ground there and they intended the AC/4 17lbr to fight in Africa. Which btw, has crazy hills all the way around. So i have hard time believing that they made a -5/20 depression.

 

Edited by *Baconator100012
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C,mon guys. I would really like to write a bug report on the turret design and engine but i need an extra pair of eyes on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, *Baconator100012 said:

 

Okay so im not TOO knowledgable about the Australian Cruisers. However with some research, the AC/IV "Thunderbolt" seem to never came out of the sketch. Now before i talk about what i really wanna say, gotta start up with the developement of the AC/4.  So..they wanted a QQF 17lbr really badly in their ACs. They installed 2×25lbr to test the tank's reaction to the recoil. While the ACs endured it, there was no room at all in the turret. That is while they were thinking about 17lbr btw. So they went from 50ish to 64inch, It was cramped but still managable. However there were doubts to efficiency of loading the 17lbr, so they increased it to 72in turret ring. At the same time (not sure for 17lbr or 25lbr) they were disappointed with ammo count of 47, so they removed the bow gunner and crammed in around 74 rounds. That is the developement of the thunderbolt. Now, because of the 17br and the removal of the bow gunner and the shifting requirements throughout the war, they somewhat enlarge it alittle and made the effective armor thicker. Basically why there is a nice slope in the front. Another thing is, with the additional weight, the 3x V8 caddy wasn't cutting it and they needed a much more powerful powerplant to run the Thunderbolt. So there were 3 proposed powerplants,( 1- Ford GAA-525 hp) (2-16 cylinder Gypsy Major, 510 hp) (Michell type crankless engine, 600 hp)

 

correct me if im wrong but from my research.

1) Gypsy Major 510HP, it was built but the army didnt have interest nor the fund to install it.

2) Michell crankless 600HP, it was very desired but the design never came out of the sketch like the thunderbolt

3) Ford GAA 525HP, was already in production for the shermans/pershing. it was considered since they bought a lot of american parta for the ACs but i dont know what happened after that.

 

What i do know what happened is that they did make the AC/lV "thunderbolt's" Hull with the 25lbr..which is the AC/III. the sketch for the 17lbr uses the same hull but the turret is much larger. Now the only surviving AC/4 is a mockup at the measuem. Meaning, they bolted a non-functioning 17lbr to a 25lbr's turret and left it in the measum..dumb, i know. Here are the pictures.

 

This is the "Thunderbolt's" hull but it has the 25lbr turret.

130.jpg.cfd39cb5950c5de2aba91961ef4b51f1

AC3_tank_(AWM_101155).jpg.7770d371a7fc20

 

Now this is the AC/4

20160604180614.jpg.a85d68c243c28a118f8b1

 

This is the closest thing a AC having a 17lbr.

5a98623297ef3_P03498.009-640x521(1).jpg.5a98622b8bed3_ACe1-tank(1).jpg.913a9234a

 This is where develope the ideas for AC/4 thunderbolt through trail and error. They came to a conclusion to this design as you can see under here.

sentinal-ac-iv.jpg.f4e068cd084f60dcd7c24

As you can see, an AC/3 hull with a larger turret for the crew and the 17lbr. This also increase the gun depression due to the nice hump on top but idk how much.

ACIV-tank.jpg.b11567fde0c3f5b36f019cda20

this model here is a mock up but it's the closest thing the Australians got with a 18lbr. Reason why it's a mock up is because if you look closely at the pivot point of the gun, you can see there isn't one. They just bolted a 17lbr into a tank for measum purposes. The gun is too big, you would have to be a 4ft tiny girl to slide around the breech inside the turret.

 

 

So here are my questions.

 

°Since the actual 17lbr thunderbolt never left the sketch, why not include the crankless motor or at least the Ford GAA into it?

 

° due to the increasing requirements, can we raise the ammunition to around 74.

 

° why the  fk can't i depress this cannon? I can't use this AC unless me and my enemy are on flat ground. They live in Australia, there ain't no flat ground there and they intended the AC/4 17lbr to fight in Africa. Which btw, has crazy hills all the way around. So i have hard time believing that they made a -5/20 depression.

 

 

There was no AC IV “Thunderbolt” this designation is a fabrication from Gaijin. The AC III was designated as the Thunderbolt, the AC IV was just that, the AC IV. You’re right in saying that the AC IV never paper. The closest us Australian’s got was either the single AC III pilot vehicle produced, or the AC E1 17-Pdr test-bed. 

 

The AC III already received a more powerful powerplant in the form of the Perrier-Cadillac which was rated 397hp. This would have been most likely used in AC IV production as well, unless some of the proposed engines became available.

 

Minimum desired ammo capacity was for 50 rounds. Preliminary testing in a mock-up vehicle showed they could fit 49. 

 

Vehicle specifications called for -10 gun depression and +20 elevation.

 

4 hours ago, *Baconator100012 said:

C,mon guys. I would really like to write a bug report on the turret design and engine but i need an extra pair of eyes on this.

 

I’ve already reported everything that’s wrong with it. 

medal

Share this post


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

 

There was no AC IV “Thunderbolt” this designation is a fabrication from Gaijin. The AC III was designated as the Thunderbolt, the AC IV was just that, the AC IV. You’re right in saying that the AC IV never paper. The closest us Australian’s got was either the single AC III pilot vehicle produced, or the AC E1 17-Pdr test-bed. 

 

So how do we bug report something that never existed lol. it just makes it a mess for verification.

17 minutes ago, Jarms said:

The AC III already received a more powerful powerplant in the form of the Perrier-Cadillac which was rated 397hp. This would have been most likely used in AC IV production as well, unless some of the proposed engines became available.

For the determination of the 17lbr, they wanted a better powerplant. Therefore the Michell Crankless(600HP) and the gypsy Major(510) was proposed to the AC/4 prototype.  The only thing was functionally made in projection is the Ford GAA. or GAF..not sure.

 

17 minutes ago, Jarms said:

Minimum desired ammo capacity was for 50 rounds. Preliminary testing in a mock-up vehicle showed they could fit 49. 

right, and after tinkering the mockup, they increases the requirement of the AC/4 development which was a 72in ring and 74 rounds.. To get the 74 rounds, they had to get ride of the hull gunner. which in result a nice sloped armor.

 

17 minutes ago, Jarms said:

Vehicle specifications called for -10 gun depression and +20 elevation.

 

 

Now that is quite nice, im already annoyed by the -5 depression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, *Baconator100012 said:

So how do we bug report something that never existed lol. it just makes it a mess for verification.

 

For the determination of the 17lbr, they wanted a better powerplant. Therefore the Michell Crankless(600HP) and the gypsy Major(510) was proposed to the AC/4 prototype.  The only thing was functionally made in projection is the Ford GAA. or GAF..not sure.

 

right, and after tinkering the mockup, they increases the requirement of the AC/4 development which was a 72in ring and 74 rounds.. To get the 74 rounds, they had to get ride of the hull gunner. which in result a nice sloped armor.

 

Now that is quite nice, im already annoyed by the -5 depression

 

As I said, I already bug reported it.

 

The AC IV was never intended to have a hull gunner from the getgo, this was already eliminated starting from the AC III. The AC E1 which housed both the duel 25-Pdr’s, and later the 17-Pdr, had the provisioning for a hull MG. Though this is mainly that the AC E1 was one of the AC I pilots used for evaluation purposes, and then repurposed to test a viability of a 17-Pdr mounting. 

 

Ammunition capacity was a minimum 50 and maximum 60, the turret ring diameter was also 70 inch. 

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2017_08/598665ef9c0e0_ACIV.jpg.56deaf24d25f368516bc991342880202.jpg

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2017_08/5986726d74b5d_ACIV.jpg.ecbc182fc7d0395b0ae9d5373838773f.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


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

 

Nice! though..do you think we can convince them to put a 510-600hp paper motor into a paper tank with a paper improved turret for 17lbr.

 

It's a paper premium tank runnin at 300ish HP 5.0BR.. doesn't hurt to speed it up to a hellcat mobility style

(hellcat is 20 tons)- 460HP

(AC/4 is 26 tons)- 510-600HP

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, *Baconator100012 said:

 

... Another thing is, with the additional weight, the 3x V8 caddy wasn't cutting it and they needed a much more powerful powerplant to run the Thunderbolt. So there were 3 proposed powerplants,( 1- Ford GAA-525 hp) (2-16 cylinder Gypsy Major, 510 hp) (Michell type crankless engine, 600 hp)

 

correct me if im wrong but from my research.

1) Gypsy Major 510HP, it was built but the army didnt have interest nor the fund to install it.

2) Michell crankless 600HP, it was very desired but the design never came out of the sketch like the thunderbolt

3) Ford GAA 525HP, was already in production for the shermans/pershing. it was considered since they bought a lot of american parta for the ACs but i dont know what happened after that.

...

 

So here are my questions.

 

°Since the actual 17lbr thunderbolt never left the sketch, why not include the crankless motor or at least the Ford GAA into it?

 

 

 

The Crankless Engine Company at that time wasn't producing engines, it existed more or less to sell the rights to use its patents and designs and closed in 1946. So while it is an interesting idea another company would be needed to set up a production line to build an entirely new engine just for tanks. It is just very unlikely.

 

The Quad Gipsy was a "just in case" design, a non functional mock up was built to work out the best arrangement for all the bit and pieces that the tank needed. The "just in case" in this case was the loss of supply of Cadillac engines from the US which was now using Cadillac engines in its own tanks, and the fact that Gipsy major engines were being made in Australia and so was not under the oversight of Lend Lease. GAA engines would have been subject to the same competition with US tank production. So also unlikely to switch from one US engine type to another US engine type when both types are required for US tank production. One of the major points in favour of the Cadillac for the Australian tanks was that they were not being used by the US at that time and so Australia could get as many as it wanted.

 

And finally the AC3 and AC4 were always intended to be powered by the Perrier-Cadillac. There were cumulative orders for somewhere around 3000 Cadillac engines I think, that's enough for the entire production run of Australian cruisers plus 25% spares.

medal medal

Share this post


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

 

The Crankless Engine Company at that time wasn't producing engines, it existed more or less to sell the rights to use its patents and designs and closed in 1946. So while it is an interesting idea another company would be needed to set up a production line to build an entirely new engine just for tanks. It is just very unlikely.

 

The Quad Gipsy was a "just in case" design, a non functional mock up was built to work out the best arrangement for all the bit and pieces that the tank needed. The "just in case" in this case was the loss of supply of Cadillac engines from the US which was now using Cadillac engines in its own tanks, and the fact that Gipsy major engines were being made in Australia and so was not under the oversight of Lend Lease. GAA engines would have been subject to the same competition with US tank production. So also unlikely to switch from one US engine type to another US engine type when both types are required for US tank production. One of the major points in favour of the Cadillac for the Australian tanks was that they were not being used by the US at that time and so Australia could get as many as it wanted.

 

And finally the AC3 and AC4 were always intended to be powered by the Perrier-Cadillac. There were cumulative orders for somewhere around 3000 Cadillac engines I think, that's enough for the entire production run of Australian cruisers plus 25% spares.

 

 

This is a really great read.. oh well, at least i tried to make the thunderbolt faster.. I figured, due to frequent requirement changes, they would've upped their game if the AC/4 thunderbolt ever gone to production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 12:25 PM, Jarms said:

 

As I said, I already bug reported it.

 

The AC IV was never intended to have a hull gunner from the getgo, this was already eliminated starting from the AC III. The AC E1 which housed both the duel 25-Pdr’s, and later the 17-Pdr, had the provisioning for a hull MG. Though this is mainly that the AC E1 was one of the AC I pilots used for evaluation purposes, and then repurposed to test a viability of a 17-Pdr mounting. 

 

Ammunition capacity was a minimum 50 and maximum 60, the turret ring diameter was also 70 inch. 

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2017_08/598665ef9c0e0_ACIV.jpg.56deaf24d25f368516bc991342880202.jpg

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2017_08/5986726d74b5d_ACIV.jpg.ecbc182fc7d0395b0ae9d5373838773f.jpg

 

Your work on one of my favourite tanks irl is astounding!

 

As a side note, gaijin has really missed the boat on the AC series, there really is no reason why the Ac1 couldnt be here, nor the "actual" thunderbolt with the 25pdr (given there are actual surviving examples of those prototypes as well). having the 25pdr modelled in game would open the game up to some really fun SPG's as well

 

But, we are talking about the Devs who think the Boomerang should have a higher BR than the MkIIa spitfire....

 

Edited by TheBakedPotato
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Your work on one of my favourite tanks irl is astounding!

 

As a side note, gaijin has really missed the boat on the AC series, there really is no reason why the Ac1 couldnt be here, nor the "actual" thunderbolt with the 25pdr (given there are actual surviving examples of those prototypes as well). having the 25pdr modelled in game would open the game up to some really fun SPG's as well

 

 

Don't give me all the credit, I've only managed to go through the online portion of the Australian Archives. There's definitely a lot I still haven't found, and I don't have the time to travel to Melbourne (I live up in Queensland) to go through the physical documentation. I know MaximumSomething has gone through a lot more than I have, he helped me provide that first set of specifications for my bug report.

 

There was only ever 1 AC III pilot model built, it was the 66th vehicle of the AC series. If I recall there were other hulls and turrets cast, but no other vehicles were assembled as the cruiser program was cancelled.

  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


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

 

Don't give me all the credit, I've only managed to go through the online portion of the Australian Archives. There's definitely a lot I still haven't found, and I don't have the time to travel to Melbourne (I live up in Queensland) to go through the physical documentation. I know MaximumSomething has gone through a lot more than I have, he helped me provide that first set of specifications for my bug report.

 

There was only ever 1 AC III pilot model built, it was the 66th vehicle of the AC series. If I recall there were other hulls and turrets cast, but no other vehicles were assembled as the cruiser program was cancelled.

That would be the one that is in the Treloar center in Canberra? For some reason i thought there were more than 1 completed but i may have seen pictures of a mockup. Still, warthunder has wasted the potential of this line and only gone with the 17pdr when we could have had 2, 6, 17 and 25pdr variants with the CAS being CAC built Boomerangs, Bueafighter mk21's and Mustangs.

 

Australia OP......

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/index.php/collection/C110382

Edited by TheBakedPotato
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 A.C.IV - Following changes have been made:

  • Designation has been changed from “AC.IV Thunderbolt” to“A.C.IV”;

  • Maximum speed has been changed from 56 to 48 km/h;

  • Ammunition has been changed from 47 to 50 shots;

  • Engine power has been changed from 330 to 397 hp;

  • The armour layout of the vehicle frontal armour (hull, turret and mantlet) has been refined. Bugs with the presence of inaccurate weak zones in the area of the cannon and mantlet have been fixed.  

  • Sources: MP508/1, 1940 - 1946, G.S. Specifications Cruiser Tank AC3 and ACIV; MP392/36, 1942 - 1943, Tanks: Australian; Cruiser, Mark 3 (Experimental); MP392/36, 1942 - 1947, Australian Cruiser Tank Mark 3: production; and AC4, experimental; MP730/13, 1942 - 1944, B) Official papers; MP438/3, 1942 - 1943, Plans, Armoured Fighting Vehicles; MP730/13, 1942 - 1943, Tank Production in Australia: Stage IV. Discussions with United States and matters which led up to abandonment of tank programme; MP730/13, 1943 - 1943, A) Australian Tank Production Report by Colonel G A Green: B) Related Documents; MP730/13, circa 1942 - 1942, Armoured Fighting Vehicles Historical Notes (Dow)

 

 

I'm pretty excited, hopefully it'll be a bit more representative to what it would have been in real-life. I'll bug report anything once this hits live.

 

Edit: the first thing I see missing from this is the lack of -10 depression.

 

Edited by Jarms
  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


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

 

I'm pretty excited, hopefully it'll be a bit more representative to what it would have been in real-life. I'll bug report anything once this hits live.

 

Edit: the first thing I see missing from this is the lack of -10 depression.

 

 

 

While i was super happy and also surprise to see this tank in a 1.77 update, i was kinda sad that the -10 depression wasn't included :crying:

 

I can hit my targets when i have a tiny rock or sandbag under my front wheel lol... Though, as is with the new reports.. sounds like it's gonna be much stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so someone clarified it for us in the 1.77 forum and we got our -10 depression. Yay, no need to worry about sandbags anymore.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could you tell me alittle bit more about the armor and all? i thought they might have redesigned the turret but oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armour basis was 65mm of all round turret protection, 65mm of front hull protection, 45mm of side and rear protection.

medal

Share this post


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

The armour basis was 65mm of all round turret protection, 65mm of front hull protection, 45mm of side and rear protection.

does that mean thickness? because the UFP is 50mm. there is one small spot that is 65mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, *Baconator100012 said:

does that mean thickness? because the UFP is 50mm. there is one small spot that is 65mm

No it is armour equivalent to a vertical plate of that thickness. So as the slope increases the armour thickness can be reduced provided its resistance to attack doesn't fall below that number.

medal medal

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...