Knightmare49

A change for AC.IV Thunderbolt

What change should we do for the AC.IV Thunderbolt?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. What change should we do for the AC.IV Thunderbolt?

    • Give it APDS and make it stay at 5.3
      14
    • Change the BR from 5.3 to 5.0
      10
    • Not change anything?
      7


I've been playing this thing for a while now after the massive BR changes across the mid-tier British vehicles and I want to talk about this tank because I think it doesn't have that much attention drawn to it with how it is a premium vehicle that I don't see that much anymore and my review of why it needs to have some changes with it.

My review of the vehicle, the AC.IV Thunderbolt is probably the most well armored vehicle in its class in its current BR in the British 5.3 and Rank III. The vehicle has a good reverse speed unlike other British vehicles (well because this was made by Australia really late in the war) and while only having 48 kph of max speed, it reaches its max speed pretty quickly on roads and still perform well off-road. It also has decent gun depression and elevation and the gun itself is the 17pdr that I'm quite fond off since I've played the British for quite some time performs well and as it should be and the gun doesn't shake as much as the other tanks at its BR with the same gun on the road, but one thing is different than the other BR 5.3 17pdr tanks. This thing doesn't have access to the APDS shell (which now most of the 17pdr vehicles at BR 5.3+ has) due to the fact that this thing used to be the premium alternative of the Sherman Firefly who was still 4.7 at the time like this vehicle. With the Matchmaking being how it is, sometimes we can't really be sure if we'll get an uptier or not (while it is in the BR that has the best uptier/downtier ratio, sometimes RNG can be good or bad) and facing well armored targets like Tiger II (P), Jagdpanther, Ferdinand, IS-2 (1944), T-44, and Italian M26 frontally in maps like Fire Arc, Mozdok, Sands of Sinai, Maginot Line or the kind just don't cut it sometimes. While it does fare well in Close Ranged Maps that still depends on RNG and how the enemy handle this tank. And regarding how to handle this tank it's not as difficult as most thought, while it does have somewhat alien design, you can penetrate the turret rather easily even with Pz. III or Pz. IV for Germany, and T-34 1941 and 1942 and will result with the gun breach being damaged and most of the time the lost of 2 or if lucky 3 crew which resulted in the tank being destroyed. The UFP is quite thick and sloped even that regular 75mm KwK40 L43 or L48 of the Pz. IVs won't be able to penetrate it but the LFP can be penetrated and would hit the driver, transmission and if lucky, the front ammo rack of it. From the side as most tanks are vulnerable is rather easy, as if you bring a full ammo, you would be dead from a single side shot because the ammo is all around the Side of the tank.

Now the changes that this tank needed, of course if you see from my review above what I'm going for is adding the APDS for it, now I'm not someone that isn't comfortable playing the 17pdr tanks with conventional shells, I've been playing the British when the Firefly is still at BR 5.0 and also use it as a backup of the Comet alongside the Avenger who was 5.3 and 4.7 respectively at the time so I'm not too unfamiliar with facing the heavy tanks of the Soviets and Germany with it but of course different player, different story. With the recent addition of the Italian Sherman Firefly Vc that includes the APDS and got put at BR 5.3 I'll say why not give it to the AC.IV as well? Granted, it may be because the Firefly itself can be pretty terrible but I know Gaijin gave it APDS so it'll be worthy to hold the 5.3 BR at the very least but this is a Premium Vehicle that also was developed late in the war we're talking about, so it still holds somewhat a right to get it. Of course alternatively is lower its BR, of course not to 4.7 like it used but like someone that gives some feedback in the recent Changes and Suggestions, is to BR 5.0 and I'm totally on board with this one if it doesn't get APDS, the vehicle is not terrible but I can tell that it doesn't belong in the 5.3 area that much as the others are. And with the holder of 5.0 BR is now long gone which previously was the Sherman Firefly, and the Comet for a short time, why not? BR 5.0 in my opinion fits it a LOT more than it should be in 5.3, it is more armored, more faster and better profiled than the Firefly, but also don't boast as much speed and power of the shell as the Comet and Challenger since it doesn't have access to APDS which makes perfect sense for it to be 5.0, that would in my opinion make the vehicle worthwhile to buy and more BR friendly than the other British vehicles at its BR. Of course some people might disagree so I will make a poll.

Do comments about your thoughts on this topic.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont mind it at its current br, i find the armour quite trolly. The 17pdr is a monster so no issues with that either and it has very nice agility forward and reverse for brits.

  • Like 1
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
34 minutes ago, MrEdHardy said:

Was the ACIV ever fully built? I have seen the ACE1 with the 17pdr turret existing and being tested

The one you mentioned is the only one to be actually made, they manage to put a finalized design but the program was terminated shortly after

Edited by Knightmare49
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if the same fate as Panther II is looming for the ACIV because of that. Either downtier it to 5.0 or give it APDS and it can stay where it is currently

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MrEdHardy said:

I was wondering if the same fate as Panther II is looming for the ACIV because of that. Either downtier it to 5.0 or give it APDS and it can stay where it is currently

 

the AC4 was at least an actual design, but the Panther II as made in WT never existed in any shape or form - not even a concept - it is a mish-mash of the actual Panther II and Panther F - both of which would be OK by WT's criteria.

  • Like 1
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
5 hours ago, MrEdHardy said:

I was wondering if the same fate as Panther II is looming for the ACIV because of that. Either downtier it to 5.0 or give it APDS and it can stay where it is currently

For the AC tank, at least the 17 pounder was mounted and tested on an test vehicle with early version turret:

AC_E1(AWM_P03498.010).jpg

 

The project was cancelled before the new turret with larger turret ring diameter was ready to mount the 17 pounder for test, but it was a feasible design as everything else has been tested together.

 

The in-game Panther II is a paper draft as best. The more common "Panther II" that reached testing stage never mounted a long 88. It remains a challenge how to mount such a big gun into a small turret.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MrEdHardy said:

Was the ACIV ever fully built? I have seen the ACE1 with the 17pdr turret existing and being tested


No, and it was called the Thunderbolt either. That name was for the AC III which only had 1 ever built. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have in game is the mk3 with a 17pdr gun.  The mk 4 would have had thicker armour (90mm I think from memory) and a turret was being designed but wasn't finalised when the project was cancelled.

 

Ill try and add so.e pick later of the last hulls of the ac3 in the national archives.

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

As far as the original post goes, I wouldn't give it APDS rounds as it is not a ammunition type that was considered for the tank at the time, only APC and HE. Although having said that there would be nothing to stop any 17pdr service round being loaded and fired. If that means keeping it at 5.3, or dropping it back to 5.0 where it was, well it has been there before and the world didn't end.

 

The real problem is that the tank in game is a 17 pounder armed AC3, which is not what was intended to be built. On the up side this means little work would be required for Gaijin to bring the AC3 into the game, except they seem to be in no rush to do so. I think the best option is for Gaijin to really push the boat out and remake the current AC IV as what it was meant to be, the AC4 Woomera. The major components had all been tested, individually at least, so as far as the game is concerned it'd be a 17pdr armed Perrier-Cadillac powered HVSS cruiser tank, just a slightly longer, and taller, straight replacement for the current AC IV. I do not expect that to ever happen though.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

There should be another option where the AC.IV gets APDS and moves to 5.7, since it's already excellent at 5.3

But it wouldn't be a good 5.7 option. It does alright at 5.3 but at 5.7 even with apds it would be meh. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

There should be another option where the AC.IV gets APDS and moves to 5.7, since it's already excellent at 5.3

I considered that beforehand ofc, but it would be like the Challenger 2.0 where in the end, it doesn't perform well at all at 5.7. BR 5.3 and 5.0 pretty much is the only place this thing can be remotely good and not too overpowering to enemy side with or without APDS

Edited by Knightmare49
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Knightmare49 said:

I considered that beforehand ofc, but it would be like the Challenger 2.0 where in the end, it doesn't perform well at all at 5.7. BR 5.3 and 5.0 pretty much is the only place this thing can be remotely good and not too overpowering to enemy side with or without APDS

Well, I can't really say, it's one of my favorite vehicles in the British tech tree as it is, I don't really think it needs much help

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

There should be another option where the AC.IV gets APDS and moves to 5.7, since it's already excellent at 5.3

IRL the AC.E1 17pdr was completed long before APDS was available for the allies, and definitely way before it reached Australia

it makes no sense for any AC variant to get APDS or any other rounds us Australians did not have access to. 

 

all I really want is just more AC. representation in war thunder

medal medal

Share this post


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

Aussie aussie aussie.

Sane Australians don't go around saying that.

It's just a stereotype 

medal medal

Share this post


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

Sane Australians don't go around saying that.

It's just a stereotype 

unless your at any sports event ever with australia vs anyone else.

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
3 hours ago, Razielkaine said:

unless your at any sports event ever with australia vs anyone else.

that's why I said sane Australians

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TyphoonCro said:

To be honest...

With the way APDS currently, I'd take APCBC over APDS any day

Apds is really good but you need to learn how to use it

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
6 minutes ago, Razielkaine said:

Apds is really good but you need to learn how to use it

 

From my experience with 105mm APDS, its very bad and unreliable

Thats why I hate stock grind on every L7 armed vehicle

Same is applicable to British QF20 pounder, APCBC any day

Edited by TyphoonCro
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TyphoonCro said:

 

From my experience with 105mm APDS, its very bad and unreliable

Thats why I hate stock grind on every L7 armed vehicle

Same is applicable to British QF20 pounder, APCBC any day

Apds has its own set of rules. Because it relies on shrapnel spawl damage its made ineffective when it hits physical objects in the vehicle before it has had a chance to form a large cone.

 

You need to have a basic understanding of the enemy tank and avoid direct hits to crew and modules like transmissions.  Centre of mass as a general rule is best as there is usually a lot of space behind it allowing the spelling to spread out and do maximum damage.  

 

This is often a problem for players of other nations who have HE and are effective even after hitting internal modules.

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
4 minutes ago, Razielkaine said:

Apds has its own set of rules. Because it relies on shrapnel spawl damage its made ineffective when it hits physical objects in the vehicle before it has had a chance to form a large cone.

 

You need to have a basic understanding of the enemy tank and avoid direct hits to crew and modules like transmissions.  Centre of mass as a general rule is best as there is usually a lot of space behind it allowing the spelling to spread out and do maximum damage.  

 

This is often a problem for players of other nations who have HE and are effective even after hitting internal modules.

 

I understand that about APDS

Direct hit to ammo will usually cause immidiate destruction of enemy tank

 

Though why does then British APCBC with no HE filler sometimes do more damage?

I like to remind myself of saying that "the shell with highest pen, isn't always best shell"

Certainly, with APCBC you have full shell that is going to do damage, with APDS, you only get fraction of caliber doing damage (I belive 84mm APDS had 40mm core)

Edited by TyphoonCro
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.