Jump to content


Sentinel AC 1 Review


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
38 replies to this topic

Captain_YoloPants #1 Posted 20 March 2016 - 01:29 PM

    It's kinda warm in these rhinos

  • Senior Moderator
  • 18537 battles
  • 1,163
  • [PANZA] PANZA
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012

Sentinel AC 1 Review

To celebrate the upcoming release of the Sentinel AC1 into World of Tanks Wargaming asked me to do a bit of a review on this piece of Australian history. Not only am I proud that finally there is an Australian tank coming to World of Tanks but Wargaming have also done a great job in putting it together. 

 

Tier 4 Premium UK Medium Tank

 

Spoiler

 

History

The Sentinel tank was a cruiser tank designed in Australia in World War II in response to the war in Europe, and to the threat of Japan expanding the war to the Pacific. 

 

It was the first tank to be built with a hull cast as a single piece, and the only tank to be produced in quantity in Australia. 

 

The few Sentinels that were built never saw action as Australia's armoured divisions had been equipped by that time with British and American tanks.

 

The first sketches of the AC tank were drawn in November 1940, when the situation in Europe was so dire that the Commonwealth was mobilized, and dramatically impulsed when war broke out with Japan. 

 

To save time, the basis had to be the American M3 Lee, but with a British Crusader style low-profile turret and hull. However, by late 1941, no prototype was ready and the plans asked for a medium tank.

 

The design was altered and protection was increased to 65 mm (2.56 in), in the light of recent engagements of the Crusader in North Africa, and remarkably this hull was mostly cast whereas most contemporary British tanks still had welded/riveted plates.

 

The AC I borrowed multiple elements to the M3, but the three HVSS bogies had a specific design, resembling the French Hotchkiss H35. The tracks were of the rubberized standard US-model. Since both intended original engines, the radial Pratt & Whitney Wasp and the Guiberson diesel were not available, three regular Cadillac V8 346 in³ 5,7L were chosen instead, arranged in a clover-leaf formation connected to a common crankshaft. 

 

The turret was very similar to the British design and the hull kept a low profile as intended, but the most remarkable fact was that both were cast in a single piece. Only the hull nose was bolted, as well as a few external fittings. 

 

Armament was also similar to the Crusader, with the main QF Vickers 2-Pounder (40 mm/1.57 in), one coaxial Vickers .303 (7.7 mm) machine gun and one hull machine gun protected by a massive armored mantlet, encasing the machine-gun watertank.

 

Spoiler

 

Despite using many parts already available from other tanks design, the development took time. The definitive design came out in February 1942. The series prototype began its trials in August 1942, delivered by the New South Wales Government Railways. When approved, Chullora Tank Assembly Shops at Sydney did the final assembly of the 65 machines delivered from November 1942 to June 1943.


Edited by Chappo, 20 March 2016 - 03:10 PM.

Spoiler

 


Captain_YoloPants #2 Posted 20 March 2016 - 01:30 PM

    It's kinda warm in these rhinos

  • Senior Moderator
  • 18537 battles
  • 1,163
  • [PANZA] PANZA
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012

Variants

MK I or AC1 (In Game)

The Australian Cruiser Tank Mark I (or AC1) began as a General Staff specification issued in November 1940. The Army needed a tank capable of a top speed of 56km/h (35 miles per hour) with a range of 240 km (150 miles), armaments consisting of a 2 pounder anti tank gun and a Vickers machine gun, a crew of 4, and armoured to provide protection equivalent to 50mm (2 inch) of armour plate. Following the British practice 1 in 8 were to be armed with a weapon capable of firing smoke rounds and if possible high-explosive, this weapon to be fitted in place of the 2 pounder. A second machine gun and gunner to operate it were to be included in the hull if practical.

 

MK III (AC3) Thunderbolt

The Australian Cruiser Tank mark III (or AC3) was a redesign and greatly improved over the AC1. The AC1 from the beginning was designed to accommodate the larger 6 pounder anti-tank gun, but the pressing need for these guns meant that none could be spared. Heavy tanks being fielded by Germany at his time were immune to all but the luckiest of shots from the 2 pounder anti-tank gun.

 

A variety of alternative armaments were considered to increase the fire power of the Australian cruisers, including the 6 pounder anti-tank gun, the obsolete 18 pounder field gun, the 25 pounder field gun / howitzer, the 3 inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun, the 3.7 inch anti-aircraft gun, and the 17 pounder anti-tank gun. 

 

The 87.6mm (3.45 inch) 25 pounder was selected for the main armament, as it had excellent high-explosive capability while maintaining adequate armour-penetration performance. To test whether the Australian Cruiser could cope with the recoil one of the development vehicles, AC1 E2 was fitted with a 25 pounder field gun/howitzer in a new turret equipped with a redesigned overhead short recoil system. The tests were successful and a decision was made to mount this weapon on a production basis.

 

The 25 pounder was mounted in the turret with a coaxial 0.303 Vickers water cooled machine gun. The AC3 was of similar dimensions to the AC1 and used the same 137cm (54 inch) turret ring, this in particular meant that the AC3 turret was somewhat cramped particularly for the loader who had to be careful to keep out of the recoil path of the gun.

 

Only one AC3 was fully assembled for tests before the programme was shutdown, serial number 8066. During May '43 the hulls of serial number 8066 and one other Mk.3 had completed road trials without their turrets.

 

MK IV (AC4) (my personal favourite tank)

The AC4 design was a further refinement of the AC3, with a 178cm (70 inch) turret ring providing more room for gun and crew. The General Staff specification called for armament of a 17 pounder anti-tank gun and coaxial Vickers machine gun with elevation of 20 degrees and depression of 10 degrees.

 

The weight of the tank had increased to around 32 tonnes but nominal ground pressure was lower than the AC3 due to increased track contact area. Top speed was to be increased to 56km/h (35mph) by planned changes the gearbox gear ratios. 

 

By this time British experience had shown that tanks faced two major threats on the battlefield, Anti-tank guns mounted in tanks, and the more numerous towed Anti-tank guns. To combat these threats tanks needed either a powerful anti-tank gun or a powerful high explosive weapon respectively. 

 

As a result two interchangeable turret fronts were designed to enable the AC4 to mount either the 17 pounder anti-tank gun or a 25 pounder field gun/howitzer as fitted to the AC3. The 25 pounder armed variant was to replace part of the AC3 order but not all, as a large number of parts and assemblies had already been manufactured for the AC3.

 


Edited by Chappo, 20 March 2016 - 02:49 PM.

Spoiler

 


Captain_YoloPants #3 Posted 20 March 2016 - 01:31 PM

    It's kinda warm in these rhinos

  • Senior Moderator
  • 18537 battles
  • 1,163
  • [PANZA] PANZA
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012

In Game

Finally, to how it actually is in game. For a tier 4 tank its to be honest... not bad but not overly good. Its pretty slow but it has some armour. I wouldnt necessarily call it a proper medium or a proper heavy however it is a proper United Kingdom cruiser tank. It does its job of holding a position and just barraging the enemy with the rapid firing gun. Yes the aim time could be better but the overall gun characteristics are still quite good. 

 

Stats

Posted Image

 

Gun

This is what really makes the tank (or any tank really), the gun has a mediocre aim time but very good reload and is quite accurate. You wont win awards for sheer upfront damage but you will be able to pin players down (repeatedly tracking a tank in the open is quite fun). 

Spoiler

 

Armour

Surprisingly good... 65mm hull and turret and at a pretty good slope so will ricochet a lot of rounds, anything over 75/80 mm will turn you into swiss cheese. Angling the tank also I found allowed the tracks to gobble up some rounds so that also is quite helpful. It doesnt have the large bits of armour space like the Matilda so dont fall into that trap. 

 

I was able to troll some players just by being hull down on the crest of the hill while they just bounced round after round. 

 

Battle load out

Gun Rammer - No brainer, makes you dish out the slight pain faster.

Vents - Increases most stats by a flat percentage, very good piece of equipment.

Gun laying drive - Mostly needed as you need to get the aim time down to as little as possible. 

 

First Battle

Wasnt sure to expect here, mainly a quicker Matilda with a little less armour. So thats how i played it, picked a route based on what the team was doing and stuck with it. I managed to find a nice little hull down spot and just dug in while two light tanks were trying to snipe me from range. Silly mistake and this is where i nailed one in the open as he tried to zoom past, needless to say he quickly went up in flames... first kill to chappo!

Spoiler

 

Further Battles

Not sure if i was being focused or not but gee wizz did i get a lot of attention... One battle I was just one shot by a Pz IV so yeah... dont show your sides. Up against a M6 heavy is not my idea of fun but I did bounce four rounds off my roof while still able to pen him (might have been gold rounds), he eventually killed me but not after I penned him about 8 or so times. 

 

Verdict

It suits a position as a premium tier 4 tank. Its not quite as good as a fully upgraded Matilda (sheer troll tank) but is still tonnes of fun. Its a little quicker so you can relocate easier and you wont get trapped like you can with the Matilda. If your an Aussie, it well worth it just to have this little Aussie battler in your garage from a historical standpoint plus it seriously can be a hoot in tier 4 battles. 


Edited by Chappo, 20 March 2016 - 03:28 PM.

Spoiler

 


JrKenny2408 #4 Posted 23 March 2016 - 03:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 20914 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013
"Yes the aim time could be better but the overall gun characteristics are still quite good". I understand that the dispersion values are pretty decent (with the exception of the dispersion on the turret traverse, which is excellent) and the pen is relative high up on the list. However I'm not sure having the lowest DPM and alpha in class combined with the one of the worst aim times (The only tanks with worse aim time are the T-28 armed with either of the two 76mm guns or the T28E w/F30 which is armed with a 85mm gun) can be called "quite good". If anything, the stock 1,173.91 DPM is only in theory, due to the aim time being longer than the reload time, making firing as soon as you're loaded only viable at short range engagements. What's more, if you want to increase the actual DPM, you have to decrease the aim time first otherwise it is simply an exercise in futility.  

FeeTFooD #5 Posted 23 March 2016 - 03:44 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 28117 battles
  • 13,167
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
The gun is worse than the stock gun on the Matilda, Covenanter and Crusader. The penetration values are fine, but honestly, the dispersion and aim time stop it from becoming a good tank. 

kilig ako


Bruno0Ace #6 Posted 23 March 2016 - 03:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 15076 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012
It is a shame the alpha damage and the Aim time is so bad. If these were tweaked a little she be a little Jem. But thanks for the Sentinel WG, I have been waiting a long time. 


Cronk #7 Posted 23 March 2016 - 03:55 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24407 battles
  • 2,294
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012
Chappo still plays tanks? I thought he was a Tugboat captain these days?

Block Quote

WG will just do whatever is needed to keep us on the gerbil wheel. Logic is just the beef they put on the pill to make the dog swallow it.

 

 


23b40 #8 Posted 23 March 2016 - 04:57 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 20759 battles
  • 166
  • [ANZAO] ANZAO
  • Member since:
    04-21-2012

So it may fight against tier 6 maximum?

It has no "limit" in matchmaking, like for example T14?



FeeTFooD #9 Posted 23 March 2016 - 05:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 28117 battles
  • 13,167
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Post23b40, on 23 March 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

So it may fight against tier 6 maximum?

It has no "limit" in matchmaking, like for example T14?

It's treated as a standard T4. So yes, it sees T6. 


kilig ako


WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_AU #10 Posted 23 March 2016 - 06:50 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 27017 battles
  • 19
  • [A1AR] A1AR
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

Thank you WG, but I would've liked it to have the same gun as the Matilda 2pdr...maybe in a later buff for ANZAC Day , Hint Hint         I am also looking forward to seeing the AC4, hopefully they wont nurf the 17 pdr in that..  I have heard it will be a tier VI, You never know we might see a normal AC3 at tier V  then with a 6 pdr and an upgrade to the 25 pdr.. who knows, probably wishful thinking but you never know down the line....we all know WG like to keep things close but occasionally "leak" things methinks to see what public opinion is like.. 


Edited by Tango12Bravo, 23 March 2016 - 07:31 PM.


Tricky013 #11 Posted 23 March 2016 - 06:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 14760 battles
  • 63
  • [TCM] TCM
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012

As an Australian player looking forward to this tank entering the game, I cannot express how terribly I am disappointed in this tank.

 

It is a piece of rubbish in its present state. Quickybaby and Jingles nailed all that is wrong with it. The gun should have identical stats to the equivalent gun on the Matilda and, in fact, should be better given the better turret setup. The gun is totally inadequate for anything other than a tier 4 battle. Sorry but I would respectfully like to state that the pen values are too low, despite the contrary comments above. I only managed to pen a Matilda by pulling up behind it at point blank range and shooting gold..... Ten shots of gold into a KV1 weakspot with zero pens. Only managed to pen by getting below it and shooting the under hull.

 

Jingles is right. Tier 4 tanks are totally mis-matched against tier 6 tanks. Oh! As for Quickybaby stating that you should only see tier 6 battles 20% of the time...... first 5 battles? Every one a tier 6 battle.

 

I'm not in the habit of rage quitting, but I had to shut the game down and walk away. The worst part about it is that I bought two other Sentinels as gifts for friends...... well that will prove to be one that they would like to pass on, just like a Christmas gift of candles.

 


Edited by Tricky013, 23 March 2016 - 06:53 PM.


MaximumSomething #12 Posted 23 March 2016 - 07:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 9571 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    09-06-2014

View PostChappo, on 20 March 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Variants

MK I or AC1 (In Game)

The Australian Cruiser Tank Mark I (or AC1) began as a General Staff specification issued in November 1940. The Army needed a tank capable of a top speed of 56km/h (35 miles per hour) with a range of 240 km (150 miles), armaments consisting of a 2 pounder anti tank gun and a Vickers machine gun, a crew of 4, and armoured to provide protection equivalent to 50mm (2 inch) of armour plate. Following the British practice 1 in 8 were to be armed with a weapon capable of firing smoke rounds and if possible high-explosive, this weapon to be fitted in place of the 2 pounder. A second machine gun and gunner to operate it were to be included in the hull if practical.

 

MK III (AC3) Thunderbolt

The Australian Cruiser Tank mark III (or AC3) was a redesign and greatly improved over the AC1. The AC1 from the beginning was designed to accommodate the larger 6 pounder anti-tank gun, but the pressing need for these guns meant that none could be spared. Heavy tanks being fielded by Germany at his time were immune to all but the luckiest of shots from the 2 pounder anti-tank gun.

 

A variety of alternative armaments were considered to increase the fire power of the Australian cruisers, including the 6 pounder anti-tank gun, the obsolete 18 pounder field gun, the 25 pounder field gun / howitzer, the 3 inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun, the 3.7 inch anti-aircraft gun, and the 17 pounder anti-tank gun. 

 

The 87.6mm (3.45 inch) 25 pounder was selected for the main armament, as it had excellent high-explosive capability while maintaining adequate armour-penetration performance. To test whether the Australian Cruiser could cope with the recoil one of the development vehicles, AC1 E2 was fitted with a 25 pounder field gun/howitzer in a new turret equipped with a redesigned overhead short recoil system. The tests were successful and a decision was made to mount this weapon on a production basis.

 

The 25 pounder was mounted in the turret with a coaxial 0.303 Vickers water cooled machine gun. The AC3 was of similar dimensions to the AC1 and used the same 137cm (54 inch) turret ring, this in particular meant that the AC3 turret was somewhat cramped particularly for the loader who had to be careful to keep out of the recoil path of the gun.

 

Only one AC3 was fully assembled for tests before the programme was shutdown, serial number 8066. During May '43 the hulls of serial number 8066 and one other Mk.3 had completed road trials without their turrets.

 

MK IV (AC4) (my personal favourite tank)

The AC4 design was a further refinement of the AC3, with a 178cm (70 inch) turret ring providing more room for gun and crew. The General Staff specification called for armament of a 17 pounder anti-tank gun and coaxial Vickers machine gun with elevation of 20 degrees and depression of 10 degrees.

 

The weight of the tank had increased to around 32 tonnes but nominal ground pressure was lower than the AC3 due to increased track contact area. Top speed was to be increased to 56km/h (35mph) by planned changes the gearbox gear ratios. 

 

By this time British experience had shown that tanks faced two major threats on the battlefield, Anti-tank guns mounted in tanks, and the more numerous towed Anti-tank guns. To combat these threats tanks needed either a powerful anti-tank gun or a powerful high explosive weapon respectively. 

 

As a result two interchangeable turret fronts were designed to enable the AC4 to mount either the 17 pounder anti-tank gun or a 25 pounder field gun/howitzer as fitted to the AC3. The 25 pounder armed variant was to replace part of the AC3 order but not all, as a large number of parts and assemblies had already been manufactured for the AC3.

 

 

You forgot to link back to your source.

daddy4x4 #13 Posted 23 March 2016 - 07:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 11741 battles
  • 82
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

Sounds like a fun bit of a tank.

I'd ditch the rammer & use coated optics or maybe bino as this tank will work ok as a hull down sniper. Height is it's enemy as far as camo value goes I think.

Thanks to WG for finally putting in an Aussie tank. Be nice to get better aim time buff as ROF is wasted waiting for aim.

Think I'll have to have one for historic reasons if nothing else.

 

 



Captain_YoloPants #14 Posted 23 March 2016 - 08:24 PM

    It's kinda warm in these rhinos

  • Senior Moderator
  • 18537 battles
  • 1,163
  • [PANZA] PANZA
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012

View PostTango12Bravo, on 23 March 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Thank you WG, but I would've liked it to have the same gun as the Matilda 2pdr...maybe in a later buff for ANZAC Day , Hint Hint         I am also looking forward to seeing the AC4, hopefully they wont nurf the 17 pdr in that..  I have heard it will be a tier VI, You never know we might see a normal AC3 at tier V  then with a 6 pdr and an upgrade to the 25 pdr.. who knows, probably wishful thinking but you never know down the line....we all know WG like to keep things close but occasionally "leak" things methinks to see what public opinion is like.. 

 

I for one cannot wait to see if they bring the AC4... the 17pdr is a great gun. 

 

Its an ok tank, you arent going to set the world on fire with it but its more of a support tank. Played with some mates its good fun but like all premo vehicles they do struggle sometimes.


Spoiler

 


MagicalFlyingFox #15 Posted 23 March 2016 - 08:30 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32993 battles
  • 13,606
  • [YETI] YETI
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostChappo, on 23 March 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

 

I for one cannot wait to see if they bring the AC4... the 17pdr is a great gun. 

 

Its an ok tank, you arent going to set the world on fire with it but its more of a support tank. Played with some mates its good fun but like all premo vehicles they do struggle sometimes.

 

its been in supertest for a few months now as a tier 6.

 

I want to see the 25pdr however...


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


awsomeo #16 Posted 23 March 2016 - 09:57 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 4866 battles
  • 23
  • [HOROR] HOROR
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

Bought this tank and it sucks, a tier three deals more damage than this tank, 40hp if you lucky on a tier3 tank, doesn't pen a tier6 which out of 6 games I played 5 were against tier six, out of about 20 shots I took on a tier5- or up tank,I dealt  about 4 pens and only dished 10hp damage as the best the rest of the shots were like 6hp. It shouldn't be matched against anything higher than tier 5 and even then it needs its gun buffed to be competitive,

The aim time is slow for a gun of this size for the damage this gun deals

The armor is weak also,

 

The good parts about this tank are

speed is ok, reload time is good, gun is accurate,

 

over al lthis is not a competitive tank that deal poor damage.



Captain_YoloPants #17 Posted 24 March 2016 - 07:15 AM

    It's kinda warm in these rhinos

  • Senior Moderator
  • 18537 battles
  • 1,163
  • [PANZA] PANZA
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 23 March 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

 

its been in supertest for a few months now as a tier 6.

 

I want to see the 25pdr however...

 

25pdr more of a derp gun isnt it? prefer the pen of the 17pdr anti tank gun

 

and source for the supertest? would love to see it (if there is leaked pics)


Spoiler

 


jnhchan #18 Posted 24 March 2016 - 07:29 AM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 4235 battles
  • 44
  • [HKATU] HKATU
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View Postawsomeo, on 23 March 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

Bought this tank and it sucks, a tier three deals more damage than this tank, 40hp if you lucky on a tier3 tank, doesn't pen a tier6 which out of 6 games I played 5 were against tier six, out of about 20 shots I took on a tier5- or up tank,I dealt  about 4 pens and only dished 10hp damage as the best the rest of the shots were like 6hp. It shouldn't be matched against anything higher than tier 5 and even then it needs its gun buffed to be competitive,

The aim time is slow for a gun of this size for the damage this gun deals

The armor is weak also,

 

The good parts about this tank are

speed is ok, reload time is good, gun is accurate,

 

over al lthis is not a competitive tank that deal poor damage.

 

Are you using high explosive round.  The normal AP round will not do that low damage.

 



FeeTFooD #19 Posted 24 March 2016 - 07:34 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 28117 battles
  • 13,167
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Postjnhchan, on 24 March 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

Are you using high explosive round.  The normal AP round will not do that low damage.

 

Sounds like it. The minimum roll on 45 alpha is around 33. 


kilig ako


Tricky013 #20 Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 14760 battles
  • 63
  • [TCM] TCM
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012

I don't think he was necessarily using HE. 6 battles.... approx. 500hp in total damage done and one of those battles was zero damage despite 12 shots hitting (and yes, aimed at the weak points such as the driver port etc). So gun performance is dismal against tier 5 and 6.

 

As for playing style, we went hard as part of a medium push in our first game and were smouldering wrecks within 2 min of the start due to an Excelsior, despite getting onto his weak side armour. We then went into sniper mode and did somewhat better until spotted. Ripped apart by tier 5 and tier 6 tanks (no games played below tier 6). I do agree though that the gun is pretty accurate once focused.

 

Honestly, it won't take much to make this a fun and relatively competitive tank. Buffing the gun to some half reasonable performance and at least baseline performance to the equivalent gun on the other British tanks would make world of difference. We know that WG can do it as they did so with the new tier 8 FV.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users