Tank Chats #73 Sentinel | The Tank Museum
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Tank Chats playlist • Tank Chats from The Ta... As Australia and New Zealand mark ANZAC day this week, The Tank Museum presents a Tank Chat on the Australian Sentinel tank.
The AC1 Sentinel cruiser tank was designed by Australia during the Second World War. Only 65 of these tanks were produced during WW2, as the Australians were eventually supplied with Allied tanks.
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum CZcams channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP: ►tankmuseumshop...
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Tiger Tank Blog: ► blog.tiger-tank...
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► tank100.com/ #tankmuseum #tanks #tankchats The Tank Museum E-Newsletter sign-up: mailchi.mp/e6f...
Fletcher is to armoured vehicles as Attenborough is to the natural world.
JimmyKip omg he is
You mean well past it? Because that's what they both are.
Ne'er a truer word said, Sir!
I love him so much!
@@NickRatnieks Not sure what "propaganda" you are on about, but just a guess that you are one of those brainwashed anti environmentalist nut jobs who are under the impression pollution is good.
"Some people would consider it rather rude! I wouldn't know why of course..." Oh Fletcher xD Glorious dry-as-colonial-sand British humor :P
@Nasim Aghdam the "choad"
Its certainly useful for making new tanks
@@ballzdeep6974 username certainly checks out for the comment!
Erik Bergström he is a British National Treasure.
It's offensive to drive this tank in public in many states.
"That's not a can of Fosters by the way..."
"It's meant for fuel..."
I half expected to hear: "So it tastes a bit better". xD
I reckoned it was the barbie.
The Germans' reaction on seeing the Sentinel's front machine gun: "HOW RUDE!!"
*Japanese UUOOOH WANG TANKU!
Cpl Jones - They don't like it up 'em.
@@carbon1255 *Kya, hentai!*
If Lord Flashheart (Rik Mayall) was a tank troop leader. _"Woof woof!"_
they didn't want to leave the pow camps because of it
I have to admit, going from absolute zero to this in one attempt is a darn worthy achievement for the Australians.
as an aussie this is a great bit of history i would never have otherwise known, would've loved to see how australia's tank development would've gone if they didnt get access to british/US vehicles
Yet all anyone talks about is the tank's dong, not the fact that a nation that doesn't build tanks made this in a rush.
First fully cast hull is quite an achievement
As far as I’ve seen in various assessments, the only real design failure was atrocious turret ergonomics. And Chieftain’s lookinside made it seem like a rearrangement wouldn’t have been too hard
@@alexio1942 same as newzealand probably
Australians: "Let's make a tank to scare our enemies!" *creates a tank with gentleman's sausage*
Designed by a Frenchman called 'Monsiur Perrier' who also discovered bottled water.
They didn’t like it up them... (Dads Army Joke...)
That's uncircumcised d. That's a boy d.
For rogering the enemy.
Form follows function.
It shames them with inadequacy.
Sadly, we returned the tank which was in the US to Australia, it is now in Cairns. Bovington has the only non-Australia-based Sentinel in the world, now.
Im happy i was able to see your video of it.
In depth and informative.
Nothing sad about it, you brought the old girl home
you had no choice
we'd just swipe it anyway
Yes, sad returning a tank to were it was designed and made. Tragic
The argument, I think, would have more merit if there weren't already AC1s in Australia for Australians to look at. The Americas went from 1 to 0.
It's a shame the AC1 Sentinel is known for one small lewd thing, because it's a marvel of achievement for the Australians, with very little help from anybody else was able to produce a respectable tank.
Do you know if the engines were sourced from America or they were already being built their under contract ??
I wouldn't call that small!
Nice profile picture by the way :)
@@mattmopar440 I think they were already being built under licence in Australia, without looking it up but at the time of the start of WWII Australia found itself far away from the supply of equipment which meant the start of panic programs to quickly design and build our own weapons which meant using whatever we had at hand thus the Boomerang was developed out of parts we were already building under licence for the Wirraway trainer for instance, so I suspect that the same will be for engines and such.
@@mattmopar440 They were commercially available auto engines. They had planned to use the 'wasp' radial engine from the Boomerang but the Airforce needed as many as they could get. I recommend looking up a picture of the Sentinel's powerpack, very complicated engineering for a first tank, the transfer case is nearly as big as another engine.
Early on australia was too far away for anyone to effectively import cars. those ginormous car carrier ships didn't come along until well after the war. So we made our own versions of most cars in house. We had ford and chrysler and holden factories churning out localised versions of the cars. Now whether chrysler was manufacturing engines at the time i have no idea, a quick google didn't show anything up either but i can imagine they were.
Y'know, looking at the various nations' attempts to produce their first tank designs, the Sentinel is nothing short of astounding.
It's nothing compared to the mighty Bob Semple Tank!!!
Along with the Boomerang fighter, the Owen sub machine gun and others, not a bad effort for a small country of 7 million at the time (I'm biased of course!).
I'd agree. Being an ex-foundry moulder knowing the work it would have taken to cast sixty plus of these beasts I'd call that an excellent effort. Australia had different of foundy's in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The could have produced these.
Australia definitely punched well above its weight.
The Owen is one of the best SMGs of all time
I think this tank is a staggering achievement, especially considering some of the pitiful offerings from our British tank factories who should have done better frankly. To be able to fit an enormous 17 pounder siege-engine in place of a two-pound door-knocker is a testament to Australian pragmatics. Thank heaven they were on our side.
tecnaman also NGL for a population of 7 million we had 1/7 people serving in the military at the time
I was lead on the team that rebuilt the Cruiser that is in the museum at Puckapunyal when I was an apprentice at Chullora State Rail Authority workshops. I was first to drive it, cobbled up chrysler distributors and carbies. The dog clutch took all of your strength to activate. We delivered it to the museum and taught the army how to drive their tank :) Good times.
When was that mate? Surely a while ago?
@@timblizzard4226 yeah I was in the railway training facility in 1992 I reckon, bloody long time ago 😭
Australia didn't even have an automotive industry at the time, so to produce a well designed, reliable and upgradeable tank, in the first attempt, after only a few months, when they'd never even produced a motorcycle, car, bus or truck highlights the awesomeness of the achievement.
Kind of.
Like the engines in the CAC Boomerang fighter, I believe we were also building the Cadillac V8s here under licence before the War.
Why they were chosen.
If we'd had to have designed and built a tank engine from nothing, it'd have been a huge ask.
note: the Sentinel took 18 months to produce, not "a few months"
We had automotive assembly industry and the railway workshops plus casting, forging and machining businesses.
@@Apis4, to the best of my knowledge, Cadillac engines were not produced in Australia pre war. I have been unable to find evidence in official or GM-H records. To my knowledge, GM-H cut its teeth of the gipsy major aero engine.
If you have any contrary evidence, a link would be much appreciated.
@@greybirdo We were producing Cadillac and Chrysler engines, and I believe Allison, Pratt and Witney and Curtiss-Wright aero engines under license from the US, as well as British engines, from the likely suspects, as well...s8nce early in the War.
Cadillac engines were used in the Sentinel.
If any of you ever find youeselves in Cairns Australia the Australian armour and artillery museum have 2 of these,1 in its original configuration with the 2 pounder gun and 1 which has a mock up of the 17 pounder gun
I ve misread mock as you know with c 😂
some random albino dude how good is the museum?
@@opairsoft8100 its excellent. I been there many times
@@opairsoft8100 definately worth a visit, they are always getting new exhibits in, so many that they have built 3 extentions onto the museum since it opened in 2015
some random albino dude there is another in Puckapunyal at the RAAC museum also.
As an Australian it feels really nice the amount of praise that David gives the Sentinel :))
Praise well deserved. With no prior experience and relatively little heavy industry, the Australians designed and produced a tank that would have been perhaps the best in the world in 1939, still quite good in 1942, and better than anything produced by the Japanese through the end of the war.
@@mebsrea I don't know why so few countries designed tanks that could be upgunned.
Very proud of this tank shows what Australians can do when the chips are down. Well done blokes!
Quite a good tank, under the circumstances. If the Japanese had ever attempted an invasion, this tank would have been a major obstacle--Japanese tanks, outside of the home islands, were outdated, very lightly armored, and under-armed. The Sentinel would have made mincemeat of them.
There's nothing I can add... but I'd not liked to have been a Jap tank & met an Allied tank or Anti-tank gun!
Are there any accounts of the above tank clashes? 👍
Indeed, this thing is a beast against japanese armor
Actually I was hoping this chat might give a view on how the Sentinel would have done if it had seen action in North Africa. My guess is that it would have done quite well, it was at least as well armoured as the Valentine. The variant with the 25 pounder would have been extremely effective against most German armour.
Mr. Fletcher is such a gem. I'm really glad that these videos exist.
Great to hear you're enjoying them!
Double 25 pounders, cue Hell March music.
Does look like something out of Warhammer 40K or Command & Conquer doesn't it
When will that come out in WoT?
Mammoth tanks ftw
@@keptinkaos6384 37mm 2lb gun: 1.7-3.0.
Double 25lb: HE monster so probably somewhere around 3.0-4.0
76.2mm 17lb: AP monster so around 4.7-5.7.
@@Lowkeh self healing daddy'o. . .
You should see that machine gun when it gets excited...
bullet proof and hard as steel...
Does it get longer?
Roflmao
You mean, AA-mode?
Glad I watched to the end for the Fosters joke
Would probably have been filled with either VB or Tooheys
Same lol
"Sworn to avenge, condemned to hell.
Tempt not the blade, all fear THE SENTINEL"
@ecky1965 That's right :D song out from Defenders of Faith
Damn.. late to the party (comment) but an amazing song. The whole album is great, one of their best ❤
@sebastiangundolf6740 from golden era of heavy metal I would say
Great episode, thanks to the entire production crew.
Here here.
Great to hear that you're enjoying it Joe!
I always look forwards to tank chats, the reason is summed up to be the very indepth look and the amusing remarks of mr fletcher and david williey
Mr. Fletcher is always both educational and entertaining.
Nice to hear you enjoy these chats Samuel! If you haven't already, you may wish to consider supporting us on our Patreon, so we can continue to produce content such as out Tank Chats and more more! www.patreon.com/tankmuseum Thanks again!
I understand the tactic of having ...that on the front. It makes the enemy feel awkward and run away.
*walk away*
Walk away backwards!
@@davidwhite147 Suck it!
I worked at chullora, NSW Australia, in the 70s, "where they were built", and the old "tank annex" was still in use as an traction motor "locomotives" assembly and overhaul building . Even the test ramp was there where the tanks would climb after assembly.
A tank with two guns is as happy as a dog with two. . . .eh . . . Sentinel machine gun ports
Impressive Aussie ingenuity.
Gotta admit, the words I'd never thought I'd see in the same sentence.
my Uncle Fred was a gunner on the AC 1 during the war. He later moved to the Matilda for the Borneo campaigns
The aviation industry in Australia was much the same, we basically had to build everything from scratch. it's quite remarkable. There is a early version AC 1 at a local museum near me quite a extraordinary vehicle.
Love your channel man . we need to spread the word , the American tech tree needs this tank.
@@texasdeeslinglead2401 We don't need, Mr. Fletcher mentioned the A.C.IV with 17 pdr, which is in War Thunder in the British tree.
“red back spiders crawling about in it”
man i love david’s humor.
Good on the Aussies for getting it together and building them, even if they were not needed in the end.
David adds so much to these videos. Cracking narration and his wicked sense of humour.
Many thanks.
He's a true legend isn't he Ritchie.
It figures that the Australian tank would have a cod piece.
That obscene MG housing, he knows it... David Fletcher clearly knows it.
Yay! for us!! [AU] There is one at The Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria, and one at The Armour and Artillery Museum, Cairns, Queensland, as well if you can't get to Bovvie...
Do you happen to know how long the one at Pucka has been there?
Australian industrial genius that even the British hadn't solved like mounting a 17 pdr. All home made.
Yup. A year before the Brits and in fact the guy who got the gun in the firefly had been in australia observing the sentinel trials of the 17pdr
What an extraordinary tank, and an extraordinary Australian engineering achievement in wartime.
The Australian wartime tank-building experience was one argument for the government to heavily subsidise an indigenous car manufacturing industry after the war, as a strategic manufacturing capability.
Many billions of dollars of public subsidies later, that industry is now defunct.
In spite of having a far larger and more advanced economy nowadays, I doubt that Australia could manufacture a modern Main Battle Tank even if it wanted to.
Australia makes some pretty good armoured motorised infantry vehicle (the Bushmaster), but a modern MBT is way out of its league to make nowadays.
It just emphasises what a massive achievement the Sentinel was in its day. It’s a pity that it isn’t better known.
2 years too late, but I think we'd have the engineering and systems integration skills and assuming we'd use componnets e.g. gun sensors and ballistic computer I think we could design, integrate and build it, but we it wouldn't make sense to do it economically - even the bigboys are finding new tank development very very expensive.
Fletcher is an absolute legend.
I wrote my dissertation on 79th Armoured and knocked around the archives at Bovington in his presence, I was too shy at the time to say hello.
Tank Designers: We need a machine gun for the middle.
Tank Crew: Can you make it look like a ding dong?
Tank Designers: We can but it's not practical. It'll be interesting and good laugh.
I am always fascinated by the possibilities of what might of happened IF ONLY WE treated the Commonwealth As equals in grace and standing
One of the best Tank Chats yet, and for the record, Tank Chats are the best CZcams videos of all.
Thanks Harold. Lovely to hear you enjoy watching Tank Chats so much. If you haven't already, you may wish to support our channel on Patreon. Thanks again! www.patreon.com/tankmuseum
Sentinel is one of my fav tanks. I love its design.
If you want to go waving around your military might, this tank should be your mascot.
I give anything to spend the day with him walking around the museum.
I bet if you give substantial donation to the museum they would be willing to arrange private tour with Mr. Fletcher for you. Please post it to CZcams afterwards, we would like to see that! 😃
Get in line lmao
WOW... That thing could mount the 17 pounder, damn thing could put a Panther or a Tiger out of action... geeezz
Nice One and Respect to Master Fletcher!
Compare the AC1 to the Japanese Type 97 Chi Ha. Had they been used, the AC1s would have given the Japanese tanks a very bad time.
of course the japanese would've given them a bad time as well, well mostly through anti tank guns rather than tanks, though i guess it depends on the japanese tank you want to throw at it
Most of the Japanese tanks that would've given AC1 a hard time were retained for defending the home islands. Ha-go and Chi-ha would struggle to penetrate almost anything, including the AC1. Chi-ha kai with the 47mm gun is probably the one Japanese tank used outside the home islands that would've been somewhat evenly matched against it. Assuming there isn't a significant difference in ergonomics that is. I honestly have no idea which tank's more ergonomical, because I haven't seen what the Japanese tanks are like on the inside. I do however know that the Chieftain definitely didn't like the Sentinel one bit, so I struggle to imagine how the Chi-ha could've been much worse.
@@Zagskrag well if we make a scenario where the sentinel was out in combat we might as well include those of the Japanese that didn't see combat fight as well
If we’re including tanks that were built but never deployed I would’ve like liked to see this and the T95/28 (whichever way you like) deployed side by side. Nothing like two bizarre oddities of WWII hanging out with one another.
Given that the Sentinel had armour comparable to the M4, and was easily up gunned to the 25 pounder (which worked very well againt Panzer IVs), I would bet very heavily against the Chi Ha or Shinhoto Chi Ha. And don't forget, the AC3 was ready to go into production a year and a half before the Type 1.
I didn't know that we built a tank. I never looked into it but I've a long interest in Military. Amazing when such a relevant hole in ones knowledge is filled so quickly. Thanks to Fletcher. Timeless.
That intro, brilliant. Once you see it, Australians have a great sense of humour.
The Australians called it the Sentinel. Mr. Fletcher calls it the Australian Cruiser And more of us call it the Australian Phallus tank or "Dickie" for short. My, how rude.
Dickie is rather British, though I think they would call it a Codpiece.
Australian diggers would have called it, fitted with a 25 pounder; let alone the 17 pounder, the Long and Short Donger
A bit late, but howabout 'the Schlong', and the later models can be called 'the Schlongless'
The *Dingo's Dong* is probably the most Australian thing about this tank.
The Aussies are VERY happy to see you.
That double barrelled beast sent me back to Vracks....
*Excited gas mask noises*
Nice. Never heard of these. Looks like a good design. A somewhat larger gun might be indicated, maybe a 57 mm or so. I bet this tank would have done well in North Africa if the Aussies had been able to take them. The water cooled MG is a good idea, in case u need to do sustained fire against infantry or bunkers. Very nice job by the Aussies. It even has certain aesthetic innovations, shall we say.
Speculating, designer comes back from Oodnadatta and thinks that water cooled all round in an enclosed box could be a decent idea.
This was the follow up design, not put into production but the prototype was preserved and is now at the Australian War Memorial: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_tank
If there are red backed spiders inside....no one dares move it !! This achievement says a lot about the British tank production policy.
I'm impressed. The Australians have a lot to be proud about this tank. The Australians deserve a tip of my American Ballcap and a drinking of a glass of bourbon in their honor tonight.
The carburetors had to be imported for the USA. When the US government refused supply and sufficient and much cheaper US tanks became available Australian tank production came to an end. There is a mock AC3(17lb). A private individual purchased unused hull and turret castings. Other parts came came for used AC1 and AC3 parts and a complete tank was produced at the now defunct private Melbourne Tank museum at Narre Warren .
Mr. Fletcher is as remarkable as this tank. His way of talking is lovely.
Never mind MBE. After that joke I knight him Sir David Fletcher.
So this is actually a pretty darn good tank.
How can you not subscribe after watching this great guy telling in such a passionate way.
So happy to have a new David Fletcher video despite the rude forward machine gun.
Main advantage to an indigenous design is even though you spend a lot of money on various factors, most of that money goes back into your own economy. Secondary advantage is developing skills on that field in case its necessary.
Bloody good job for a nation's first ever attempt at a tank, I say.
David suggested it would be great to see the Sentinel up and running. This would be absolutely awesome. But probably not in the near future. As an Australian I come to see that.
I think there's a running example at Pukapunyal.
Whatever day: Tank Chat = Happy Day!
The use of a water cooled MG was necessitated by the refusal of allies to supply a suitable air cooled MG. As to the comment that Australia used Shermans, no, and other American tanks were used for training purposes only. The tank of choice against the Japanese was the Matilda.
Oh Fletcher. You dear man. Never stop doing the things you do.
That looks a bit like a flaccid stug with french tracks and Russian turret. I kinda like it.
Three V8's though, that must have been a pain to get working.
Three American V8s was probably still a more reliable powertrain than any single British tank engine of the pre-Meteor era. ;)
The advantage of the triple engine layout is that if something goes "bang!" as tends to happen to engines during wars conducted in less mechanically sympathetic environments, you still have 2/3rds of your power available.
First completely cast hull, first turreted tank to mount a 17pdr (1 year earlier then the firefly). The design notes when discussing the tank design said the tank must have a turret ring big enough to up gun with future weapons. This is why they were able to mount the 17 pdr and they even had discussions about the 3.7 inch gun most commonly known as the 32 pdr on the tortoise.
I can never click on a David felcher video fast enough
Pardon me?
That's an entirely different channel, lol.
I see a Tank chat with David Fletcher its an automatic like although I wonder how many of those water coolers for the machine gun would have been painted the end of it purple if it had ever seen action as it would be a far too obvious a joke and soldiers do love thier jokes
As as Australian I can pretty much guarantee that blow machine gun shape was not an accident 😂
Fletcher you are a National treasure. To bad I live in America. We love ya!
I believe the logic of the front machine gun design is we all know that the "gerry's don't like it up 'em"
Tiberiotertio In 1941, the Australian army was considerably more active in North Africa where tanks were more commonly utilised than the pacific.
@@MrDiggityaus fair enough.
Actually the top speed of the Sentinel Mk3 was 42mph, which is very fast for a WWII tank and their range bettered any other. But the tanks weren’t very well funded as Australia was instead focussed on aircraft and landing craft production for the Pacific War against Japan.
Mr. Fletcher, you are a national treasure. Thank you for giving this tank it's actual due.
Glad you enjoyed the Tank Chat! Be sure to check out our others on our channel!
Always look forward to David Fletcher's dry sense of humour sprinkled throughout his videos. Rude? I really wouldn't know what they mean...
It wouldn't be Fosters. As the tanks were only ever meant to be used in Australia, they would have filled that can with proper beer.
Really? What a terrible thing to do to a Youngs or a Fullers!
They had a water tank built into the rear of the turret, and a rudimentary air cooling system. That's where I'd store the James Squire.
"proper beer", you mean Tooheys or Coopers?
By proper beer I mean anything an Aussie likes. It's a big country, plenty of room for many different amber brews. But one thing every Aussie agrees on is that Fosters is only for export, let the world think that is the best we can do.
Bundy, then if they needed to top up they would have been a faster tank with a crew ready to fight anyone.
"Come on mate, you wanna have a go! Cop a load of that from the donger!"
Well one of my favourite videos from David - such enthusiasm and dry wit.
In it's time and place a remarkable achievement. I love the twin 25 pounder variant, even if it was just a one off experiment, that would have been quite a sight to see on any battlefield.
I love this guys knowledge combined with his opinion on tanks 👍🏽
Good to hear you enjoy DF's Tank Chats Barry
I have a lot more respect for this outro about supporting the tank museum....not all of us have money to be able to spare for patreon.....
Wow a positive video on the Sentinel!
Brilliant aussie engineering, great video
He looks always like a slightly confused cloud.
What a great tank chat, I didn't know that we Aussies built a natively-designed tank and certainly not as the first ever attempted! The test rig with the twin 25-pounders looks hilariously cool, like a genuine land battleship. Quite useless as an actual tank no doubt, but might have made for a pretty devastating SPG if there was time to refine the design before those guns became obsolete. Could have been the most awesome looking thing on the battlefield for a little while!
A rather interesting video.... One of the few I watched fully from beginning to end!!! "That's not a can of Fosters"!! That comment in it self made me donate to his Patreon acct and subscribe to his CZcams channel. If I ever go to Australia I really want to meed this guy!!
Mr Fletcher's faked naivety at the start of the video is golden. Lol.
They did a good job considering where they are in the world. and the resources they had for such industry. It looks as good as any of it's peers early war. Thanks for the upload.
Under the circumstances, it was a remarkable achievement by Australia and quite versatile as well.
What a pity it never saw was service.
If anyone gets down to Australia, I highly recommend a visit to the Australian Armour Museum in Cairns, Queensland. They have two AC1's, one with the 17 pounder mockup turret. Plus about 150 other tanks, artillery pieces and armoured cars. Well worth a visit.
Well considering their Australian and considering the Australians I know, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it on purpose lol
can you imagine running around wot or wt with twin 25 pounders....?....man, that would cause some freakin DERPS.
Thank you. I have always had a great respect here for in NZ for Australia’s achievements with this tank. It was interesting to recently discover that the Sentinel 17 pdr technical package was given to the British, enabling them to speedily develop the Sherman Firefly conversion.
Use of a water cooled front MG was forced on the designers because an air cooled MG was not available, well they were in the US but our good allies were not keen on Australia building tanks, we were supposed to buy Murrican. Which basically didn't happen anyway because the Matilda was found to be the most suitable against the Japanese.
What a super tank , well done me old down under chums.
There's also an emplacement clearing variant similar to the flamethrower tank, but with a spider hose instead that sprayed out a stream of spiders into trenches and pillboxes.
Or a snake throwing variant for the middle east
That was a kind assessment. The original AC1 was built with help from Pierre but also drawing on Australian experience with British cruisers and Matilda tanks in North Africa. A cruiser 3 was even sent to Australia to study. Consequently the AC1 was a very cramped tank internally and the turret ring was much too small. Nicholas Moran had a difficult time getting through one with his 6'4 frame. However the turret ring was on a seperate casting and was soon changed to a 60 inch ring as per the ShermanTank. A new mk 3 turret was also developed. This turret had a bustle and could mount the 83mm 25 pounder (produced with a longer barrel and super charge for tank use) or the 17 pounder. At the same time, the triple engine arrangement was redesigned with triple blocks mounted around a single crank shaft becoming a 330 hp multi bank engine.(Pierre Caddilac). The hull machine gun was discontinued, the slope on the fron armour was increased and armour thickened to 75mm but typically 80 after casting. This tank became the Mk3 Thunderbold .
The AC1was really nothing more than a prototype that lead to the AC3. If the USA had not been able to supply M3 grants, then the AC3 would have gone into production and AC1 hulls would have been upgraded with the bigger turrets and turret rings.