That is FAR closer to the single-plane stabilizer than to what we have currently in game
Whilst not perfect, it would certainly be significantly beneficial, from anything such as coming to a stop, firing (which leaves the tank misaligned with the target currently as-is) or accelerating, or even moving at extremely low speeds, your gun still gets tossed out of place hard
This system would mean a vast improvement over current gameplay, as, if you’ve ever touched a Surbaisse, you’d know how easily they get thrown out of place, and how long it takes for the gun to focus again
Except the reason those things happen isn’t because the turret itself is being thrown out of the way, it’s because the gunner is trying to automatically adjust the turret when the hull (and consequently the turret) get thrown around.
When you come to a stop, the hull of your tank gets thrown forward and your turret dips below your crosshair, so the gunner tries to automatically adjust the gun upwards, but shortly after the hull returns back to its original position, and Voilà: the turret is now aiming above where it was supposed to due to the automatic adjustment of the gunner.
The exact same thing (but in the opposite direction) happens when you fire your gun: the hull gets thrown backwards, the gunner tries to depress the gun to adjust, and when the hull returns back to its position the gun is now under where you want to aim, because the gunner tried to adjust automatically.
All your examples are due to the gunner himself trying to automatically adjust the gun back into the crosshair. It has nothing to do with what this system actually corrects for.
Now we’re getting into the territory of lame excuses. If the system is made to detect rough terrain and compensate for the turret’s movement, why can it not do that at all in the game. Or when you fire and it compensates. In-game it cannot do that. No matter the level of your crew
It is missing this system. It should benefit from it.
Honestly, not considering it’s missing two historical features, the AMX-50 Surbaissé is incredibly stable specially at medium speeds around 30 Km/H, and the 20 mm wouldn’t do much since, for some reason french 20 mm autocannons are a garbage.
Surblindé ≠ Surbiassé.
I have a question, is the suspension balance correct in War Thunder? I mean, because tanks like the AMX13, AMX30, M18, etc., have very soft suspension, which means it takes several seconds to aim the cannon.
When you stop the vehicle and try to aim, it’s not slow because of the suspension but the vertical speed controls. Vehicles like you cited are extremely stable and can deal with targets easy at close distances while on the move.
Yeah, even the most worthless 20mm would still be lethal against unarmored rats and helos, and miles ahead of the coaxial peashooter installed right now. Always thought this was ridiculous given the massive size of that thing.
The system doesn’t detect rough terrain. It detects when the turret changes elevation in relation to the hull (presumably when it does so without gunner input).
In other words, if you’re in rough terrain and your hull is going up and down, left and right, the system does not compensate for ANY of that, unlike the M4 gyrostabilizer which at least compensates for the up and down movement of the hull itself.
Ok, let’s agree that yes, it could have some sort of system modeled, even as full vertical stabilizition. The 30 km/h that is suggested on the report is ludicrous.
1 Like
Even if its just stable when it stops instead of bouncing up and down, up and down again, and again, I’d be happy. Its genuinely ridiculous as it is right now
I think I’d be fine with a speed limit akin to what you see on shoulder stabilized guns on things like the British 57 mm armed tanks. The Churchill Mk.III, for example, has vertical stabilization that works up to 10 km/h.
Anything close to 20 km/h is too much, in my opinion.
2 Likes
10kmh is enough, I just genuinely hate how something with this shock absorber system in place gets yeeted to aim at the International Space Station because it touched the reverse gear for 0.01s
Would be interesting to see an ~8.3 AMX-50.
Considering it was reported as a single axis stabilization and a 20 mm autocannon wouldn’t affect battle rating.
Oscillating turret vehicles are very stable while on the move and adding a proper stabilizator should cause no advantage for the vehicle.
On this logic, M4A1 Sherman should also be a higher battle rating, while it had a roof-mounted heavy machine gun.
Maybe it could be 8.0, but there is zero chance it would be 8.3 unless it got HEAT of some sort (which I doubt it ever used). But that also depends on how effective the stab is.
1 Like
The M4 Sherman is higher than non-stabilized tanks of equal armor and gun.
well 1st off. You need to make It a suggestion for it to even be a valid contender for consideration.
2nd. I think it would go up to 8.3 if it was added which I would not enjoy. Its already better than the M103 gun wise. we are lucky its 7.7 still.
Its just bumping up an already suggested change
the suggestion is on the old forum. I dont see you linking the new one here
No. This was already reported and is (still) pending. I tried making a suggestion for a 20mm mod for the Surbaisse for example, however was told that it’s supposed to be a bug report, which was already made.
I guess the same counts for this stabilizer.
I’ll try to make a bug report for this if possible, but I’ll ask first if it’s even possible to make one
3 Likes
