I think the other guy doesn’t understand, with a better suspension you have more surface area providing traction and thrust (not sure what the exact tem is for Tanks lol) at any one time. So over rough terrain the “smoother” ride will allow the tank to glide over bumps easier, therefore leading to better top speed and acceleration overall. Plus, as it was painfully shown with the ajax, no crew will be willing to go over 10mph cross country in a tank that can quite literally shake you to death. A great example would be the t34, as irl none of them went above 15mph as the suspension was so terrible it simply shook the tank apart let alone the crampt crew.
6 Likes
in that scenario torque
2 Likes
damn, no idea how i forgot that. All the knowledge just kinda falls out after you leave schooling.
2 Likes
Makes firing on the move alot more accurate as well.
3 Likes
How tall are war thunder crew models in general?
183 cm?
With my calculations (first draft).
I used 183 cm as a reference and the average seat plus the incline of the seat to figure out how much height both the commander and gunner occupy.
this image is the reference for the seating.
so the remainder from the gunner to the commander is position to the hull is around 59 centimeters unlike in game the challengers commander does not
they are quite crammed together so the width is probably different also he is quite high up in that seat though its a bad angle.
Hmm, I wonder why the Vickers Mk7 thrashed the Challenger in mobility trials then…
The impact on mobility from what you are describing would be so ridiculously insignificant as to not be worth modelling.
Have you considered the fact one was 10 tons lighter?
5 Likes
what suspension does the ch2e use?
Yes, and it goes to show that the importance of hydropneumatic suspension is basically null compared to power or weight when it comes to mobility.
To be frank, powerpack of Mk7 is stronger.
1 Like
Im impressed at your logic here.
i dont think the original poster is trying to say that a tank that is heavier than the other by 10 tons should be massively more mobile by nature of a certain suspension system, what they ARE trying to say is that its suspension type, which in this case is hydrogas has certain benefits which as a result of not being modeled mean it doesnt have the correct performance off-road.
What YOU are trying to do is dumb this down and then go “but the 10 ton lighter tank with a extra 300HP and better transmission is way more mobile” like yeah no shit that comes free with your 10 tons lighter tank and extra P:W and improved transmission.
2 Likes
Im unsure, id imagine Hydrogas also as it’d require a pretty massive redesign to swap suspension systems.
1 Like
Think about it like this:
You have two indentical rally cars, apart from one has better suspension than the other, which one would you expect to win the race?
The one with better suspension, obviously.
Upgrading suspension means the tank experiences less resistance from obstacles it drives over, even very small ones, when driving offroad the surface is almost always uneven. The tank’s horsepower is therefore used more efficently when driving offroad, making it perform better than an indentical tank but with torsion bars.
Therefore hydrogas suspension would provide comparitively better performance offroad, however on a surface such as road, it would have no effect as the suspension is not needed on the flat surface.
The reason tanks such as the T72, Leopard 2 and Abrams use torsion bars is likely just because they are designed to be produced on a much larger scale than the Chally 2, Type 10, Leclerc etc and torsion bars are cheaper. Torsion bar suspension also requires a lot less maintenance than hydrogas, so easier on logistics. However, in terms of performance, every source I see states that hydrogas is overall superior.
2 Likes
I have not seen any reliable evidence that hydropneumatic suspension provides an improvement to mobility anywhere close to what is being described in this thread, just a lot of vague allusions to “improved offroad performance”.
Implementing this would require an entire overhaul of how suspension works in War Thunder. Not every hydropneumatic suspension system is equal, not every torsion bar suspension system is equal and so on. It would require data on the travel distance of every suspension system for every vehicle in the game. And I am unconvinced that the practical difference it would make would be anywhere near noticeable.
Happy now?
We don’t know exactly how much of a mobility increase it would be, but we do know it provides on, therefore it would be nice to have.
If hydrogas didn’t provide any benefits, it would not be used as its more expensive and requires more maintenance.
2 Likes
Gaijin dosen’t need to model it at such a complex level. Tanks with different suspension systems can simply be given different mobiity modifiers for soft terrain by gaijin, hydrogas and hydropneumatic would provide better modifiers than torsion bar.
Gaijin simplifies many things in War Thunder, for example every tank’s RHA armour has the same values, which is not accurate to real life.
1 Like
Funny tbh. According to the Germans, a mechanical spring with dampeners is actually more efficient cross-country (i.e dampening).
3 Likes
No… these are the exact vague statements I was referring to. I’m sure if I got out of my tank and pushed I can also provide higher mobility…
You’re just being difficult at this point
3 Likes