The same study literally said “Hydrogas suspension due to their inherent non-linear behaviour can provide higher mobility and better ride comfort performance…”, I have just sent that extract.
Dampening is defined as “The process of controlling the oscillations or movement of the vehicle’s suspension system”, as we see from the diagram the hull and suspension movements with hydrogas are less extreme, therefore the dampening is better.
“Effective dampening reduces the amplitude and frequency of these oscillations”, once again we see the amplitude of the occilations is lower, so the dampening is better. The frequency is the same, but I assume this is controlled.
This contradicts the German study but actually provides us with real data (as you asked for), so I will go with the study I provided.
Not like BMP-1s suspension has just 4 hydraulic dampeners (2 on each side), and thus the total package is outright worse than it’d be if the vehicle were using Hydrogas instead, where each hydropneumatic suspension arm double-acts as a shock absorber (4 dampeners vs 12, can you imagine the difference?).
In the German document they assume an equal amount of dampeners on each side, leveling out the field in the process.
Maximum suspension travel is only really going to be relevant across extremely rough terrain, yes it is useful, but the vast majority of the time the tank will not be hitting its suspension travel limit. The suspension systems are also completely different, so maximum travel can mean different things for both.
The hydrogas suspension of the Challenger 2 is also adjustable and dependant on operating temperature etc… so that 450mm figure can change significantly dependant on conditions.
I’ve tried looking myself and can’t find exact figures for the Leo 2 and Chally 2 suspension travel, where did you get those numbers from?
The 450mm figure is the maximum travel Challenger’s 2nd generation hydrogas suspension offers. Yes, it is temperature dependent and thus it will only ever reach this figure under the highest of temperatures, under normal conditions, the suspension travel is unlikely to exceed 350mm, making it overall worse than Leopard 2s swing arm and torsion system when it comes to high-speed cross-country travel due to far lower bump + rebound limits.
I’ve tried looking myself and can’t find exact figures for the Leo 2 and Chally 2 suspension travel, where did you get those numbers from?
Ok, let me dumb this real down for you. The suspension on the challengers allow them to utilize the horspower more efficiently while going over rough terrain, thus allowing for a faster, and more stable ride. This is not some wonder technology that only we have access to, all it does is allow the challenger to have simialr (sometimes better) performance off road compared to something like the leo. This isnt a massive difference as irl tanks wouldn’t go more than 50kmh (im not even sure they would go this fast) on rough terrain as thats how you completely destroy your suspension (plus, its alot harder to spot dips in the terrain while inside a tank).
You come and say it does nothing yet give nothing to prove your right? please refrain from feeding us your brainrot any longer than you have to.
I see what you mean, however, the point still stands that the study shows that hydrogas suspension has better performance than just torsion bar suspension.
Does that mean torsion bar based suspension systems (with for example hydraulic dampeners) cannot achieve similar results to hydrogas suspension? No, they can. However, a purely torsion bar based system will be worse than a hydrogas system.
We are not nescessarily comparing just the Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2 for example, where the Leopard 2 has a more complex suspension system than just torsion bars.
There are many tanks ingame, mostly Russian/Chinese, which for sets of wheels they are either entirely or partially just on torsion bars with no dampeners. These types of vehicles should have worse suspension characteristics than more advanced suspension systems, including hydrogas. I cannot see external dampeners on the M1 Abrams, however, they may be internal.
Suspension is a very complex thing, however we can still conclude that tanks that soley or partially rely on purely torsion bar suspension should have worse performance than hydrogas suspension (or more advanced types of torsion bar suspension, including addition of dampeners)
The study also compares the 1960s torsion suspension of the BMP-1 to one of the most modern InArm systems, and it fails to account for the BMP’s suspension having fewer shock absorbers, and they’re likely not even of friction or hydraulic type, despite what I had stated before. As far as I’m concerned, this study cannot be used for making comparisons or stating that hydrogas is “superior” at any level other than in the specific case of the BMP-1.
We are not nescessarily comparing just the Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2 for example, where the Leopard 2 has a more complex suspension system than just torsion bars.
That is kind of my point. Leopard 2 uses a more complex system than a simple swing-arm like the BMP-1, so it can match or, in some cases, outperform hydrogas systems. On top of that, nobody in this day and age designs their suspensions to not use both past and recent developments, such as, for example, the advanced friction dampener system that can be found on the Leopard 2A7V.
To my knowledge, there haven’t been any recent or past studies that compared torsion and hydrogas suspensions in an unbiased way. Our best bet would be, not even gonna lie, to wait for somebody crazy enough to go and make measurements on the Leoaprd 2A7Vs suspension and compare it to the Challenger 3s 3rd generation hydrogas system. These two are the pinnacle of their respective suspension schools of thought, after all.
I cannot see external dampeners on the M1 Abrams, however, they may be internal.
So the M1 Abrams really is an almost entirely torsion bar based system?
it’s complex, but essentially my final point is that tanks ingame have different (and sometimes superior or inferior) suspensions systems, which should be modelled.
Agreed, regenerative steering could genuinely save a lot of British tanks from their currently snails pace gameplay.
I imagine a suspension change could come if they ever decide to make stabilisers more detailed, its not really accurate that the Centurion Mk.2 and Leopard 2A7 have just as good stabilisation as eachother. Suspension effectiveness could not only effect mobility, but also fire accuracy on the move.
Interestingly enough, the CV12 engine actually provides more torque than the MTU engine when both are uprated to 1500hp (around 6% more)
Id ask for a nice CVT Transmission and Regen which would effect a good amount of nations (not russia)
tho now that I think of it does the Chinese have regen…
I cant see them ever making stabs like IRL as soviet and by extension even modern russian stabs are dogshit lmao, if youve ever seen anything but T90M fire on the move then you know.
I thought by modelling autoloaders they might have been actually taking Russian tank’s weaknesses seriously, but no, the autoloaders just eat spall now lol
Who would have thought, shocker. This actually makes me think, do the spall liners on Chally 2s work… uh, continue to work as intended? Asking because Gaijin broke Leopard 2s liners a while ago and still hasn’t fixed them.
Ye that is not what i’m asking for tbh. I haven’t had the opportunity to compare Chally 2s spall cone to 2A7Vs, which is why I’m asking if y’all know if it still works “as intended” (i.e by reducing the angle of the spall cone).
