I tried it on the the FV4005, it seemed a bit more consistent
1 Like
yeah, as far as I’m aware the Chally 2, Leclerc, Type 10 and some other top tier tanks have hydrogas or hydraulic suspenion This provides better offroad performance for the tank, of course not modelled ingame.
Tanks lacking it are the Leopard, Abrams and Russian/Chinese tanks. Modelling suspension better would be the perfect buff for “minor” nations as they use advanced suspension a lot more than the big three.
1 Like
Good :)
Not better, just smoother for the crew.
No it is better
Allows for higher speed off road
Wasn’t done for slight crew comfort
4 Likes
No it doesn’t. A tank with torsion bar can go the same speed off-road as a tank with hydroneumatic suspension. What the hydroneumatic suspension provides is a more stable firing platform when moving on rough terrain and a more comfortable ride for the crew. In the case of some tanks like the Type 10 the height of the suspension can be changed to provide better off-road clearance or better firing angles, but the Challenger 2 does not have such a system.
A revolutionary increase in cross-country mobility? In comparison to what exactly? How much of an increase? This is just vague and unhelpful marketing spiel.
If they are going to model the “advantages” of hydroneumatic suspension, then they will also need to model the disadvantages. Most notably that it will become ineffective when damaged due to the loss of gas, and that’s much more easily damaged due to it sitting on the outside of the tank
1 Like
idk man maybe they can leave out the modeling of it just like auto loaders
1 Like
What you don’t like it is better at cross country and want it to have model so it can be disable
I’m pretty sure torsion bar should far no better against APFSDS
The main disadvantage of Hydrogas is it a little bit more complex and changes due to temps
There is alot things that ain’t modelled
1 Like
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