Have you even read what I had said? Because I thought I made it veryyy clear by pointing out the performance of torsion suspensions can vary from one model to another.
If you also had gone back and re-read the convo we had the day or two before, you would notice that I mentioned the fact Challengers suffer from a lower wheel travel limit of just 450mm - meaning they can’t negate the variation in terrain height without letting a “shock” hit the chassis, as say, a 2A7V with a 526mm wheel travel length.
There’s also the matter of how most torsion based suspension (a lot of the time) lack the necessary amount of dampeners to perform as well as Hydropneumatic suspensions do… wanna know why? Oh gee, it can’t be that Hydrogas systems are an “All-in-One” solution, the dampeners are a part of the it from the start, so you get a vehicle with 12 of them and you’re comparing it to a vehicle with say, 4 of them, that’s where the difference comes from…
Ironically speaking, Merkava outright beats Chally’s suspension because its wheel travel is upward of 600mm, so it doesn’t have to rely on advanced dampeners like Leopard 2s or the Challengers simply cause it has a far larger shock tolerance.
Of course, you can always go the American route and not care about crew comfort or off-road performance, and use only 3 hydraulic shock absorbers…
As far as I can recall, such large wheel travel is possible because the wheels are not physically attached to the suspension arms, right?
I think Merkava’s suspension advantages should also be modelled ingame. When it comes to subpar/underperforming minor nation MBTs, I will ALWAYS be up for changes to improve their gameplay performance.
Honestly… at this point, I am so confused about Challenger 3 (TD), what it should be/have and what it should not be/have… that I am just going to sit back and let others discuss it lmao, I don’t want to talk about something I am not certain about, I don’t want to deal to misinformation or be led by it either.
It also doesn’t help that, sometimes, Gaijin changes prototypes as according to their specifications at the moment of their presentation, while, sometimes, Gaijin changes prototypes as according to the specifications of the final product’s specifications. So it’s quite confusing.
So… yeah, I am not going to talk about 3 (TD)'s controversial points anymore, hahah. Since I no longer even know whether it should have LWS or not, or whatever. All I know for certain is it’s missing the same LFP spall liners as the CR2s (same hull) and it DM63 (since it has no blowout panels, it’s the historical shell it was tested with and the detonation-proof propellant would allow it not to die every time the mantlet is hit).
Like, if the suspension loses contact with the ground, the wheel will travel further down than the suspension arm, and then re-connect when it lands?
I heard something along the lines of it many, many years ago, but I am not certain, hence why I ask. I believe it was from a documentary with IDF tankers, but maybe I am misremembering or it wasn’t accurate.
That… I can’t really answer. I haven’t paid much attention to how Merkava’s suspension deals with the wheels ‘losing’ connection with the ground. However, based on the picture I posted before, i can only assume that the swing-arm is simply angled in such a way, that, it has a wider range of vertical movement, in comparison to fx, a Leo 2:
Ah, it’s the springs that ‘separate’ (or rather, they have never been connected to the wheel in the first place and act more like bump stops) than the wheels.
That isnt the issue here though.
Your speed analogy. Lets give a T-80BVM its diesel engine and make it race a CR2 with a gas turbine…
This is exactly what you are doing with the CR2 hydrogas…you are assuming it’s a bad system.
You have no evidence to prove it isn’t and demand complex engineering calculations to provide you with a tangible metric.
I appreciate that people have other stuff to do apart from talk on the forums, but I’d appreciate if you could provide the sources for the maximum travel of the Leopard and Chally 2 (and any other tanks mentioned if possible) please.
I’ve found tons of contradictory sources, with the Challenger 2’s maximum suspension travel being said to be 300mm in some places and up to 550 in others.
if you did end up DMing me them and I’ve missed it I apologise but I can’t find anything
Gaijin adding the Challenger 3TD and specifically giving it the “Challenger 3” name has been so annoying.
It’s not a Challenger 3, its just a Challenger 2 with a new turret test bed on it. All its done has:
Given people overly high expectations for a tank which isn’t anything special just because of its name.
Convinced a good part of the community that the Challenger 3 is already in the game when it isn’t, the tech demo is very different to the actual prototype.
Made it an absolute hell to bug report as sources for the actual Challenger 3 keep getting confused with the TD.
Naming it “Challenger 3” means it is always going to be at the end of the tree, even though its inferior to the previous Challengers ingame.
It should have came as the “Challenger 2 LEP” as it is in the files or as the “Challenger 2 ATD”. It may seem small, but its just been a pain in the a*se. They rushed to get Britain a “new” top tier tank to match other nations, and basically used the Challenger 3 name as clickbait
I love how Challenger 3 (TD) was suppossed to be U.K’s Rank VIII big deal… but it’s worse than Challenger 2E, Black Night and, in some ways, even basic Challenger 2 lmao
At least give it a 5 second reload and DM63 so that it’s closer to being actually worthy of being an end of the line vehicle and not an equivalent to a vehicle added in 2019… (kinda similar story to SEP and SEPv2, which are no different from the base A2 which also came in 2019).
The only thing’s it has over the base challenger 2 is a better gun/round. I have absolutely no doubt the LWR will be removed, the thermals are hardly a noticeable upgrade, the reload is worse, lack of turret spall liner makes it worse, no blow out panels makes it worse, same mobility makes it equal, the mantlet is less protected seeing as there’s a huge air gap so it worse, There’s essentially no redeeming qualitys of the vehicle other than BIG GUN… Cool I’ll just play the leopard instead because it actually ticks every other box instead. They should never have added the vehicle if they’re going to treat it as the production version.
As an all-nation player, this is just so frustrating to me.
All I want is to be able to have fun with every nation, and for all of them to be reasonabily competitive.
Instead, right now, playing anything but Sweden, Russia, Germany or, to a lesser degree (due to the big nerfs) Japan, just feels like a waste of time.
Every time I try to play France, Israel, U.K or, to a lesser degree, even U.S, I just can’t help but to wonder; “why am I even wasting time with this? I could be playing Sweden/Russia/Germany right now.”
I have way more fun playing the Cheiftain tbh, I’d rather play my leclerc’s or leopards any day, i personally think the abrams are decent especially with the 5 second reload. If i was going to put it in a list of top tier mbts i have played from best to worst it’d easily be the Leo’s, T80s, Abrams, leclerc’s then the challenger 2s last, however if i was to go from my opinion on the vehicles abilities from what I’ve seen it’d be leopards, t80s, type 10s, Abrams, VT4, Merkava, leclerc’s, challenger 2, Ariete’s.
