Yep, agreed.
How much torque should it have? and how much faster would it propel the MBT than the current disaster?
CV12:
Torque:
1200hp rating → 4035 nm
(1500hp rating → 5318nm)
Leopard 2 MTU:
1500hp → 4700nm
Torque difference: 16%
HP difference: 25%
Torque matters most for low speeds, but as the CV12 has comparitvely higher torque than HP, it would benefit it to model torque.
With the CV12 and MTU both rated at 1500hp, the CV12 significantly outperforms the MTU engine in terms of torque with the same HP for both. Then the Challenger 2 would accelerate noticably faster ingame.
Modelling the torque would not increase the top speed at all, that is dependant on the transmission, but it would improve the acceleration. It would make the tank more responsive and faster to start moving from a stop especially. I also imagine it would improve the neutral traverse speed.
Theres the document for the CV12 engine specs, im not sure if they’ve changed for the CV12-9A but it should be similar
Horsepower is calculated using torque.
The formula is:
(torque x RPM) / 5252
If we apply this for the CV12:
The torque must be in ft/lb.
(4035nm = 2976 ft/lb)
(2976 x 2300) / 5252 = ~1303 Horsepower for the CV12
This actually matches relatively close to the 1296bhp (DIN) listed in several Challenger 1 brochures for the CV12.
8 Likes
Would also help it a lot on hills right?
Yeah it would help with
- Hill climbing
- Accelerating from a stop
- Neutral steering
- Low speed acceleration in general
Which imo is mostly what makes the Challengers feel sluggish, their high end speed is actually not bad
1 Like
Yep. What could be if Gaijin actually modeled things with at least a little effort
They could solve it without modelling torque by increasing the horsepower to the 1296 BHP (1314ps) figure listed on the Challenger 1 documents.
That would both be historical as its listed in documents and essentially model the torque, as then their would only be around a 14-15% difference in HP between 1314 and 1500, rather than the 25% difference between 1200 and 1500.
That much more closely matches the torque difference.
Yep… but gotta wait the pre-requisite 18 months for that
only 18 months, thats optimistic for gaijin lol
The real issue comes from the fact gaijin has modelled the driving characteristics of all tanks ingame to be way too simple, horsepower means everything and the other huge factors from real life are completely ignored. They haven’t even modelled regenerative steering.
Its just a pre-requisitie. The minimum time. I doubt it will ever be changed :D
Me neither, im just coping we get renegerative steering sooner rather than later
Im dreading it being added piecemeal. So some will get it straight away, others waiting a few updates. Like they did with fuel dumping, internal modules, etc
I imagine it will be done like that, it will be quite a big job for gaijin and not all tanks ingame should have access to it.
I’d just hope they’d start with top tier tanks first, as they’ve done with the modules, as they’re the most affected.
Proper torque modelling + Regen steering would make me interesting in playing top tier again,
it would also help vehicles a lot that have torque converters for them to be modelled, much nipper starts and not coming to a halt the second you hit steer
god it’d be nice to get my chally 2 TES faster than a sherman on the regular, oh and the chieftains, and churchills. some of the vehicles worst effected by the lack of regen/double diff steering implemented in game (code exists, just give it gaijin even if it isn’t perfect)
3 Likes
Uhhhh, so the chellenger 3 with all packages mightclock in at nearly 80t weight?
does it completely cover the LFP?
Uh given they can’t get the BHP correct take that article with a massive grain of salt, plus just kinda doesn’t understand what they’re talking about?
Just some points Imma pick at:
“As such, even though the Perkins CV12 power pack has been upgraded to generate about 1,100bhp”
The CV12-6A power pack in CR2 was rated to 1200BHP, this is widely known information.
“Defence Eye has been told that there have been “fit and form” engineering tests of a totally new MTU Euro Pack with a Renk transmission for Challenger 3 – higher power, a better logistics option – but cost-cutting ruled it out for the CR3 programme. As an aside, MTU is owned by Rolls-Royce, and Renk has a UK subsidiary, Horstmann, so this could have been presented as a flag-waving, patriotic option!”
The CV12-9A has 1500BHP tunings available[1], but much like MTU would need major reworkings of the hull rear (See Challenger 2E), which the MOD don’t want to fund at this time as it would require the CRARRV to be modified as well, so it’s basically pointless to bring up anyway. I’ll add there’s no indication from where this comment has come from, for all we know it could come from this thread lmao.
“The extra weight for CR3 has bemused a variety of observers: “why buy Trophy Active Protection System (APS), but then add more armour – the whole point about an APS is to replace add-on armour”, was a very common comment.”
Because APS are costly (The UK Gov is only buying 60 of them[2]), and have limitations for minimum range. Additionally Challenger 2 had multiple fit levels depending on what the expected conflict was going to be (the TES we have in game for example is intended for urban combat against infantry in COIN operations). The Abrams and Leopard’s do this too.
“Could the current Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) take an CR3 that is nearly 80t? “Officially”, it can take up to 90t, but as Defence Eye has noted, the replacement system has a higher loading weight – a sign that things are not going well for British armour…”
More errors: We only have the minimum - 85t [3] which is lower than the articles maximum for for the current HET, which actually has a maximum loading weight of 63.5t[4]. Not that anyone would be moving a tank with full add-on armour on anyway.
" Will even the upgraded Dry Support Bridge … be able to take an 80t+ CR3…? Defence Eye hears that the 76.4t “not to exceed” weight was driven mainly by this."
By all accounts probably? I’m going to have to explain how bridging weights are defined: In NATO a bridge has two ratings the tracked weight, and the wheeled weight, these are then given in US/short tons as “MLC”, so for example, the current Trojan Bridge Launcher can manage a rating MLC85 [5] for tracked vehicles. According to the US (So take it with a grain of salt) the Challenger 2 has a MLC rating of 71-99 depending on armour configuration [6]. While MLC is not linear with weight increase[9], their high MLC for CR2 is based on a 75t configuration, not too far off the 80t max weight quoted by the article. The per the US the basic Dry Support Bridge is MLC100 for tracked vehicles[7], and KDNS list a MLC120 on their own product page[8]. Which should manage all but the heavies of CR3 configurations.
" …“I know that they’ve cannibalised a slack handful”, said one source – is a fraction of that. “Maybe 20 on a good day”, said the source, adding that this fleet has been run down."
They don’t actually specify the source, which isn’t surprising when you find out the author side gigs writing scaremongering for the daily mail and has generally made a career being the reddit comments for whatever the MOD has done recently.
The article then goes off pontificating about other things the MoD is doing wrong, but I cba to waste any more time on this nothing burger of an article, I’m going to go make dinner or something instead.
References, admittedly not always the strongest of sources, but I can’t be bother wasting more time on this:
[1] “1000-1500 hp” - https://docs.tuyap.online/FDOCS/22431.pdf
[2] “60 active protection systems (APS) to be shared across the fleet.” - Britain’s next tank may be already ‘near obsolescence’ (A much better article about the issues with CR3)
[3] “minimum threshold of eighty-five (85) metric tonnes” - Materiel Distribution Land (MDL) Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) PME RFI - Find a Tender
[4] “The HETS is used to load, unload, … heavy tracked/wheeled vehicles weighing up to 140,000
lbs (63 560 kg)” - https://www.oshkoshequipment.com/products/spec/M1070%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf
[5] “with a load capacity of up to Military Load Classification (MLC) 85” - https://www.defenseadvancement.com/projects/titan-armoured-vehicle-launcher-bridge-avlb/
[6] Page 2, Table 2: Challenger 2 Configurations Used for Study - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1076382.pdf (DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited)
[7] “Military Load Classification (MLC) | Normal 100 (T)” - ODIN - OE Data Integration Network (ALL CONTENT PROVIDED ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTION: A, APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.)
[8] “With its 120 Military Load Classification (MLC) rating” - DRY SUPPORT BRIDGE (DSB) | KNDS Group
[9] if you want to read more about MLC ratings and how they are calcuated this is a wordy, but decent explanation - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1151141.pdf (DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited)
oops I wrote a wall of text?
sorry!
6 Likes
Lessons learned from Ukraine
APS can only do so much to FPV drones
Yup, though there is work to fix that. For example, newer versions of Trophy supposedly can intercept certain types of drones now. I was however more referring to minimum engagement ranges and IEDs etc. I imagine a sufficiently close RPG or something would get through too as the system needs time to categorise and engage the projectile.
Ultimately no tank in the world would survive what is happening in Ukraine.
The tank needs support it needs infantry/scouts to find where drones are operating from and to deal with any ATGM ambush teams.
It needs long range fire support
It needs an EW support to jam any drones that do make it through.
And it needs the APS system to protect from anything that gets through these layers.
Ukraine war is the perfect example of if one of these elements are missing you lose the tank