Why do tanks accelerate so slow? (RB)

[Gord]

The tanks in this game act as if their engines have been left to rust in the rain for 10 years, drained for oil and then put back in the tank. If you've ever seen the tanks in this game drive in real life you'll know what im talking about. The t-34-85 for an example driving 10kmh up a small hill is just painfully unrealistic. Look at some ww2 footage of it, there is a video of it driving up hill in half a meter snow at 30-40kmh while towing 10 guys on skiis after it.

[83athom]

Escrito originalmente por Rommell8:

idk..but realistic is so much slower than arcade ..it is to painfull for the 10 min wait it takes to get your heavy tank to the frontline. I never play RB cause of the speed specificly

In AB everything has its engine power increased by 50%.

Escrito originalmente por Orjanx98:

Escrito originalmente por 83athom:

Some are, others arnt. Some are even slowed down (aircraft guncams).

Which is why i said 30-40kmh. Some of the soldiers on skiis falls over and the distance they slide in the snow does not represent slowness.

And that one in particular was speed up, not slowed down... is this hard?

Escrito originalmente por Orjanx98:

Escrito originalmente por 83athom:

Acceleration =/= top speed.

The speed is accurate on flat surface in this game but not the acceleration to get up to top speed. And top speed uphill nor the acceleration uphill is accurate.

No, acceleration in RB is quite accurate to IRL performance. You got to remember that the main determinant to is acceleration is is Horsepower per ton (HP/t). Cars around then could get 200-300 HP/t, while the average tank got about 20 hp/t.

Escrito originalmente por Orjanx98:

EDIT: Its like the driver is gently tapping the pedal when in reality you can rev the engine to the limit and throw it into gear which will either make the tank shoot forwards or spin and get stuck in the mud depending what terrain you drive on.

False. Very false. Try to do that in a Tiger (or most German heavy tanks and TDs) and it litteraly will burst into flames. You can do that in more modern tanks with Turbine engines, but not WWII and post-war era tanks with Radial or V engines.

Escrito originalmente por Orjanx98:

Escrito originalmente por AK Rowling:

Actually it isn't, it's probably much quicker than it would be irl. The top speed for most vehicles are the values on road. In reality none of these vehicles would get even close to that speed in nearly any kind of off-road terrain. Only on hard surfaces in ideal conditions would they reach the speed they can reach in the game.

Not correct, don't forget that tanks use tracks which will make them slide alot more on a hard surface like roads. Off-road is where tanks do their magic, thats where their tracks get put to work and really digs into the ground increasing the grip.

And tracks aren't magic devices that let vehicles go rediculous speeds off-road. They were good off-road due to their vastly lower ground pressures than tires, which let them not sink into the ground. Tracks still met a lot of resistance when moving, vastly more so than tires, because of the massive surface area of the tracks.

[Stridswombat]

Escrito originalmente por Orjanx98:

The speed is accurate on flat surface in this game but not the acceleration to get up to top speed. And top speed uphill nor the acceleration uphill is accurate.

Escrito originalmente por 83athom:

No, acceleration in RB is quite accurate to IRL performance. You got to remember that the main determinant to is acceleration is is Horsepower per ton (HP/t). Cars around then could get 200-300 HP/t, while the average tank got about 20 hp/t.

Top speed, however, is not accurate in the game. The top speed is only accurate when driving on road. In any kind of off-road terrain, particularly some of the worse terrain in the game, they wouldn't be reaching that speed. That speed was only attainable on road in good weather. Power to weight ratio isn't the only thing that matter either. Both the suspension design and track width also affect it. Wider tracks spread out the weight better, letting the tank sink down less and reducing resistance to the tracks. Some suspension designs, like the Christie suspension, was more geared towards speed than others.

Escrito originalmente por 83athom:

And tracks aren't magic devices that let vehicles go rediculous speeds off-road. They were good off-road due to their vastly lower ground pressures than tires, which let them not sink into the ground.

Well, tracks still sink in. We're dealing with several tons of metal with all of that weight pushing down on a relatively small surface area, after all. Tracks just sank in less and was more ideal for navigating differences in terrain than wheels were. It's the whole reason they started using them to begin with. Tracked vehicles could bridge a trench, but a wheeled vehicle would get stuck.

Many of the wheeled vehicles that can drive very quickly off-road in the game was barely capable, if at all, of driving off-road in the first place and were mostly restricted to road travel.

The greyhound for example is quite fast off-road in the game, but is infamous for having poor off-road performance irl, even though it was an excellent scout vehicle as long as it was able to stay on the road.

[DasaKamov]

"Don't use the roads, you'll slide around everywhere! Stick to rough, uneven terrain where we're faster,"

...said no tanker in the history of real-world warfare, ever.

[Stridswombat]

Escrito originalmente por DasaKamov:

"Don't use the roads, you'll slide around everywhere! Stick to rough, uneven terrain where we're faster,"

...said no tanker in the history of real-world warfare, ever.

Yup. Tanks are heavy. With all that metal pressing down, there's very little room for sliding around. Particularly metal tracks resting on a hard surface that would create a lot of friction for them if they tried to go sideways.

[NovasGoSuper]

Dude it’s a tank. Tanks are armored, it could way 45 tons do want to know how many pounds that’s is. So of course the tanks are going accelerate slowly

[NovasGoSuper]

Also it depends on how step the hill is bro

[DasaKamov]

Escrito originalmente por AK Rowling:

With all that metal pressing down, there's very little room for sliding around. Particularly metal tracks resting on a hard surface that would create a lot of friction for them if they tried to go sideways.

Even disregarding the physics of it all -- every. single. time. any armored division has had to reach somewhere under their own power in a hurry, they've driven along pre-existing roadways whenever possible. ;)

[Stridswombat]

Yeah it just makes sense. Little chance to get stuck. Faster movement. Reduced strain on the tracks and engine. More comfortable not having to drive accross all the bumps off-road for the crew.

[Rommell8]

Escrito originalmente por DasaKamov:

Escrito originalmente por AK Rowling:

With all that metal pressing down, there's very little room for sliding around. Particularly metal tracks resting on a hard surface that would create a lot of friction for them if they tried to go sideways.

Even disregarding the physics of it all -- every. single. time. any armored division has had to reach somewhere under their own power in a hurry, they've driven along pre-existing roadways whenever possible. ;)

its basic physics.. a vehical canno tgo faster on a rough surface with more friction points

[Broadsword]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, guys.

Don't pretend the way War Thunder currently is with tanks is realistic.

They nerfed the ♥♥♥♥ out of maneuverability because of the M18 Hellcat. Know your War Thunder Ground Forces history.

It has nothing to do with realism, don't defend it based off of realism, it has everything to do with players complaining about maneuverability in tank destroyers, i.e., a class of vehicles doing literally what it was supposed to do, DESIGNED to do.

I love being able to tell who has played this game for a long time enough time to see GF evolve. Spoiler: no one in this thread.