Thank you very much for sharing this, it’s genuinely appreciated!
This is actually one of the most detailed descriptions of the SABCA fire-control system I’ve seen so far. While it appears to describe the UTFCS family as a whole rather than the specific Leopard 1A5BE implementation, it provides valuable insight into the architecture and capabilities of the system SABCA was offering during the period.
Details from that image:
Category
Details
System Name
UTFCS (Universal Tank Fire Control System)
Manufacturer
S.A.B.C.A. (Société Anonyme Belge de Constructions Aéronautiques)
Type
Complete day/night fire-control system
Computer
Fully digital fire-control computer with built-in test and training capabilities
Primary Capability
Full shoot-on-the-move capability with continuous target tracking and reduced reaction time
Sight Stabilisation
Director-type sight with a 2-axis stabilised head mirror unit
Laser Rangefinder
Integrated Neodymium-YAG laser rangefinder
Day Sight
Integrated within the Laser Visual Unit
Night Sight Options
Interchangeable Image Intensifier Elbow or Thermal Imager Elbow
Commander Controls
Dedicated Commander Control Unit
Ammunition Management
Ammunition Select Unit
Muzzle Reference System
Automatic Muzzle Reference Mirror
Automatic Sensors
Vertical Sensor Unit, Wind Sensor, Gun Position Sensor
Growth Potential
Anti-tank missile tracking
Growth Potential
Anti-helicopter fire-control capability
Growth Potential
Automatic target tracking mode
Growth Potential
Integration of CO₂ laser rangefinder
Major Components
Integrated Gunner’s Sight, Laser Electronic Unit, Computer & System Electronics Unit, Commander Control Unit, Automatic Sensors, Ammunition Select Unit, Muzzle Reference Mirror
Source
International Defence Catalogue 1985/86-II, Group 12 (Fire Control Equipment), p.136
A few particularly interesting details are the fully digital fire-control computer, the 2-axis stabilised head mirror, the interchangeable image intensifier and thermal imaging modules, and the mention of the muzzle reference system. Several of these features later appear in descriptions of the Leopard 1A5BE modernisation programme, so this helps establish some useful context.
The reference to an integrated thermal imager and continuous target tracking is especially interesting given the limited amount of publicly available information on the SAIPH sight.
If you ever come across the 1988/89 edition, it would definitely be worth checking. Since the Leopard 1A5BE prototype was completed in 1988, there’s a good chance a later catalogue might contain an updated entry or even mention the SAIPH system directly.
Thanks again for taking the time to look this up and share it here!
Are you sure this is “missing”?
If the commander has a screen that will allow him to see what the gunner sees through the thermal imager that is not a case of the thermals for the commander sight being missing, the commander just doesn’t have a seperate thermal sight in that case just a duplicate of the gunner’s view.
That is true, and that’s why I haven’t submitted a bug report on the commander thermals yet.
Since the documentation states that the commander could receive the thermal image on a dedicated display, the thermal feed itself was not exclusively tied to the gunner’s eyepiece. If the fire-control system and thermal imager remained functional, one could argue that the thermal image should still be available through the commander’s display even if the gunner became incapacitated.
However, whether War Thunder should represent this as retained gunner thermals, commander thermals, commander override, or some combination of these is ultimately up to the developers. The documentation clearly supports the existence of a commander-accessible thermal feed; the exact gameplay implementation is the part that remains open to interpretation.
The gunner’s sight magnification, however, is much clearer. The available documentation describes thermal sight magnifications of 5.2× and 11.7×, whereas the vehicle currently uses 4.0× and 12.0× in-game, so that is something I intend to bug report.
Furthermore, the actual sight itself indicates a(n optical) zoom from 7.0x / 14.0x:
Ground additions that don’t have line ups, very little actual unique additions, and, as OP has pointed out, they haven’t even added in the BeNeLux ammo
Hello again. I checked if there was some more information on S.A.B.C.A. products. Apart from this marketing image there seems to be more info in “Jane’s Armoured Fighting Vehicle Retrofit Systems 1993-94” page 400-404. Here is a link to the website i found the book on. Client Challenge…_gaMTc0MjAyNTcyMS4xNzgxNDU5MTY5*_ga_Z4ZC50DED6czE3ODE0NTkxNjckbzEkZzEkdDE3ODE0NTkxNjckajYwJGwwJGgw_ga_8KZ8BV0P5W*czE3ODE0NTkxNjckbzEkZzEkdDE3ODE0NTkxNjckajYwJGwwJGgw
(You might want to open it with Brave or TOR since otherwhise its really slow and full of ads).
While Jane’s is generally not considered the most reliable secondary source, it has provided some very useful additional information throughout this investigation.
Thank you again for taking the time to dig through these references and share them here.
What’s particularly interesting is that we now have a Jane’s Armour and Artillery Upgrades 2001–2002 entry specifically covering the Leopard 1A5(BE) thermal imaging sight rather than the more generic SABCA UTFCS. This source directly discusses the Belgian production vehicle and confirms several details already described in the 1991 International Defense Review article.
Most importantly, it provides magnification values for the Leopard 1A5BE’s thermal imaging system.
This creates an even more interesting comparison with the other sources currently available:
Source
System
Magnification
International Defense Review (1991)
Leopard 1A5BE thermal sight
5.2× / 11.7×
Jane’s Armour & Artillery Upgrades (2001–02)
Leopard 1A5BE TIS
8× / 17.4×
SABCA sight illustration
Sight housing markings
7× / 14×
Jane’s AFV Retrofit Systems (1993–94)
Generic SABCA UTFCS
3.4× / 8×
War Thunder (Dev Server)
Leopard 1A5BE
4× / 12×
At this point, there are clearly multiple sets of magnification figures associated with Belgian SABCA fire-control systems. Some of this can likely be explained by different generations of sights, different optical channels (day versus thermal), or Jane’s occasionally mixing information from prototype and production configurations.
What remains consistent, however, is that none of the currently located Leopard 1A5BE sources support the in-game 4× / 12× values.
Personally, I still consider the 1991 International Defense Review article to be the strongest source available. It was published during the actual Leopard 1A5BE modernization programme and specifically describes the new gunner’s primary sight and thermal imaging system fitted to the vehicle. The reported 5.2× and 11.7× thermal magnifications therefore remain the most convincing figures currently available.
The newer Jane’s entry is nevertheless extremely valuable because it independently confirms:
The use of the Belgian SABCA thermal imaging sight.
The use of TICM II thermal modules.
The commander’s ability to view the gunner’s thermal image.
Detection ranges up to 8 km under favourable conditions.
That the Leopard 1A5BE used a completely different sighting solution from the German EMES-18.
So while the exact magnification values still require further investigation, the evidence increasingly points toward the current in-game implementation not accurately representing the Belgian SAIPH/TIS sight system.
No i think you are correct, i must have been mistaken thinking its the UTFCS. I checked another book from 95 this time, and it does specificly mention the SAIPH in relation to the Leopard 1A5BE aswell as giving some FOV numbers on the TIS. The Numbers again seem to be different, but look for yourself.
Page 441 for info on the 1A5BE retrofit programm, Page 442-443 for info on the SAIPH FCS https://de.scribd.com/document/718709034/Jane-s-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades-1995-96#page=466
Great to see they’re actually making the 1A5BE more accurate. Now i hope Gaijin acts on the approved reports you made regarding the Belgian M1001–M1060 series of rounds, as those are, in my opinion, a must-have for any Belgian vehicle equipped with the 105 mm gun.
i dont know alot about about these rounds. Is there a general timeline of which ammunition the Belgian Leopards used throughout their service life?
From everything I’ve seen, the M1060A3 seems incredibly powerful compared to DM33, which appears to be more comparable to M900. So, if Gaijin is going to add the Belgian rounds, I wonder if they will limit the round selection.
If it ends up receiving every possible shell it could historically fire, I could easily see it going up quite a bit in BR.
Concerning we’ve yet to see a single French tank to plane all year, I would have much preferred to see something French
The French have 100’s of missing designs, but over the last two years over half the plane and tank additions have been imported American/German/British Benelux vehicles, and it’s really starting to lose the aspects that make the tree unique
And it was alleged that the leopard 1a5BE was only added to augment the 9.3 lineup, so if it get its ammo (i.e… is made somewhat unique) it invalidates its reason for being added
With the domestic ammo giving a high chance of changing the BR, I didn’t have high hopes for it.
As Gaijin will limit/give vehicles ammo/ordinance, the operator never had/it never used on the vehicle just due to wanting the vehicle at X BR.
Well, I’m happy with this variant (and it’s very clearly not a 1-1 C&P visually), as it sounds like it was Belgium’s last “heavy armour” they had in true service, so it is historically imported to Belgium. Compared to the MEXAS or 3105, with the former being a one-off and the latter being limited to the older prototype.
I doubt they even did the bare minimum and moved it to the same line as the other Leos sadly…
Unfortunately the doozy with Benelux is not much of the tree can actually provide new capabilities to the French tree
Benelux has a number of really cool light tanks, armored cars, and IFVs (ACEC cobra 25mm, M41 LCTS 90, etc) but France has those designs in spades. Some are often nearly 1:1 in terms of capabilities like the YPR-765 vs the Giat M113 Brenus.
I had hoped the subtree would at least be used to add unique designs to France, but even that has been………
Yep, still before the Leclercs. Don’t know who was in charge of where vehicles should be placed in trees, but they really liked illogical placements this update, and only one of them was fixed.
