Currently, the Char 25t and the AMX-50 (TO90/930) are exceedingly rare in Realistic Battles. Finding one is an event; finding an average player who can consistently perform well in them at 8.0 is almost impossible.
Both vehicles have clear, defined advantages:
- A fast 4.0-second autoloader within the first-stage magazine;
- The lethal M82 APCBC round (137g TNT equivalent, 14mm fuse sensitivity);
- Compact hull profile (Char 25t);
- Fully reversible transmission.
However, these benefits are completely overshadowed by their 8.0 BR placement. In current matchmaking, 8.0 rarely sits at the top of the bracket; it is predominantly uptiered to 8.7–9.0. At this bracket, two-plane stabilizers and advanced kinetics are the baseline standard. The French oscillating turret exhibits significant bounce even with an “Ace” crew, demanding a complete stop and an extended stabilization period before taking a shot. Firing on the move or shortly after braking is practically unfeasible due to high hull suspension wobble and relatively slow vertical traverse rates.
Direct Class Comparison: Object 906 (BR 8.0)
A direct side-by-side comparison with the Object 906 clearly illustrates the power creep:
- Mobility: Comparable power-to-weight ratio, with the Object 906 featuring an equally effective, if not faster, reverse speed.
- Firepower: Reload speeds are nearly identical (4.0s vs 4.3s), but the Object 906 has a fully functional two-plane stabilizer along with higher velocity and superior flat penetration.
- Fire Control / Optics: The Char 25t and AMX-50 (TO90) are constrained by a rigid 7.9x fixed magnification sight. In close-quarters and urban engagements, this creates extreme tunnel vision, effectively forcing players to aim point-blank through a high-power telescope. The Object 906 enjoys a versatile 3.5x–7.0x zoom range, providing essential situational awareness at short-to-mid distances.
The Firepower Deficit in Direct Engagements
Against the majority of 8.0–9.0 targets, the 90mm M82 round requires meticulous pixel-hunting on commander cupolas or tiny structural weakspots.
Take an 8.0 contemporary like the TO-55 (or standard T-55A):
- It boasts a stabilized 100mm cannon firing high-yield APHE/HEAT-FS and a decent 16.1 hp/ton power-to-weight ratio.
- If a stabilized medium tank aggressively pushes a Char 25t, the French tank has to come to a dead halt, wait for the oscillating sight sway to settle, and attempt to hit a moving cupola using a narrow 7.9x optic. The stabilized enemy fires accurately on the move. The survival probability in such an engagement is practically zero.
In full uptiers (9.0 against vehicles like the T-55AM-1, XM803), light tank mobility ceases to be an advantage. Modern MBTs accelerate just as quickly, field composite armor that shatters WW2-era APHE, and operate with laser rangefinders.
The Situation with the AMX-50 (TO90/930)
The AMX-50 TO90 faces an even harsher environment due to its large physical volume. Conforming to hull-down terrain is far more difficult, and its paper armor makes it trivial prey for ubiquitous 8.0–9.0 SPAAs (Gepard, ZA-35, VEAK 40), which shred the chassis from front angles within fractions of a second.
The Survivor Bias Dilemma
These tanks remain at 8.0 solely due to selection bias. Average players quickly abandon the branch because of the punishing stock grinds and demanding learning curve. The vehicles remain active only in the hands of seasoned veterans who squeeze value out of them exclusively through deep flank routing, ambushes, and exploiting distracted enemies. This inflated performance metric masks the severe technical disparity the vehicle suffers in head-to-head combat.
Conclusion:
Autoloader burst potential should not be balanced against stabilizers, thermal imagers, and composite arrays. Moving both the Char 25t and AMX-50 (TO90/930) back to 7.7 in Ground RB will integrate them naturally with the French 7.7 lineup (Somua SM, Lorraine 40t), keeping them competitive as flanking harassers without breaking mid-tier matchmaking.