Leopard 1 is unfairly matched against technologically superior ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 at low Battle Ratings

Battle Rating and technological imbalance between Leopard 1 and Chinese tanks

Hello,

I would like to suggest a review of the Battle Ratings of the Leopard 1, ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1.

My main concern is not simply the historical age of the vehicles, but the significant difference in their technological level and fire-control equipment.

The original Leopard 1 entered service in the mid-1960s. It represents a tank designed around the technology and battlefield requirements of that period. In contrast, the ZTZ-69 and especially the ZTZ-59D1 are significantly newer or heavily modernised vehicles.

The biggest problem is the difference in fire-control capabilities.

The ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 have laser rangefinders and much more modern fire-control systems, allowing them to quickly and accurately determine range and engage targets at medium and long distances.

The standard Leopard 1 does not have the same level of fire-control equipment. This creates a significant gameplay advantage for the Chinese vehicles, especially on larger maps where accurate range estimation is very important.

I believe that the standard Leopard 1 would make much more sense when compared with vehicles closer to its technological generation. If we want to compare it with a later and significantly improved Leopard, the Leopard 1A5 would be a much more appropriate comparison because it received a substantially upgraded fire-control system, including a laser rangefinder.

My concern is that the relatively low Battle Ratings of the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 allow these vehicles to fight against considerably older vehicles while retaining major advantages in fire control and target engagement.

I am not asking for vehicles to be balanced purely according to their historical introduction date. I understand that War Thunder Battle Ratings are primarily based on in-game performance. However, I believe that technological capabilities should also be considered when a vehicle has a major advantage over opponents at the same BR.

I would therefore ask Gaijin to review the Battle Ratings of the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1, especially considering their:

  • laser rangefinders,
  • fire-control systems,
  • stabilisation,
  • night-fighting capabilities,
  • optics,
  • ammunition,
  • and overall effectiveness at medium and long range.

In my opinion, the current BR placement does not sufficiently reflect the technological difference between these vehicles and the standard Leopard 1.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

Which there will be people arguing that the 100 mm APDS-FS is way too weak for battle rating 8.3 and higher on vehicles like Type 59, Type 59A (ZTZ59A), Type 59D1 (ZTZ59D1), Type 69 and Type 69-IIA. It’s for a fact that Gaijin been ignoring, and players that own the vehicle deliberately playing ignorant of those vehicles’ questionable battle rating placement.

Chinese line-ups around battle rating 8.0 and battle rating 9.0 has—in terms of capabilities—superior vehicles. However, this doesn’t mean that I do agree with your argument of the Leopard I. As I’ve spoken in a similar thread about a similar subject of more realistic battle rating. That simply doesn’t work in War Thunder. There are practical examples of vehicles in battle rating not matching to their historical periods when compared to other vehicles in the same battle rating.

While I don’t agree with your argument, the point of using those five vehicles as examples of this clear issue is that Leopard A1A1 is another good example of questionable battle rating placement. I ask myself: What the hell is a DM23 shooter doing at battle rating 8.7? It’s not a terrible platform, a decent cannon, for an amazing penetrator at such low battle rating, no wonder people also are not speaking about this other issue and many others.

The ~7.0-9.3 range is all slightly over compressed

As long as the BR ranges stay the same, many vehicles that see single step adjustments (+- 0.3) will end up just as many problems as they avoided