- Yes
- No
Fellow tankers,
After diving deep into how modern MBTs are represented in War Thunder, one recurring issue stands out: the way main gun dispersion is modelled.
It indeed seems modern MBTs currently have accuracy levels of early cold war MBTs.
Let’s take the Leclerc as a concrete example, which is a MBT built around a doctrine relying on precision of engagements.
For instance, multiple documents mandates ≤ 0.1 mils spread for the CN120-26 on the move and ≤ 0.08 mils spread while being still.
This level of accuracy is a fundamental design choice from GIAT (now NEXTER) engineers as the Leclerc was designed to fight against a numerically greater force. In this context, missing shots was simply not an option for engineers of the Leclerc program.
Spoiler
-
Paris, Société Anonyme de Télécommunications, Un siècle d’aventure humaine et industrielle, 2008 “[…] the characteristics of this camera contribute to making this tank a highly modern and particularly effective armored vehicle, capable of firing APFSDS shells on the move with an accuracy of around 20cm at 2.0km. […]”
-
Paris: Société d’Applications Générales d’Electricité et de Mécanique, HARDY 20 - Dynamic harmonization system , 1987: « […] The HARDY 20 Automatic Harmonization system enables remote dynamic measurement along two axes. […] Accuracy Static < 0.030 mrd Dynamic < 0.050 mrd […]";
-
Stéphane Ferrard and Gérard Turbé, The Leclerc System (Saint-Germain-du-Puy: l’Imprimerie Tardy Quercy S.A, 1992). S. Ferrard is known for his knowledge when it comes to French weapon and armour: “[…] All these figures apply for a cross country speed of 36 km/h and for practical firing ranges varying between 300-4,000m with an H+L of 60 cm […]”;
-
Pierre Chiquet, La Gabegie (Paris: Éditions Albin Michel, 1997). P. Chiquet was president of Giat Industries from 1990 to 1995: “[…] The Leclerc shoots at a target 4,000 meters away, with an accuracy of just a few dozen centimetres […]”;
However, in-game testing paints a whole different picture: rigorous testing shows an average 0.48 mils spread, a 4.8x deviation from the historical 0.1 mils.
Actually, since we are talking about spread, and thus area, the difference is much more than that.
Actually, since we are talking about spread, and thus area, the difference is much more than that.
→ 0.1 mils: 0.126 m² at 2000m
→ 0.48 mils: 2.89 m² at 2000m
We end up with an average spread in the form of a 2,89 m² circle instead of a 0,126 m² circle. 0,126 / 2,89 = 23,04.
It means Leclercs have a whopping 23,04x times worse accuracy than they should.
Here is a visual representation of the issue, the red circle being the current spread and the blue circle being the historically accurate spread:
It’s not only a numbers issue, but also a gameplay issue since at 1,500m, this reduces hit probability against a 1.35m target (L.3-33) from ~92% (expected) to ~61% (tested).
We can see that means sometimes completely missing your target as shown in the screenshot below.
For a tank designed around precision, that’s not a minor discrepancy, it’s a fundamental historical misrepresentation.
I invite players to check if the same applies to other modern MBTs: I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the same goes for Leopard 2s or Abrams.
If the goal is to offer historically grounded and competitive MBT gameplay, this is something worth looking into. Not just for the Leclerc, but for modern NATO designs in general.
For these reasons, I urge Gaijin to adjust spread to ≤ 0.1 mils per technical manuals and review the gun’s behavior against historical documentation and investigate for other MBTs.
Having early cold war MBTs spread on modern MBTs is not a good look for a game that prides itself in its historical representation of vehicles.
Let’s ensure Gaijin sees this. Our top tier flagship MBTs deserves their documented accuracy.
Happy hunting!
