I’ll be very honest here: the way Gaijin is handling French ammunition reports – and OFL 120 F2 in particular – is extremely frustrating and feels outright inconsistent compared to how other nations (especially Russian vehicles) are treated.
In the bug report “OFL 120 F2 penetration value appears incorrect” (Community Bug Reporting System), the author provided a very detailed breakdown of the shell’s expected performance, using multiple sources: Jane’s, French official documents, GIAT/Nexter material and historical data that have been cited for years when talking about Leclerc ammunition.
The conclusion is simple and widely echoed in literature: OFL 120 F2 is an improved APFSDS with a DU penetrator, heavier and more efficient than OFL 120 F1, and repeatedly described around ~640 mm at 2000 m (and higher at shorter ranges).
Yet the answer from the bug managers boils down to “Jane’s is not a reliable source”, “newer doesn’t always mean better” and “everything is fine according to our internal calculator”.
That is not an acceptable level of transparency for a game that constantly advertises “historical accuracy” and expects players to trust a completely opaque formula and parameters we’re not allowed to see.
Especially when the end result is a DU round that performs worse than the older tungsten F1 in game.
Let’s be clear: nobody is asking you to blindly copy Wikipedia or random fan pages.
But dismissing long‑standing reference works and French‑origin documentation as “not reliable enough”, while at the same time using extremely flexible, sometimes outright questionable sources for, for exemple, Russian and Soviet ammunition, looks like a double standard.
When it’s French or Western ammo, suddenly everything is “not enough info” and the secret Gaijin calculator becomes the ultimate truth.
When it’s Russian gear, much looser material routinely passes as acceptable evidence. Players notice this, and it absolutely destroys confidence in your “historical” modeling.
If you want us to accept that OFL 120 F2 should sit at ~560 mm of penetration in War Thunder, lower than F1, then at the very least show your work:
– What exact projectile geometry are you using (length, diameter, nose shape, materials)?
– What density, strength and hardness values are you feeding into your calculator?
– Why does your implementation contradict the DU “enhanced performance” description used by GIAT/Nexter and repeated in multiple professional sources?
Right now, French players are being told “your sources are invalid, our secret math says you’re wrong”, while the in‑game result is a Leclerc stock dart that is objectively underperforming compared to what is documented and compared to contemporary MBTs.
Combined with the long history of ignored or half‑implemented Leclerc reports (wrong penetrator mass for F1, mysterious damage multipliers, missing F2 ammo, armor issues, etc.), it’s no surprise that many of us feel our nation is being kept deliberately weaker for “balance” under the excuse of “not enough sources”.
If you truly believe your implementation of OFL 120 F2 is correct, then be transparent: publish the assumed shell parameters and the penetration curve produced by your formula so the community can compare it to the existing documentation.
If you can’t or won’t do that, then please stop hiding behind “insufficient sources” whenever France is involved, while at the same time happily accepting far more dubious references for other nations.
This kind of selective skepticism is exactly what fuels the perception of bias and makes serious players stop engaging with the bug report system altogether.
French top tier has been stuck for years with a worse dart than its peers, and finally getting OFL 120 F2 only to see it modeled worse than the older F1 – against both historical descriptions and gameplay common sense – is honestly insulting to players who put time into research and proper reports.
Please reconsider the current values, or at least provide a clear, public justification grounded in verifiable data instead of a closed, unverifiable calculator and a blanket “not enough info” verdict.
I’m a french main. I didn’t have the occasion to play top tier France these days.
If I’m not mistaken, the OFL 120 F2 was the french dart people were talking about for months, years now, which was supposed to have way better pen (and maybe even pen russian UFPs ?)
You’re telling me they once again nerfed-to-the ground a french equipment, aka the said dart ?
While buffing like crazy russian stuff in parallele ? Can’t get it out of my head it might be for political reasons, with what’s happening nowadays and the bad opinion russian governement has over France right now.
But I might be wrong, so I’m not gonna argue that any further. Just saying, it’s strange.
The old 120 f2 wouldn’t even be that much of a improvement it’s just using a du penetrator instead of a tungsten one it’s not this magic dart lmao it’s a small improvement if anything
Literally just F1 with a du penetrator… Its not a big improvement
There was already OFL 120 F1, which – I won’t go over it all again – was already underperforming for the reasons I mentioned above.
Now Gaijin finally decided to add OFL 120 F2, but only as the stock ammo, because the “holy Gaijin calculator” says F2 is worse than F1.
Some bug reports have been submitted, like the one I linked above, which is very well written and backed up with sources, but Gaijin closed it for “unreliable sources”.
I won’t go into politics here, but in my opinion, you’re definitely pointing in the right direction.
All politics aside : I don’t understand the logic behind making the F2 pen actually less than the F1.
I mean… what ?? French authorities just decided to make a heavier and less performant version of the original dart… as a second version of it ? It makes no sense at all