This is correct only to some extent, ERA is used on SXXI while S1, S2 and AZUR would use NERA.
1 Like
in the game, all of them have ERA
I believe it was reported quite a long time ago
try playing the challenger 2
@WaretaGarasu While we are at it I’d also request if you could take a look at the bugs with the 2A5/2A6 NL’s.
We got copy-paste Leopards, but it seems Gaijin can’t even add those without issues.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u1QwbmXl1Rfo
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/J61XwJtZUJml
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3O1B4KR2Qst0
1 Like
Not really related to the Leclerc, but here’s a point of comparison so you can truly appreciate the accuracy of the Leclerc: M1 Abrams’ 120mm Dispersion is Far too Small
At the same distance and whilst moving, the Leclerc will be over 6 times as accurate xD
14 Likes
Any day now…
To be fair, if you’ve only got a couple Leclercs, you’d probably design it to be damn sure you wouldn’t miss.
Less of a priority when you’ve that many Abrams, one of them’s bound to end up hitting something.*
*Before the Americans come for my head, this is mostly a joke.
2 Likes
Therefore, the dispersion of the Abrams’ 120mm cannon at a distance of 2,000m cannot be considered less than 60cm since not all targets were even hit
That’s not really how dispersion works. Dispersion is typical given as standard deviation from the centre of the target, average distance from the centre of the target, or the distance which 50% of the shots landed within.
I don’t know how it is treated in War Thunder. But if 16 of 18 shots landed within 60 cm of the target then the dispersion would be less than 60 cm regardless of which definition you use.
Handled.
Against the target located at 2,000m, it was likely 4 hits out of 6 but this is not confirmed:
60cm was taken as a worst case scenario. You think it should be less?
On other note: You have any sources for the Challenger 2’s accuracy? Or anything about the stabilization error of its gun drives? I could only find info from the Kuwaiti trials but these don’t seem like a fair comparison as the CR2 was still a prototype at this time and it’s also an American source.
2 Likes
Yes:
M865s actual dispersion results show an avg of LESS than 0.2 mil.
And although M324 isn’t M865, it is stated to have similar ballistics, and it has 0.2 x 0.2 dispersion:
This only considers the accuracy of the ammunition alone and not any FCS inputs such as the muzzle reference system, tilt of the vehicle, meteorological sensors, etc.
Here every square is 1 metre:
Importantly, however, the FCS wasn’t updated with the ballistics of KEWA2.
Anyway, have any sources for the accuracy of the Leopard 2?
That’s cool and all, but your whole argumend is based on how two rounds were not within 0.3x0.3 mrad of the aim point where 16 had landed, that is 88% that have landed within that specified aim point. This an error that can be attributed easily to the fact M865s ballistics are only somewhat similar to M829-series UP TO a certain distance (hence why “training range” is an actual metric given to training rounds) or gunner’s error, simple as that.
On the other hand, do you have any data on whether the 16 rounds that have hit within the 24 inches couldn’t have had a dispersion equal to or less than 0.2mil?
How about mentioning the conditions of the tests? Because higher temperatures do tend to make accuracy worse, especially on pre-insenstivie rounds as propellant gases would not expand linearly and thus affect the dispersion.
What you’re doing is a plain old reach.
Anyway, have any sources for the accuracy of the Leopard 2?
You’ve asked me this before.
CR2s FCS and stabilization were both completed by then to the best of my knowledge, but here’s some “data” on CR1s accuracy:
1 Like
Of those 16, only 4 were against the target located at 2,000m. The other 12 rounds were at considerably less distance.
Except that M865 is stated to have a target range of 2,500m:
The 4 rounds which hit the target at 2,000m within 60cm are considered to be the extreme. I should rephrase what I stated in the bug report: the spread should be considered up to 60cm.
This is a fair point considering 128° F falls outside the temperature limits. In this case, I’ll leave it up to the devs to make a decision.
I found a source from Jenoptik stating =/< 0.2mrad for the stabiliser. But I would prefer to avoid marketing material where possible since it’s usually still under-stating performance. Even a secondary source stating under “x” conditions, the accuracy is “y” cm would be preferable if the author is reliable enough.
Challenger 2 used a different cannon. Oh well, I suspect the British mains are gate-keeping the info much like the CR2’s real armour… but what can you do?
It still hadn’t entered service. And its results in the trials were pretty underwhelming at the end of the day. Which is why I was curious if the British mains were willing to share.
Quite frankly, no, this is a completely made up interpretation by you. The document states that they shot three rounds each (800m, 1200m and 2000m) at 18 targets.
So it was actually 18 * 3 for a total of 54 rounds, with 18 of them at 2km’s.
2 targets were however, completely missed, we don’t know the reason for that, so it’s 48 rounds that did hit within 0.3x0.3 mrad aim point.