Spike ATGMs Suck, and So Will the PUMA Spike Upgrade

KF-41 with Spike-LR2



Those who have used the Freccia or KF41 and even the QN506 will recognise the issues with Spikes – from not inflicting any damage due to random impact angles to inexplicably missing targets. I’m interested in the community’s views on the current system and the potential “upgrade” for the PUMA.


Should the launch system for Spikes be reworked?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Other / Comment / Not sure
0 voters
Should the KF-41 / PUMA receive more than 2 Spikes?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Other / Comment / Not sure
0 voters
Should the tracking of specific versions, like the Spike-LR2, and Spike ATGMs in general, be reworked?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Other / Comment / Not sure
0 voters

Current version

  • Need to be able to see 2/3 of the enemy tank to lock.
  • Once fired, it will target the driver’s hatch regardless of the tank’s position.
  • If it loses sight for even a brief moment, it will miss.
  • The flight path might cause it to collide with trees, rocks, or terrain.

Potential Changes

  • Introduce a mechanic allowing users to lock onto specific regions of a tank, similar to helicopters.
  • Modify the impact angle of the Spike ATGM.
  • Allow users to lock onto targets with less than 2/3 of their tank exposed.

Future potential issues
Vehicles equipped with the Spike currently support firing on the move. While this feature should be maintained, the KF-41 & PUMA have unique compartments for firing. When opened, these not only look out of place but also undermine the protection they are meant to offer.

I suggest that vehicles, like the STRF 9040 BILL, M3A3 Bradley, or KF41, should have the ability to toggle these compartments using the radar on/off keybind, akin to the mechanism on the QN506 and STRV 122B PLSS. Implementing this would notably protect the KF41’s Spikes from MG fire.


KF-41 Specific issues
In its current form, the launcher for the Spikes remains stationary and does not retract or adjust vertically; it merely sits idle. This impedes the movement of the commander sight/MG and results in all Spikes being fired at a 15° angle. Consequently, any Spike fired within approximately 260m on the same elevation often misses or strikes an unintended section of the tank.

Allow the KF-41 to change the elevation of the launcher by looking up/down just like every other IFV with ATGMs and also allow it to close / open the launcher via keybind.


Spike LR-2 vs Spike MR
Currently the Spike LR-2 and Spike MR are 1-1 copies of eachother, yet Rafael and 3rd party bloggers / articles state there is a rather clear diffrence.

The Spike LR-2 should have 30% better penetration (910mm) compared to the Spike MR (700mm). It should also have a higher max range of 5.5KM, it is named the “Long Range” version of the Spike for a reason after all. The angle of impact on the Spike LR-2 is also diffrent from the MR version, the LR-2 should impact its targets at a 70° top attack mode onto the roof and not a 5°-10° angle into the driver hatch


Conclusion

Based on my experiences, the Spike has often been underwhelming. In several situations, I found myself preferring a conventional ATGM over the Spike. It still requires refinement to function correctly and feel intuitive.

Is This Conclusion Valid?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Other / Comment / Not sure
0 voters

Bug report

Spike LR2 incorrect specification


Photo & Video dump

Search “kf41 fires spike rheinmetall” if the imbed breaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-dBSO5bp1M&ab_channel=Rheinmetall-DerintegrierteTechnologiekonzern
https://youtu.be/pZO7H37Cys8?si=J1-dRcjQeDK2V6wu

6qyp6f3yqtn61
What the Launcher should be.





Sources

Rafael’s ‘Smarter’ Spike is Designed to Defeat Tanks with Active Protection

Rafael Advanced Defense Systems new SPIKE missile

Sprike LR-2 missile weapon system

Eurospike spike LR-2


Sorry for clickbait ;D

18 Likes

Yes. That will be nice. And nice to give Germany prototype KF-41. With 35 mm and side open spikes.

6 Likes

+1. Spikes need to be heavily reworked, imo the PUMA should be getting it’s SPIKEs, and hopefully they will get a total of 4 or even 6 SPIKEs luckily.

7 Likes

+1, unfortunately Gaijin doesnt seem to understand that “Top Attack” doesnt just mean a lofting missile, but a missile that attacks from the top of a tank.
Locking mechanics need to be reworked as well, if a fly gets between the seeker and the target, it will simply self detonate rather than continuing on course to where the target was last seen (like it does IRL)

7 Likes

Currently the KF41 is in terrible condition.

You’re competing against Mach 5 darts with a total of 2 missiles that have a 50:50 chance of doing absolutely zero damage, or not hitting their target at all.

1 Like

Puma don’t have even that

3 Likes

Bruuuuuuuh
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/crOHk9w4IxuU

1 Like

Well according to Gaijiggles: “That PUMA can’t have SPIKES! Its the same vehicle but we won’t allow it as a modification because insert gibberish technical reason here, but in truth they just want more grind

1 Like

Yup. All they have to do is attach a container to the model

2 Likes

They atleast acknowledged yours, they just said mine wasn’t a bug.

I was gonna link that but totally forgot, ill add it now :D

2 Likes

They always give the same copypaste closing response about requiring historical documents.

Like, Gaijin, YOU don’t even have these documents, how can you come up with a Rheinmetall vehicle having only 2 Missiles?

Hard to say. Some Spike carrier’s launch pods have complex reload step. Such as PUMA, CV90 MK4, KF41 and so on.
For Freccia, it may have some Inheritance with old HITFIST turret which equipped TOW ATGM. It may has more space to load more ATGM and more easy to reload it.

2 Likes

I would assume like the STRF 9040 Bill there should be a 4th crew member as a loader that uses the hatches ontop of the roof of the rear of the vehicle to reload the missiles.
The additional missiles are most likely stowed underneath the turret bustle or at the rear of the vehicle.
Either a dismount acting as a loader, or one of the two crew in the turret would take over reloading.

1 Like

The fact that the reload is complex shouldn’t excuse not giving it more missiles though.

2 Likes

100%, no other IFV is limited to 2 ATGMs

2 Likes

I agree, but it’s clear that Gaijin’s dev team pay more attention to reality. I have less hope on Gaijin giving more ammo for those vehicles mentioned above.

4 Likes

We just gotta make ourselves get heard.

Besides, Gaijin doesn’t pay that much attention to reality… they’re quite hypocritical in that regard at times.

2 Likes

If anyone wants to make bug reports & or add information im happy to add it to the “main” post.

1 Like

They’re going to make sure it’s the right amount of suck for Germany, can’t risk them getting something good.

7 Likes