Read below for current opinion, “archiving” what I had previously said just so that it can be read encase you want to read my old thoughts.
my lazy ass finally editing this post after a few months just to curb the people reading my highly misinformed opinion（╯＿╰）
|
Old Post
(Just gonna mention that this is purely speculation as I haven’t had any luck in finding the official documentation so if I’m wrong based off the documentation… woops?)
2-ish years ago now the 9040-BILL had the ability for the secondary missile launcher to traverse vertically removed due to TLDR “No it couldn’t.” Now in another thread talking about the 9040-BILL recently someone mentioned that the BMP-2M is comparative to this vehicle so I will be using it in the next part to describe my main issue.
With the BMP-2M as a direct comparison, the missile tubes actually elevate and depress to allow it to fire properly if the tank itself isn’t almost perfectly level against your target (unlike with the 9040-BILL) and another thread that’s talking about problems with the 9040-BILL also mentions that the BILL should actually do that too, but the staff seem to believe that the 9040-BILL was never capable of it (even though it actually used to have it and looking at a ton of the reports, most of them are talking about the lack of vertical aiming of the missile launcher.)
Apparently> “According to the design of the model and the data available to us, there is no confirmation that the launcher could be guided vertically.” But if you look at the model it’s recessed to allow for the launcher to at least look up (funnily enough one of the best images is on the russian WT wiki as an example of the launcher.)
And at points of this test demo video you can actually see the launcher angle adjusting slightly as the launcher fully deploys.
(0:19 - 0:21) when the launcher visibly snaps to match the aiming elevation and a still image at (0:39) where the launcher is clearly angled slightly upwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7JADkIB_Zw
Knowing Gaijin it’s highly likely they removed it to balance the vehicle but why not just bump it to 10.3? (and maybe give the applicable CV family it’s InfraRedTrack?) Why remove the historical functionality of the vehicle to balance it? Why not just nerf it to make it slower? I genuinely can’t think of another reason other than incomplete data on their end.
Looking at the solution they came up with to fold the launcher downwards, what seems to be a L bracket welded together with a simple hinge which is actuated with a piston of some sort, by comparison what would actually be the thing that elevated and depresses the launcher is clearly a stand out feature.
Because at least to me that bolted cover looks exactly like what would be protecting a motor used for elevation.
That there is a significant amount of work done for it to amount to just decoration, it must have some use. To me the two closely grouped plug connectors are for the activation of the missiles themselves and the rest isn’t just for show.
Looking at an old video released 3 years ago as of now, it shows the launcher moving up and down in conjunction with where the player is aiming, however the issue I noticed even from the thumbnail is where it starts traversing from.
Why is it angling from the hinge where the mechanism to stow the launcher is? Of course it can’t actually vertically traverse from that point as there is nothing there to allow it, but if you just factor in the part where it actually angles from that motor, in the middle of the launcher, you get the way this launcher aims. It has a second point attached to the stowing arm that allows it to look up and down.
I believe the real issue with this tank in terms of it’s secondary weapon alone is that it was incorrectly modelled, not that it wasn’t capable of it. The “correcting” of basically all ground launched AT missiles recently effects all applicable vehicles of course, but as a niche on this vehicle it brings it to near useless as it can barely use them effectively in the first place…
(The amount of times I’ve slammed an ATGM into the ground even when completely exposed and not behind cover due to a slight angle of my vehicle causing the launcher to be just a little too low is astonishing.)
Opinion
Just a little common sense interjection to argue against what has been said as a response on the report forum, what kind of military vehicle would have a weapon that can’t account for deviations in chassis angle? People don’t make case-mate gun-carriers anymore.
Cough
It basically makes the damned thing a useless addition unless the vehicle is on near perfectly flat ground which considering the terrain that makes up parts of Sweden is the alpine type, would severely limit the usability of the missile as you’d have to contend with your own elevation and emplacement, were the swedes planning on facing armoured threats directly by sticking them in the ground like the german pantherturm? Or driving it up onto a wedge to fire it if it needed anything more than °5 of elevation?.
Also from personal experience, a few patches ago the responsiveness of the horizontal traverse has seemingly become a hell of a lot worse, to the point of it actually feeling noticeably sluggish when making large changes in where you’re aiming. But that might just be me.
Hope something can come of this.
(edit: made one of the images bigger.)
