Strf 9040 BILL potential missile launcher inaccuracy

[WDOtter]

(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.

Stridsfordon 9040/56 (CV 9040 BILL) Demonstration Video

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.)

[Segment]

The BMP-2M launcher can move in the vertical plane precisely because it is not folding. But you want a mount that can move in two planes and compare it to the BMP-2M. Why don’t you want to compare with Bradley? Lol

[WDOtter]

My point of bringing up the BMP wasn’t to say “Look at them, they get it, I want it too.” It was purely talking about functionality, as not only does the BMP have beam riding, but because of that the launchers do need to move so that the missile can actually “follow the beam” (I hope that’s the case at least =/ I don’t know tonnes about russian vehicles), it’d be a pretty shit system if the missile lost it’s target the moment it was fired due to the angle of which it was fired. It also allows for the missile to be fired on the move, but that was how it was made, it should do that shouldn’t it?

My point is bringing up the potential that the BILL is incorrectly modelled and if what I have brought up is true, to fix it. I already know that the BILL stows, even if it was actually crew operated and doesn’t have to be stowed (just like the Bradley iirc), I agree that as a balancing tactic it’s better for these weapons to have a “cooldown” for their usage. I also know that it is a wire guided missile and that it literally cannot be fired on the move with any intention of it being accurate as (if i’m correct) it’s actually manually controlled by an operator in the back of the vehicle (maybe also having an override to fire it by the commander like it is in-game), requiring a snails pace or complete stop to be used effectively or at all.

I am not asking for fire on the move nor for it to not have to fold, as they would both conflict with how the actual vehicle potentially functioned IRL, but I do believe that having a secondary mount to elevate a weapon mounted onto another makes total sense, with the idea that it was clearly a weapon meant to be used from a fixed position, so there would be no stress on the part due to several KM/H movement or anything else.

Also as I’m writing this you add the bradley part right now, the reasoning for not adding the bradley is what I stated at the beginning.

@WDOtter

someone mentioned that the BMP-2M is comparative to this vehicle

Now I personally own a BMP-2M so I thought that’d be better to talk about seeing as I don’t have any of the bradley models in-game, and therefor can’t speak for how they work…
Yes the bradleys are clearly a better example of a direct comparison from the outside, but I don’t have any idea on how those play so the thought didn’t even cross my mind.

[warhead_beast]

that gajin decision really fucked over the BILL since you cant use it anywhere where its not 1000% flat

[Sakura_520]

I reported this issue using some information from the post
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HhDJ1VPIlFkE

[nordkind]

I believe the bug report totally misses the point. The bug report manager got hung up on the fact that the old implementation of the vertical drive on the launcher was not reasonable. Which it indeed was not. However he totally misses the point that the ACTUAL vertical aiming device is the motor which you clearly marked in your post. I am extremely positive that the actual launcher was indeed capable of vertical aiming. Even the cut out on the launchers structure suggests that it had room spared for elevation purposes.

[WDOtter]

I just want to say that since I’ve made this thread I have done more research and now no longer believe that the launcher was able to elevate and depress.

Why are ifvs with folding launchers so gimped?

Gonna be honest. After all this time since I made that thread I now no longer believe that the launcher was able to elevate and depress. With a bit of extra digging (not much was available even then) and seeing as the 904056 project was so heavily in the prototype stage I find it now quite believable that the designers just slapped the launcher on the side and called it a day. Maybe if the project was actually followed through they would’ve designed a way for it to elevate and depress but since…

I went into detail on another thread about how deep in the prototype stage this project was that I doubt the launcher was at a stage where they even considered elevating and depressing it.

I now also believe that while that cylindrical device on the side of the launcher did house a motor but not being connected to launcher elevation, instead controlling the launcher doors on the front and back.

Why are ifvs with folding launchers so gimped?

I stated in my original thread that I thought the launcher elevating slightly was proof of it being able to do so. But I now believe that the quick snapping motion as the launcher fully deploys is purely due to how the launcher was implemented onto the vehicle as it looks to only do so as it fully deploys. (Might be a side effect of the fact that the launcher uses only a single pneumatic piston for operation.) In the video it also launches the missile slightly upwards likely purely to increas…

^
In my second post I detail how even if the launcher was capable of doing so, the physical dimensions of the rest of the implementation of the launcher would quite severely limit the usefulness owing to the installation of the prototype launcher itself.

And when reading about it in a CV9040 family booklet I acquired later, It was clear that the Swedish military really only wanted to see how the Bill missiles would work when attached to an IFV, and iirc I read that they liked the results but it wasn’t something that really made sense back in the 2003-2004 time period they tested it.

[LegitRussianBias]

Yet, people are adamant it can elevate (and blame it on Russian Bias/Favouristism or some BS excuse), even though you’ve proven it can’t…

[WDOtter]

@LegitRussianBias

blame it on Russian Bias

I believe that part is due to the main comparison is this between the bradley and the bmp-2m (hell even I compare it with the latter).

It’s also due to the almost complete lack of available information on the vehicle so peoples dreams start to wander when discussing vehicles like this, I mean back when I started this thread I did it with the intention of actually finding enough proof so as to “fix” the launcher.

But since then I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that its situation is literally as sad as that, a vehicle module that was cut not too long after beginning testing, however useful it was going to be.

One thing I wont give up on however is the fact that all of these wire guided missiles have been incredibly nerfed owing to that “propellent stage fix” or whatever it was they did a while back. In that new thread I even provided a video from 18 years ago of the 9040/56 firing its missile, (the oldest footage I have been able to find about it) to show that the missiles should not have nearly enough dip as they do in game.

CV 9040 BILL

^ The issue with providing videos like this however is that seemingly no matter how “proper” the video might be, gaijin never accepts them as proof since they believe that they are too easily faked or edited.

But the bigger issue when it comes to one specific vehicle is that with this missile nerf, it’s fine for most vehicles owing to their ability to elevate their launchers to provide the extra ground clearance to make it a non-issue. But not the CV9040/56, that is stuck with just unfolding the launcher and slamming it straight into a mound in front of you or being unable to achieve enough depression if trying to fire it with a slight upward trajectory via using a slight incline.

With how gaijin does most maps these days, there is about 15% actual flat ground in the standard useful positions in every map, how much of that is anywhere near cover or objectives and not just out in the open or a road in a city map? Likely less than 10% total.

If they were modelled correctly then even if you had a very slight (~±1-5°) hull elevation/depression or moderately uneven ground it wouldn’t make the launcher nearly as useless, the only vehicle truly safe from this is the m901 ITV purely due to its height after deploying.

@LegitRussianBias

some BS excuse

^ Considering all I have said so far I don’t think it’s unfair for people to be a bit underwhelmed and try and come up with a reason (although I’ve seen some BS ones for other vehicles) with a special feature on a vehicle not performing to a decent degree, (why even bring this vehicle if the missiles don’t work, just take the 9040C with the better dart, armour and stabiliser).

Also the part where Bill 2 missiles (I don't know if the Tow2-B is the same) are actually tandem missiles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJhqQquIL_U

Now there is a question on whether or not this is actually modelled or not but even if it is, it should be listed on the stat card to avoid confusion.

I remember before gaijin screwed the missiles that it was far more useful than the current it is in.