Why does the Swedish tow 2 actually work like a tow 2 but the Bradley’s tow 2 b has the damage of a wet noodle.
ofc theres this https://youtu.be/E1VWPOpYbQI
Why does the Swedish tow 2 actually work like a tow 2 but the Bradley’s tow 2 b has the damage of a wet noodle.
Presumably you’re talking about the BILL 2 (Not a TOW 2B).
It is not a TOW 2. It is a home grown design, and explicitly designed to go through ERA on top of a Russian tank on account of consecutive EFPs (from memory). This does not seem to be the method the TOW2B implements to go through the target, but if you’ve documentation you can put in a report.
Arguably, it would also help if you aimed and/or didn’t cut out the failed penetrations of the BILL 2. Arguably we should have a bit more performance out of the BILL 2 than what we have in game.
Great, this does not change the fact that if you have documentation, you can report it. Nor does it change the fact that the mechanism may not be the same as the BILL 2. From my recollection, TOW 2B relies on a singular EFP, not multiple. Again, if you have documentation, submit a bug report.
Actually two EFP, not one.
And there are already several reports on this matter on War Thunder Issues, but the snail doesn’t care that the most important feature of the rocket has not been implemented. Why? Because “For such ATGMs, the game implements a defeat through one stream. This is not a mistake.”
2 Likes
The more you know, I’ve very little care about yank missiles but good for future reference.
Pretty sure this is the same issue with getting the bill 2 fixed to be more reliable. As it stands, it’s just barely more reliable than the TOW 2B in my experience.
TOW-2B and BILL II are about the same in a general perspective of view, while one have better handling other can do more damage
Both have their issues in-game for example the penetration values and the launcher being static at one point despite people calling out that Strf 9040B can angle the launcher up and down.
1 Like
In case anyone wants to watch a relatively short docu/advert for the BILL 2 there’s this old video that shows it’s shaped charges capabilities in both test environment and a practical test.
(Although clearly on a T-72 that hadn’t been filled to the brim with explosives like the above listed video since it was a penetration test).
1 Like
That and the fact that the 2B’s warhead fails to penetrate it’s width, which is the minimum effective penetration of a EFP warhead, it should be penning a minumum of 127mms of armor as that is the diameter of the warheads
1 Like
It should also get the boost conferred to all other tandem warheads, even if they aren’t axially aligned. since the actual impact of the second charge isn’t modeled at all as a gaming convention.
127mm * 1.47 = ~186
But we’ve seen the amount of salt that gets generated the second it would be capable of penetrating the Turret roof though ERA.
So it’s never ever going to be touched again.
2 Likes