The design reason for folding the launcher is to avoid collision with objects while moving. It is not a necessary thing, you can have the launcher open and move at any speed. The reason it folds is to avoid object collision.
Unless tank barrels are modeled to have collision there is no justifiable reason for the launcher folding animation to be modeled.
Artificially nerfing NATO vehicles while giving Russian vehicles prototype parts operating at 100% efficiency. How does anyone in their right mind claim this game doesn’t have bias?
I don’t really see it as anything other than artificial nerfing, like almost all non-Russian ATGM vehicles being denied the ability to fire on the move but Russians obviously don’t have this issue.
Does the Bradley perform so well that we have to have ahistorical arbitrary nerfs against it?
Tank barrels colliding with walls was deemed too frustrating to model.
Why is the launcher folding after going over 20km/h modeled?
IIRC the TOW launcher is manually extended/retracted by the gunner, by the use of a switch.
The doctrine may advise that the launcher should be folded during travel, but it’s not absolutely neccesary. It’s like you say, merely a safety/maintenance procedure.
It honestly wouldn’t make sense to bother with this process during intense combat situations like we have in-game. Especially not in open terrain. The player should be able to extend/retract the launcher by keybind, OR it always stays up. I would be happy with either.
I believe there has been numerous bug reports on this, but with no apparent progress, sadly.
The M3A3 is a suffer-machine right now, and comically inept compared to BMP-2M. My gripes with it include: Very high silhouette, sluggish acceleration, poor armor, incomplete spall liner, lacks 2 scouts (loaders) in the troop compartment, the aforementioned launcher delay, and the ATGM nerfs earlier this year (which especially affects TOW on Bradley)
Edit: This video shows the various weapons switches on Bradley, one of them controls TOW launcher extension: https://youtu.be/YklKDI3XqTU?si=6tgMU7Et5qAu9rDQ&t=1410
Bro, please don’t turn this into a “who suffers more” competition when it doesn’t need to be.
I just got done filling out a survey about how minor nations need more attention and I want you to know I’m fully sympathetic to the needs of Britain, Italy, France, Japan, etc.
This thread is about M3A3, let’s talk about the issues it has.
just a way to nerf the bradley
Barrels do not suffer collision penalties why is the Bradley and other similar launcher mechanisms forced to suffer collision related mechanics?
Launchers shouldn’t fold quickly and everything should be able to fire on the move at lower speeds unless there is an actual reason why it could not.
You can fire while moving at Battle speed. The reason TOW launchers can’t fire while on the move is due to the wires getting wrapped. Any laser guided missile should be able to fire on the move.
Launchers shouldn’t be modeled in the game. Barrel collision isn’t modeled, the purpose of launcher folding is to avoid object collision. It’s a disparity which nerfs launcher vehicles.
Then models wires getting wrapped or let them shoot on the move.
And if I am moving in the direction the missile is going, it cannot get wrapped either.
Or make it so that if you move more than X meters after firing, you lose connection to the missiles, just anything less stupid than this arbitrary nonsense.
Amount of times I died in the M113 because I was rotating my vehicle in place, which in this spaghetti code game counts as speed so I was moving too fast to fire.
I agree with this post. I do not understand why this is not a manual toggle, launcher should start in the down position, but also there is no reason why you cannot drive around with it up as you can IRL and your vehicle speed is not affected IRL when it is up. You cannot fire it while moving IRL. There are also many other inaccurate aspects of the Bradley in game, most notably how slow it is. Other things are the way the ammunition is respresented in game, IRL the 25mm Bushmaster cannon doesn’t fire “mixed” belts of ammo, the gunner selects either AP or HE and the vehicle carries a small amount of AP and a lot of HE. This is not secret or classified information and is plainly available information on wikipedia. I also find that it is unfair that the BMP’s get their “extra” anti-tank add-on armor, but the Bradley M3A3 does not, seems like clear bias against the Bradley.
it was always a way to nerf nato tanks / u.s specifically.
Yeah, the anti-USA bias in the game is massively obvious and tiresome.
Honestly they way it is right now is fine, and they did give it a deployment speed buff. And it’s cool that we have the animation in game, same with the m901. I think it’s cool to see my vehicle move about. That being said I’d like the animations expanded to others with deployable launchers like the KF41 and spike cv90! Then to end the argument of artificial nerfs, allow players a toggle bind for up / down / auto. Like the TC override for commander sights. We all had our IFVs get sniped because of an unnecessarily exposed launcher.
Its realistic actually, and if it was completely realistic you would only be able to reload the tow launchers if you pointed your turret slightly to the side, and this is coming from somneone who actually likes the bradely
They need to fix it, it’s not like the Bradley is anywhere near over performing. Terrible mobility and armor, from what I’ve seen in Ukraine they are much more agile and durable.
Mobility in game is fine, and the Bradleys in Ukraine are facing much lesser threats than you would in a War Thunder match. They’re taking RPG warheads and mines, not massive 105/125mm sabot rounds. The Bradley’s problem is it is forced into a deathmatch in a small box with actual tanks, not being used as part of a planned combined arms assault.