The bradley and strf9040 bill both have wire guided launchers that fold. For the longest time vehicles like this would always fold launchers on the move in game. Yet through ukraine, we can see that is not required. In both vehicles it requires a manual switch. It is reccomended to fold it on the move to reduce chance of launcher damage irl, yet of course in a war zone you would have the launchers deployed always as confrontation is far more likely and outweighs any long term wear. Since barrel collision doesn’t exist in game, neither should the launchers be made to fold. This severely hampers the effectiveness of these ifvs at their respective brs because even if you find a great flank angle, you have to wait for the astronomically long launcher unfold animation to play out before you can utilize your missiles.
Additionally for the BILL launcher specifically, the launcher cannot elevate or depress. Gaijin says it is because they have no evidence of the launcher doing so, yet logically how does it add up that a launcher like that couldnt depress or elevate? So when the strf 9040 bill is on a decline, it cant launch missiles without them exploding it on the ground, potentially endangering the vehicle or any surrounding infantry? Make it make sense. There is what appears to be a circular motor or joint of some kind as well on the side as seen in these image, What the hell would that be for if not to elevate or depress the motor. With the clear provisions on the left side of the strf9040 bill’s turret, there is clearly room for the launcher to depress and elevate. I can think of no ifv at that br that lacks any sort of vertical guidance on the launcher
Sharing that image of the Strf 90 series vehicles does not prove articulation; it’s entirely an image of conjecture, and conjecture isn’t evidence.
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 it was abandoned it was left as is.
The real issue is how gaijin has neutered these missiles into the dirt, they are incredibly inaccurate but for some reason they wont use several thousand points of reference when it comes to video footage since “it might be edited”.
How’s this video from 18 years ago?
It clearly shows the missile path and excludes all of that significant drop that plagues these missiles since that “realism update” a year or so ago…
I think the missile drop issue seemingly stems from player internet as well seeing as it cant be replicated in test drives or anything that is locally hosted.
you can see it even more clearly that the whole thing is able to move and not bolted directly onto the turret roof like gajin thought
there should be a option to allow a button to permanently close the laucher instead of having it constantly open en close
Other than the issue that you presented, another is the use of these launchers
This is more of a broader issue but it does impact vehicles with a cannon and missile launcher the most. At least for the ADATS and M3a3 bradley (as that’s what I’m most familiar with). Your gunner sight’s elevation and depression is linked with the cannon’s.
for example. In the ADATS, the launcher’s max elevation is 85 degrees. You can do this in the 3rd person veiw.
However when you go in the gunner sight, you can only look up 59 degrees
Another example is the Bradley.
I do admit it is somewhat of a maybe, yet if the launchers cant depress truly, lower its br or fix missile handlind. It is bad enough these launchers fold anyways when technically speaking they shouldnt fold in the middle of a battlefield for the crew’s sake. Only when traveling long distances would the crewman activate the switch to close the launchers to prevent it hitting branches and walls and getting damaged. This does not fit anywhere in how warthunder is played, therefore the launchers should not fold. Still when i see the video i see the launcher tilt up slightly, rather than remain perpendicular, why would that be then?
Kindly note the axis present in the construction close to the two cable mounts… Not needed if the cabinet is not planned to be rotated up and down… I have over time extensively played and used CV90 Bill and it was a very capable weapon up to the point the missile cabinet was locked not allowing movement up and down. I guess the CV 90 Bill was too strong as an opponent and needed to be handicapped. The same with the lack of sight assistance in fighting aircrafts and helicopters. Close to all CP90´s would become both a very strong anti-tank and anti-air opponent. Especially of the more modern 40 mm ammo is allowed to be used.
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 increase ground clearance and allow the missile to still be used in a hull down position without it firing straight into the defilade.
I wanted to include this in my old thread but seeing as I had come to the conclusion that the launcher wasn’t able to elevate I decided not to for some reason, however the model in game is slightly incorrectly modeled.
^
The current model has this to connect the piston bar and the launcher itself to the vehicle.
^
However after cleaning up the image to remove all the additional lines added by a third party to show the parts of the back of the launcher and its piston assembly I was able to kind of reassemble how it should look.
If we leave it like this it does look like the launcher should be able to elevate and depress however its missing another detail.
Due to this bar here the launcher would not be able to look upwards any helpful amount as there is nearly no gap between the launcher shell and the support bar. There might be an argument that the launcher and look downwards to fire over a hill when the chassis is at an angle however I cannot confirm that.
Now when it comes to looking for this bar in images I must say I cant find any good images where this bar is fully visible.
^
These are my best images for it that I was able to acquire and sure enough in the one on the left you can clearly see the connecting plate right next to the commanders turret optics (I forget the specific name), of course however we don’t see the bar but that can likely be inferred to exist.
I personally understand why the vehicle sits at 10.3 unlike its bradley counterpart, it might not have the elevating launcher like the bradley does, it also has 4 less missiles (according to the stat card) however the missiles themselves are significantly more potent than the tow 2b both in penetration and total explosive output. Coupled together with an altogether stronger main gun i’d say its more versatile than the bradley but has downsides that in some cases aren’t all that significant.
When it comes to how the CV904056 prototype was being trialed you can see that its all being tested on flat open terrain, however when it comes to warthunder the only maps that have anywhere near this kind of similarity are city/town maps with cramped corridors that hampers the usage of a top attack missile.
I personally find that the best map in the game for the BILL is Cargo port since anyone that tries to hide behind a single cargo container is perfect prey for the missile, since at a reasonable distance it gives the missile a chance to fly over it and safely destroy the enemy from behind cover.
The biggest setback for this vehicle and even the bradley for that matter isn’t the vehicles themselves, its the maps IMHO, since they were made with a clear focus on MBTs in mind, considering how most IFVs aren’t really that meta or competitive.
I also agree with both of these opinions, both the bradley and the 904056 have seperate missile covers to protect the ordinance loaded in the launcher. Of course it’s likely operating procedure to stow the launcher when traveling large distance or at speed however when it comes to warthunder this is clearly not the case with map size. I dont personally own the bradley yet however the 904056 begins to retract the launcher at ~23km/h (aka when you want to move at all.)
I think the biggest issue is that both of these vehicles have to follow this rule, when all other launcher types currently in game have very little limitations inflicted upon them, hell the FnF spike launchers like the new CV90 Mk.IV just drives around the battlefield with the launcher permanently exposed.
I understand the folding argument purely on a realism POV, however from a gameplay one it personally seems arbitrary and a significant limitation of these vehicles. (Hell its not like this game is actually known for being properly realistic on any part of the game, the adverts have to sell it a little too hard.)
This problem has existed for a long time. Gaijin froze Bill’s emitter in a certain update without any announcement or information. I don’t know why Gaijin froze the emitter instead of increasing its BR to weaken it, but unfortunately this does not exist in Gaijin’s brain cells
Also operating procedures only dictate the launchers fold during long travel ie between distant locations, such a situation does not apply to warthunder therefore launchers should not fold. As for folding even if it wasnt realistic it should still fold because the launchers are barely useful on any maps that arent flat and they already fudged the readyrack of the 2s38
Seeing as both the model that was ripped from warthunder that I am using in blender and old footage of the 904056 clearly is missing the secondary (compressive)? piston, I’d have to say it’s clear that the launcher confusion was purely due to poor implementation.
\ /
And as I had already mentioned in my old thread the way they implemented the elevation and depression was almost placeholder considering it makes no physical sense with how the launcher was implemented. \ /
^
At the timestamp in this video from back before it was fixed, you can clearly see the silver coloured piston tube just phasing through the piston enclosure on the top of the turret.
\ /
In fact so far this seems to be the best video that i’ve come across for examples of just how this vehicle was added to warthunder, since it seems to have been slapdash at best even when it comes to common sense reality…
this applies to nato ifvs in general, but why are they slower, have slower rof, andhave shittier missiles than their russian counterparts typically speaking. As for the launcher, I hjeard a different opinion that the launcher might have been able to elevate but not at that axis, instead the axis of rotation would be at the front
also is there a possibility that this circled part is actually not welded together and part of the body could rotate along this axis thereby lifting the launchers up?
