Standalone Swedish Ground forces tree

[Stridswombat 1,088]

On 15/11/2019 at 20:49, Sp15 said:

Lvrbpbv 4016? are you sure thats a real thing? also for all intents and purposes the 122 and 121 versions would have identical performance ingame, only exception is the one with the updated armor pack. Also using a project EMIL design in the tree is really stretching it since only the later version KRV was built and only the hull at that. I have stayed away from suggesting the krv for this reason, remember Gaijin have been removing partially built tanks.

Well that armour adds a lot of the protection to it. It would also have updated thermal (improved for the driver and commander) and new smoke launchers. That and different mobility because of the weight difference. Combine this with the different ammo they used from Germany and they're sufficiently different.

 

EDIT: Assuming they did use different armour packages on the 2a4 (which I'm not sure if they did or not) the latter one would have the same hull armour as the 2a5 and should also have more turret armour, somewhere between the 2a4 and the 2a5.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Stridswombat

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

39 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

Combine this with the different ammo they used from Germany and they're sufficiently different.

As much as i tried, i couldn´t find any details on 120mm ammo used by the swedes. Do you have any?

 

40 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

EDIT: Assuming they did use different armour packages on the 2a4 (which I'm not sure if they did or not)

No, they are exactly the same as 2A4 in german service (sweden "borrowed" the and gave them back some years ago) both with B and C armor.

[Stridswombat 1,088]

19 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

: As much as i tried, i couldn´t find any details on 120mm ammo used by the swedes. Do you have any?

 

No, they are exactly the same as 2A4 in german service (sweden "borrowed" the and gave them back some years ago) both with B and C armor.

Slpprj m/95: APFSDS inbetween DM 33 and DM43 in performance.

Slsgr m/95: HE

 

It's the B and C armour packages that I meant. Currently we only have 1 2a4. There's room for another that's missing entirely from the game. I just can't verify if they actually used both or just the earlier armour package.

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

8 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

Slpprj m/95: APFSDS inbetween DM 33 and DM43 in performance.

Slsgr m/95: HE

Wonderful. Would you happen to know if the swedes have better/newer 120mm KE ammo than the M/95 and also older? In some swedish forum someone said that APFSDS in service are licensed models from IMI. Its that true?

 

8 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

It's the B and C armour packages that I meant. Currently we only have 1 2a4. There's room for another that's missing entirely from the game. I just can't verify if they actually used both or just the earlier armour package.

Its my understanding that the Strv 121 fleet was made up from an assortment of 2A4 from various production batches, so it´s safe to assume that some of the Strv 121 got the B armor and others the C.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Alan_Tovarishch

[WayOfTheWolk 1,570]

On 15/11/2019 at 16:54, Sp15 said:

yeah im gonna need a source on that claim.

Scroll down to the last question on development

 

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5198-q-a-answers-from-the-developers-en

[Sp15 266]

the Strv 121 was all leo 2's updated to 2a4 standard there should be no variation in armor. As for 122 there is not any difference that would be noticable ingame between the different versions therefore it would be completely redundant to include several versions. Possible exception for this updated armor package on the strv 122b+ but its probably not too substantial as its mostly meant to give increased protection and coverage against rpgs and other infantry held at weapons.
Also Slpprj m/95 is the israeli m322 round or whatever its called, which is in the game already as the ariete's top round (this is currently the highest pen round in the game).

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

1 hour ago, Sp15 said:

Also Slpprj m/95 is the israeli m322 round or whatever its called, which is in the game already as the ariete's top round (this is currently the highest pen round in the game).

I read something like that on a swedish forum using google translator something like that, but can´t confirm. Could you provide something confirming that?

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Alan_Tovarishch

[Sp15 266]

2 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I read something like that on a swedish forum using google translator something like that, but can´t confirm. Could you provide something confirming that?

 

Dont know if there is a public source but Im in contact with a former 122 commander and i have a ammo catalouge that includes it. Anyway my point is that 122 in any configuration is probably too powerfull for the game right now, at least untill we see even more modern abrams & leo variants. That said WG has added vehicles too early before with no contemporaries so they still might do that, for the sake of balance i just hope they dont.

[Stridswombat 1,088]

On 18/11/2019 at 03:19, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Wonderful. Would you happen to know if the swedes have better/newer 120mm KE ammo than the M/95 and also older? In some swedish forum someone said that APFSDS in service are licensed models from IMI. Its that true?

 

Its my understanding that the Strv 121 fleet was made up from an assortment of 2A4 from various production batches, so it´s safe to assume that some of the Strv 121 got the B armor and others the C.

That's it for the ammo as far as I'm aware. There's some prototypes that were tested with newer shells though. I don't know where the shells are from but I've heard they may be Israeli aswell. Don't think anyone else use them though.

 

5 hours ago, Sp15 said:

the Strv 121 was all leo 2's updated to 2a4 standard there should be no variation in armor. As for 122 there is not any difference that would be noticable ingame between the different versions therefore it would be completely redundant to include several versions. Possible exception for this updated armor package on the strv 122b+ but its probably not too substantial as its mostly meant to give increased protection and coverage against rpgs and other infantry held at weapons.
Also Slpprj m/95 is the israeli m322 round or whatever its called, which is in the game already as the ariete's top round (this is currently the highest pen round in the game).

I thought the same about the 121's, but I've heard some conflicting information and now I'm not sure what to believe. We'll have to see when it comes out.

 

As for Strv 122, thicker crew hatches, differences in composite, add-on armour on the hull front and turret roof, new ammo and FCS improvements aren't any notable changes to you? Most sources I've seen seem to suggest numbers as high as up to double the armour protection for the front hull compared to a regular 2a5.

 

These changes differentiate the 122A significantly from both a regular 2a5 and the later 122B+. You can't add that much extra material thickness to the front and not have it have a significant positive effect on armour protection.

 

The B+ didn't just add the mine protection or expand the coverage of the add-on armour to the lower front and side hull, it also seems to have used improved composite over the regular 122's. Since it was tested with newer ammo it could conceivably get an ammo upgrade. I've heard it might also have been tested with a L/55 so that may also be an option.

 

http://www.ointres.se/2011-03-18_pansar_strv122b.pdf

2 hours ago, Sp15 said:

Dont know if there is a public source but Im in contact with a former 122 commander and i have a ammo catalouge that includes it. Anyway my point is that 122 in any configuration is probably too powerfull for the game right now, at least untill we see even more modern abrams & leo variants. That said WG has added vehicles too early before with no contemporaries so they still might do that, for the sake of balance i just hope they dont.

I agree with this point though. Regardless of how they implement it atm it probably won't work well. I'd quite like to have a look at that ammo catalogue too if that would be possible? Really hard to find information on exactly where the shell is from or how it was developed.

[Stridswombat 1,088]

6 hours ago, Sp15 said:

Also Slpprj m/95 is the israeli m322 round or whatever its called, which is in the game already as the ariete's top round (this is currently the highest pen round in the game).

I'm not sure that's the same shell. Steelbeasts seems to show its performance as being marginally above DM33 and nowhere near the level of performance increase it gets in the game. The length of the rod also suggests performance inbetween DM 33 and DM 43 as the rod length also lands right inbetween those 2 shells, so it adds up that performance would be similar.

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

 

I know Steelbeasts isn't reality, but countries seem to trust it enough to use it as a training tool for actual tank crews and Sweden is no exception. That lends it some credibility in my mind

 

.

As far as I know Slpprj m/95 has a 570mm rod from what I've been able to gather. If this chart is correct then that should put it just behind DM43 in length. What you're suggesting is performance that far exceeds DM53. That to me doesn't compute for a rod that is over 100mm shorter. It's not significantly newer than DM53 either. I just don't see how it adds up for them to be the same shell.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Stridswombat

[Sp15 266]

Dude did you read what i wrote? im not saying the 122 is identical to to 2a5 or 121 or anything, frankly i dont see how you are getting that conclusion. What i am saying is that the Strv 122 versions (Strv 122 A, B and C models) would not be noticably different in in-game performance as the only difference is added mine protection on the B model and like upgraded electronics and battery packs on c. As for the round dont ever bring up steel beasts if you want to be taken seriously, it is not a source. Also when you quote somebody remove the photos, they just clog up the thread.

[Stridswombat 1,088]

1 hour ago, Sp15 said:

Dude did you read what i wrote? im not saying the 122 is identical to to 2a5 or 121 or anything, frankly i dont see how you are getting that conclusion. What i am saying is that the Strv 122 versions (Strv 122 A, B and C models) would not be noticably different in in-game performance as the only difference is added mine protection on the B model and like upgraded electronics and battery packs on c. As for the round dont ever bring up steel beasts if you want to be taken seriously, it is not a source. Also when you quote somebody remove the photos, they just clog up the thread.

The 122D adds mine protection and as far as I know the C and D also upgraded the resolution of the thermals. That's a protection and FCS upgrade, a sufficient change imo. The B+ also add that mine protection aswell as extra protection on the hull with the composite with a potential for penetration increase. That's also sufficient imo. That makes for 3 viable versions, not the 1 you claim.

 

What makes Steelbeasts not credible? I hardly think anyone would use it for training tank crews if there wasn't something to it. Further it makes sense with what I know about the round. A longer rod generally means more penetration. The rod is longer than DM33, but shorter than DM43. They're all tungsten rods in service at roughly the same time. It adds up. That's more than you've brought to the discussion. All you've done so far is make claims and not provided anything to back them up. If you've got any sources to the contrary I'd like for you to go ahead and provide them.

 

The projectile is not longer, is not newer and utilizes the same material as DM43 and DM53 and is fired out of the same gun. I don't see much reason for why it would have much better performance.

 

I'll be honest I respect you for digging up all of the information about a lot of these vehicles, but you're being needlessly aggressive for no reason.

[Sp15 266]

Mine protection is currently pointless ingame, only adds weight. The way i see it only 122a or b and 122B+ are neccesary, and the latter could just be a researchable module as far as im concerned. I do not understand why the vehicle would be split into three when they would be functionally identical even if one has a very slight resolution increase for the thermals (again apart from the b+ evolution armor pack, but i dont even think that warrants a new vehicle necessarily). Im not even going to argue the m/95, because as i said you can see it ingame already on the ariete. If you think it has the wrong performance bug report it. but it is indeed 570+385mm long.

 

The thing about steel beasts is it does not need to be accurate to train crews, it only needs to be accurate to a certain point, vehicle models, vehicle performance and mobility etc. Ofc the devs dont actually have first hand information on penetration values or armor protection so they use estimates that are good enough for what they need them for, but as someone who has acess to a lot of first hand archive material the cracks start to show. frankly from what i have seen war thunder is more accurate in almost everything. You should be able to see this yourself by looking at the armor shemes they have.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Sp15

[Stridswombat 1,088]

49 minutes ago, Sp15 said:

Mine protection is currently pointless ingame, only adds weight. The way i see it only 122a or b and 122B+ are neccesary, and the latter could just be a researchable module as far as im concerned. I do not understand why the vehicle would be split into three when they would be functionally identical even if one has a very slight resolution increase for the thermals (again apart from the b+ evolution armor pack, but i dont even think that warrants a new vehicle necessarily).

From what I've heard the mine protection kit isn't just a mine protection kit, but actually an overall protection increase that also protects the flanks of the tank... somehow.  I can't find any details as to how but I keep seeing this popping up in places. I've also heard something about ADAT's killing tanks by killing it through the floorplate so you know... There's some niche situations where some extra armour on the bottom of the tank might be useful. 

 

More tanks is always better because more tanks give an overall better lineup and helps fill up BR's more so there's less gaps. In this case the only tank that exists to fill the gap is Strv 122 and a new version with some slight upgrades is preferable to not having enough tanks to fill gaps or having a 1-tank lineup. As for the 122B+, I think they did something to the composite and didn't just add more of it. Because of that I'm not sure its possible to add it as an upgrade. Even if it was, it's a bigger change than the Ariete and Ariete PSO we have in the game so I think it deserves its own separate vehicle.

56 minutes ago, Sp15 said:

Im not even going to argue the m/95, because as i said you can see it ingame already on the ariete. If you think it has the wrong performance bug report it. but it is indeed 570+385mm long.

 

The thing about steel beasts is it does not need to be accurate to train crews, it only needs to be accurate to a certain point, vehicle models, vehicle performance and mobility etc. Ofc the devs dont actually have first hand information on penetration values or armor protection so they use estimates that are good enough for what they need them for, but as someone who has acess to a lot of first hand archive material the cracks start to show. frankly from what i have seen war thunder is more accurate in almost everything. You should be able to see this yourself by looking at the armor shemes they have.

Do you have any actual evidence it is the same shell? Because without anything to confirm it right now I just don't have any basis to think that shorter rod = much better performance.

 

What you're asking me to believe is essentially DM13-->DM23-->DM33-->Slpprj m/95-->DM43-->DM53 in rod length equals DM13-->DM23-->DM33-->DM43-->DM53-->Slpprj m/95 in performance when everything suggests that increased length is beneficial for performance and we can see a direct correlation of this in all of the rest of these shells. If there was some other differences to it, say DU or much higher velocity I would be inclined to believe you but I don't have any evidence there is. Again if you have detailed information on the shell I'd very much so like to see it to get things straight.

 

From what I know it is 570mm in length, weigh ca 5.4kg with a velocity of ca 1700 m/s and utilizes tungsten for the penetrator. None of that except the weight a little bit stands out to me when compared to say DM53 for example. It's also atleast a 1995 shell so it's a few years older than DM53 aswell. Am I incorrect about any of this?

[Solarmod 1,199]

This is inevitable, I am excited.

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

On 20/11/2019 at 21:11, Sp15 said:

Im not even going to argue the m/95, because as i said you can see it ingame already on the ariete. If you think it has the wrong performance bug report it. but it is indeed 570+385mm long.

570mm is just the length of the case, doesn´t imply that the projectile itself is that long. Only that it protrudes 385mm over the case, which compared to other 120mm apfsds, its not much

 

On 20/11/2019 at 22:16, Stridswombat said:

Do you have any actual evidence it is the same shell? Because without anything to confirm it right now I just don't have any basis to think that shorter rod = much better performance.

 

From what I know it is 570mm in length, weigh ca 5.4kg with a velocity of ca 1700 m/s and utilizes tungsten for the penetrator. None of that except the weight a little bit stands out to me when compared to say DM53 for example. It's also atleast a 1995 shell so it's a few years older than DM53 aswell. Am I incorrect about any of this?

I can confirm that M95 IS NOT Cl1343. The latter is the italian designation for the israeli made M322. As you can see in the brochure, the dimensions are not the same (total length of M322 + the case is 984mm):

 

120mm-M322-APFSDS-T-Cartridge-.pdf

[Smin1080p 60,226]

On 15/11/2019 at 20:55, Private_Wolk said:

Gaijin has recently confirmed that paper ships are coming to the game, it doesn't really matter anymore whether they were built or not. As long as there are definitive blueprints for the turret and gun available there should not be too much of an issue implementing the KRV in War Thunder.

 

We have made no comments on "paper ships". So I dont know where that comes from. 

[WayOfTheWolk 1,570]

51 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

We have made no comments on "paper ships". So I dont know where that comes from. 

Do you really want to go down that path Smin? Here is the exact quote word for word.

Q: Designing a ship (not a boat) is a very serious matter, it cannot be seriously redesigned if mistakes come up when it’s already been built. That’s why everything is calculated in advance, and in truth, a ship is born long before it reaches the shipyard, it’s born in the final construction blueprints. Will navy branches include projects that were never realized in metal, but existed only in blueprints, not to mention those that never got past the stocks?

A: Yes, we’re not ruling that out, especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another.

 

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5198-q-a-answers-from-the-developers-en

 

 

[Smin1080p 60,226]

8 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

Do you really want to go down that path Smin? Here is the exact quote word for word.

Q: Designing a ship (not a boat) is a very serious matter, it cannot be seriously redesigned if mistakes come up when it’s already been built. That’s why everything is calculated in advance, and in truth, a ship is born long before it reaches the shipyard, it’s born in the final construction blueprints. Will navy branches include projects that were never realized in metal, but existed only in blueprints, not to mention those that never got past the stocks?

A: Yes, we’re not ruling that out, especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another.

 

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5198-q-a-answers-from-the-developers-en

 

 

 

I would ask that you read the answer clearly and what it refers too. 

 

"especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another."

 

That is very different to the "confirming paper ships" claim you made. There has been no such direct claim that we "confirmed that paper ships are coming to the game". 

[WayOfTheWolk 1,570]

19 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

I would ask that you read the answer clearly and what it refers too. 

 

"especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another."

 

That is very different to the "confirming paper ships" claim you made. There has been no such direct claim that we "confirmed that paper ships are coming to the game". 

There is a high reason to believe that we are going to see the battlecruiser Kronshtadt in the Soviet Naval Tree for 2020. This was confirmed recently by Gaijin creative director, Kirill Yudintstev on stream. The quote itself is very conflicted Smin, I would suggest that you ask the developers for further clarification.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Private_Wolk

[Smin1080p 60,226]

1 minute ago, Private_Wolk said:

There is a high reason to believe that we are going to see the battlecruiser Kronshtadt in the Soviet Naval Tree in 2020. This was confirmed recently by one of the developers on stream. The quote itself is very problematic Smin, I would infer that you ask the developers for further clarification.

 

The Kronshtadt class were at least laid down. So its not a "paper ship" by the honest definition. Regardless this is not a speculation topic on Soviet ships that may or may not come to the game. 

 

The quote is clear that nothing is yet off the table in terms of consideration, but there was no direct confirmation there of "paper ships" as in literal paper only designs as of yet. 

 

Lets remain on topic here please. 

[WayOfTheWolk 1,570]

3 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

The Kronshtadt class were at least laid down. So its not a "paper ship" by the honest definition. Regardless this is not a speculation topic on Soviet ships that may or may not come to the game. 

 

The quote is clear that nothing is yet off the table in terms of consideration, but there was no direct confirmation there of "paper ships" as in literal paper only designs as of yet. 

 

Lets remain on topic here please. 

There are many in the community who consider "laid down" to be paper regardless of its merit. We arguably don't know what major alterations the Soviets might've done to the ship had it been fully built. I ask this because in the Swedish tech tree there are certain vehicles like the Kranvagn which weren't complete and I'd like to know the developer's official stance on said vehicles. I don't believe I'm asking for too much.

[Smin1080p 60,226]

8 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

There are many in the community who consider "laid down" to be paper regardless of its merit. We arguably don't know what major alterations the Soviets might've done to the ship had it been fully built. I ask this because in the Swedish tech tree there are certain vehicles like the Kranvagn which weren't complete and I'd like to know the developer's official stance on said vehicles. I don't believe I'm asking for too much.

 

It really depends on the information available and how feasible something is. Something like the O-I for example which is claimed to have been built but with very scarce and low quality information to really prove and show much, that tank at this point in time (unless more info becomes available) is not viable for implementation. 

 

As I understand the Kranvagn hull is sitting in the Arsenalen tank museum, so its already practically way ahead of the O-I for example in most terms and brings it into the realms of the E-100 which had both its hull build and combined with the Maus turret. With that being said, it still comes down to many additional factors. 

[Tasty95215 2,097]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but the Sav m/48 was recently announced as a premium, though it's called the "SAV 20.12.48" instead. It seems that it's not getting its HEAT shell though, given there's no mention of it in the Dev Blog and it's getting added to Rank 2.

 

https://warthunder.com/en/news/6510-development-sav-20-12-48-nordic-sledgehammer-en

[CokeSpray 7,240]

Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.