Seems as though we’ll be getting an “M24DK” for Sweden this update.
I have never heard of this designation for the Danish Chaffee before, so I was admittedly hoping it to be a confusion of the M41DK, but Gszabi says otherwise.
I hardly think we need more copy paste though, and it’s also really strange that we’re getting this before the NM-116 or aforementioned M41 DK-1, and seemingly as a tech tree vehicle at that.
3 Likes
Hating the copy paste myself, was thinking about the NM-116 too as you mentioned
tho i completely forgot about the M41 DK
But one weird thing i’ve noticed is that it doesn’t mentioned the M24DK being a premium, either that was missed or there’s a chance Denmark might turn into an official sub-tree now that it isn’t restricted to premium
1 Like
Yeah, considering there’s a bit of a hole where the NM-116 would likely go, while at 3.7 there’s a solid line-up already. But having a decent scouting vehicle is nice too, I suppose.
1 Like
I cant imagine it not being premium, the TT just has no room for it unless gaijin plans on doing what theyve done with India and adding additions to the TT. It wouldn’t shock me given the slop they called a replacement for the KV-1B. Pay to have a somewhat useful vehicle isnt a new thing for the swedish tree nor warthunder in general. Guess if it is a premium its cause the KV-1A didn’t sell well. I mean ive seen 1 other person with it. Guess nobody is interested in a Kv-1A zis 5 without a lineup lol.
Also basic M24 is such a wasted opportunity for literally any of our unique vehicles or a nation started with F and ending D. Hm its almost like gaijin has actively given that subnation the middle finger every chance possible, shame they have nothing ;) oh well
1 Like
Welp, seems like it’s not a premium, just gotta see if there’s a mention of them being a sub-tree now or simply used used as a filler
I hope Norway and Denmark will be confirmed trees soon, sweden needs so much stuff to fix the air tree lol and fill the 7.x area and the now garbage 8.7 lineup
1 Like
A Danish tank as a regular researchable vehicle would be one of the lowkey biggest news of the update. It would likely mean that Gaijin has finally decided that the rest of the Nordic countries should be part of the Swedish tree, and not part of some combined EU tree in the future.
Well lets see if someone can answer that.
@Smin1080p_WT apologies for the ping but any news on whether Denmark and Norway are to be Swedish subtrees? With the addition of the M24 from Denmark and the F-5A(G) from Norway both of which should have gone to the US dince neither Denmark or Norway are subtrees. Does this mean they are subtrees that have yet to receive actual trees, guess subnations would be the correct term.
Can’t wait for it to be used to fix the air tree in the same sense as Finland.
“Here, mildly useless vehicle instead of a Gripen NG that would address the shortcomings of the tree”.
Or
“Here, mildly useless copy paste of questionable platforms from other trees at an inflated BR”.
That frustration aside, could be useful for giving us a ground line up at any BR other than toptier.
2 Likes
Enjoy another copy and paste hunter and this huge middle finger is what im expecting tbh
2 Likes
What do you guys think? Potential Latvian vehicle for the Swedish tree?
2 Likes
After all this time I actually managed to track down a copy of this magazine! The article about the T-54 modernization goes over the Finnish-made APDS shell, the trials with a prototype tank that used a Bofors made l/68 cannon, as well as tests with different kinds of cage armor. Below is a breakdown of all the relevant info in the article:
The APDS shell had a weight of around 20kg, with the actual projectile weighing 6,6kg. It had a velocity of 1280m/s and a penetration of 320mm at 1500 meters and a 90° angle. It went into production but was rarely used in training. Atleast 400 of these shells were produced.
The trials with the T-54 fitted with a 100mm 68 caliber cannon (so about 1,3m longer than the original) proved that the new cannon achieved around a 15% increase in firepower with the domestic APDS shell. At best it achieved a velocity of over 1400m/s and a penetration of 200mm at a 45° angle. Even though the trials proved that the new cannon did achieve an increase in firepower the project was ultimately canned because of the enormous cost that came with changing the barrels of the whole T-54 fleet of the FDF.
And finally the T-54 with the cage armor, was a prototype that came to be after the FDF realised the potential benefits of using cage armor against HEAT shells and the like. The FDF conducted multiple tests to see which kind of cage armor configuration would be the most reliable against HEAT shells. In the end they settled on a 10mm thick cage with a 13*40cm width between each steel beam. After this a proposal was made to fit the entire fleet of T-54 with the same kind of cages that could be quickly installed on the tanks in times of war. It is not known how many sets were made in the end, as the proposal didn’t go very far in the end. At the very least we know that one tank was fitted with this kind of cage armor thanks to the few surviving photos seen in the article.
That about sums up all the relevant information in the article, below I’ve left pictures of the pages of the article in question. They are in Finnish since I really can’t be bothered to translate the entire thing.
5 Likes
Awesome work! Thank you for sharing with us!
No problem, I’m happy to help!
Added the Lvakan 4501, the 12cm autocannon to the list
Also the Sisu E13 TP
1 Like
lvakan 4501 seems unlikely since you’d have to unload it for shooting
Why would you remove swedish mi28 and AHS, they were real and tested
probably because both were just trial vehicles that never got bought
AHS makes more sense than the Mi-28 tho since they bothered giving it decal/paint job and flew it themselves unlike the Mi that simply had a swede in the co-pilot/gunner while a russian was flying the thing
But the H60 isn’t exactly a good replacement for either of them so i’d say it’s better to keep it like it currently is, not like we can receive new equipment or anything for these 2 vehicles eitherway
Because these vehicles are curse marks on a Swedish TT.
Policy of addition of vehicles back then and now are quite different, and that really makes quite a number of troubles. Swedes are usually brought up in topics like “X wants Y because Swedes already have Z”, whereas X = some nation (redfor or bluefor), Y = some trialed vehicle (that is often from opposite “for” team), and Z = trialed vehicles (Mi-28, AHS and T-80U).
As gaijoobles don’t remove them vehicles as there is no proper replacement for them (at least for helis, even though they can easily invent some Danish/Norwegian Leopard 2 to replace T-80U), people bring up Swedish TT as a shiny example of logical fallacy (e.g. “why Swedes can have vehicles that they never adopted even in a single unit, moreover from redfor country, and my X nation can’t have vehicle from Y nation because our pilot/driver/captain sat in it for a 0,00001 seconds during trials?”).
So yeah, back to topic: they should remove them, and some day they shall be replaced with an option that doesn’t go with “trialed” title.
3 Likes
So all trialed but not adopted vehicles should be removed? Like half of soviet objects should be removed by your logic. and then sweden should lose its only attack helis and replaced by utility helis?
No thanks bc swedish heli tree aint best, and this would be it even worse