My idea is that it could get the more powerful APFSDS that the Strf 9040C uses (the regular Lvkv-9040’s uses the weaker APFSDS if i recall correctly) in other words better anti-tank abilities. Also It would not get any restrictions to said APFSDS assuming if a restriction on the amount of APFSDS rounds is added to the Lvkv-9040’s akin to the OTOMATIC.
This is ontop of the other improvements that it gets like an improved radar for example.
Like the post said, it is subject to change so it could get a lower BR though no lower than BR 10:3
The Lvkv 90 TD does not feature an improved radar. It’s an experimental upgrade package to the Lvkv 9040A which adds the same improved gun stabilization of the Strf 9040B, the same improved suspension of the Strf 9040B, a datalink enabling it to recieve and send target data to and from external radars, an improved GPS system, a rear-view camera for the driver, and IRST tracker, the same externally mounted Ksp 58 of the Strf 9040C / D1 / D2 whilst removing the internally mounted Ksp 39, and a V0 radar which reads the exit velocity of every single shell to use that data to improve the gun-laying.
If it were to be added, the only real gameplay difference from the Lvkv 9040C would be the datalink (if Gaijin adds datalink to ground-based SPAAs) so that any targets detected by friendly SPAAs and aircraft would also show up for you. It is in no way enough of an improvement gameplay-wise to make it on-par with the ItO-90M, let alone 11.0 worthy. And every single Strf 90 is able to use the Slpprj m/01 irl, so it’s just Gaijin logic that only the Strf 9040C recieved it.
10.3 would be a fair placement if it recieved the datalink and Sllprj m/01, but other than that it would just be a faster but less armoured Lvkv 9040C.
I really like the overall idea here and there’s some good background but I have a few notes. Afaik the T-55M with applique armour does not necessarily have MEXAS, nobody seems to actually know what it uses for sure. An alternative could be the single T-55M that had BDD turret cheek applique. AMOS can do direct fire but only has HE as direct fire anti-tank rounds so not sure whether it would really work in-game. What you call the “Ikv-91 AMOS” and the Mjölner both use the same loading system, with the ikv 91 version being a predecessor for AMOS. Problem in-game is that neither of these can do direct fire so they wouldn’t work in-game. Pansarterrängbil 202 is the command version of the Pasi, based on the XA-202, the one shown here is the Patgb 203 based on the XA-203. While some missiles systems are sometimes placed on top of it, these are not integrated systems but ground systems placed temporarily on the roof and they’d just fall off if the vehicle started driving. I’m also not sure there actually is a difference between the Pbv 501 and 501A, but it certainly didn’t get a new engine. The thing you call “Bv-206S (RB-56)” is a made up vehicle, somebody photoshopped a HOT ATGM turret onto a Bv 309
Trinity is the name of the gun system and it is entirely developed by Bofors. There are also versions like Sea Trinity and Tridon that was present on TriKA. My understanding is that the Shark was only brought in as a vehicle to mount it on, and Sweden was looking at various Piranhas around that time
To add to that, the system for ground vehicles was called Armored Trinity. This system was tested extensively on the Mowag Shark 8x8 with testing and qualification between 1986-87 and was fully functional by 1988.
I’d really like to have more photos of these for a suggestion. Obviously they aren’t just field modifications since they are used on firing range. Knowing the crew and ammo load counts would definitely help.
Just a heads up, I submitted a suggestion on the Lvkan 4501 120mm and it was rejected since the vehicle had to stop and deploy the system in place. I have no idea why they couldn’t skip that in the game and let us have the vehicle since it’s such a small thing to get hung up on.
The 120mm autocannon is mainly mounted on ships, the pic you posted is the land based system however i think the truck is only for transport and it can’t be fired from + don’t think any spare ammo is carried on it so you’d be restricted to the magazine in the back which i think is 52 shells
Obviously 52 shells as an SPAA isn’t super useful but might work out as Anti-Tank if Gaijin is fine adding the vehicle in transport mode but it only has HE shells i think
One funny thing is most Spaa systems in this game in reality needs to be anchored to not be too affected by recoil. But they dont. Soooo What is this double standard
I could try and re-submit it and try to come up with some good explanation why it should be added despite the limitations. I don’t have the brain power to do it today though, and the exact reasons why it was rejected is on the old forum which can’t be accessed anymore, unfortunately.
If anyone has some good suggestions I could include to maybe get it passed, shoot me a reply/message.
Just reason that The Pantsir, ITO 90M, Lvtdgb m/40, FV4005(i believe). All in reality need to be anchored to not let the recoil become overwhelming. but they aren’t!
Now id argue that vehicles that come equipped with anchors to be able to deploy them! Since it would help with recoil.
Same reason we don’t have other towed guns. Otherwise things like towed 88s and AT guns could be added and it would make for a relly weird situation. Britain and France also had similar turreted towed automatic AA guns. Anyway, as for the 4501 specifically, my understanding is that even if you were to man it during transport which I doubt was ever done, I don’t think it can rotate the turret due to the hitch being in the way, it was removed when in firing position. Not totally sure though, need to visit the museum where it’s at
Those are mounted with the non-upgraded 23 Itk 61. I’ve only seen pictures of 23 Itk 95 on the Sisu SK 181 as posted above, although it’s probably used on other trucks too. There’s also the ZIL-131 truck with the 23 Itk 61. These portee AA guns are pretty much standard practice in Finland and seems to have been since at least the 1950s when it was being done with the 20 ITK 40 VKT
Hmm, didn’t consider the hitch potentially blocking the turret. That would in my opinion be the real dealbreaker. The other points you brought up can be argued with, however.
For now I’ll shelve the idea until more info comes forward.
