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.
It was also mounted on the Charrua for Brazil at some point it seems
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
Yeees give Sweden Brrrt!
I have found a couple of more pics, i’ll post more if i find more pics
While i was looking for more pics of the 23 ItK 95 i found a couple of more interesting vehicles to note
Lvkan 4501: 120mm Autocannon, yes that is correct, a 120mm that is also an autocannon
Eldenhet 23 BAMSE: Interesting note here is the truck in question that is mounting these SAM’s are of Indian origin
Spoiler
3 Likes
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
There is also a double option but think it’s only on ships
1 Like
Why Wont You DIE!! XD They will basically trade shots and the russians will rage that they dont get the better KV-1 XD
1 Like
I know right?
The meme-potential of a 120mm autocannon vehicle being rejected over such a small thing is exasperating.
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
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
I’ll have extra book sources next week to write the suggestion. Now I’m still trying to think which one. The differences from 61 to 95 seem too big to place them on same BR, thus they would need to be separate vehicle. However developers could be reluctant to model the two separate truck platforms.
From what I read, 95 is preferred for covering more static targets, while 61 still has it’s weight advantage for more mobile work. Of course this might have changed during the last decades. Anyway I’d imagine that’s why we only see 95 on the less crosscountry capable SK-181.
Most likely I’ll write suggestion about SK-150 with 61 and maybe 95 as option if moderators see it as viable.
For crew and ammo loadout I might need to throw dice.
I ended up writing the suggestion about SA-150 with 20 ItK/61 and left 95 out. It will probably take few days before moderators check and approve it.
1 Like
There we go!
1 Like