Lord have mercy that is a huuuge can of worms you do NOT want to open 😂
2 Likes
True anything with Object in the name > Bye, any thing with XM & VK designation > bye.
People, why is my TT so empty and full of holes?
still not sure why they removed it, but when it had HE-VT it was one of the best canon SPAAG i used ;P
Mine sits in GFAB at a very nice 4.4 : 1 K/D, rarely used it after the change, since i was shooting stuff with the equally good ASRAD-R.
1 Like
We do not generally base vehicle or weapon additions on arguments like “but a similar gun on a ship fired it, so technically…” — that’s not how implementation works. We only consider rounds that were either definitely fired by the platform in question or at the very least tested with it.
If the VEAK 40 had fired HE-VT, it would be eligible to receive it. But as of now, there is no evidence to support that.
Current confirmed ammunition for the VEAK 40 includes:
- An APDS — ~1200 m/s; ~120 mm penetration against flat armor at 100 m
- An HE-I — ~1005 m/s (comparable to Leopard 40/70 and AMX-13 DCA 40)
- An AP-T — ~1005 m/s (also comparable to Leopard 40/70 and AMX-13 DCA 40)
(For context I’m aware as are many that the current in-game ammunition for the Lvakan m/48 is incorrect and that the above amunition types arent in-game)
Correction:
The Swedish Navy was testing the HE-VT at the time the VEAK 40 was at the end of its project. the Army did not, and there is no documentation showing the VEAK 40 was ever tested with it.
Until evidence surfaces confirming the VEAK 40 fired HE-VT, it will not receive the shell.
This is the final word on the matter unless new proof emerges.
sorry for the ping necronomica*
1 Like
I don’t recall the exact dates but the VEAK-40 development was scrapped a few years before Bofors started producing 40mm VT ammo.
It seems that the 40mm proxy was in testing during the same time the VEAK 40 was tested, there is however no evidence of direct usage of proxy with the specific vehicle.
1 Like
I would rather choose gameplay over realistic bro, since I despise CAS in ground battle so much, having a M247 doppelganger means more dead planes in that br, the only good plane in ground battle is a dead plane.
So give it the HEVT back and ground mains are so back, maybe also put the Tiger 2 105 and Panther 2 up for sales bro Gaijin gonna make so much money.
5 Likes
Like I said “production of 40mm VT” testing may have overlapped but 40mm VT was not an available munition until well after the VEAK was sent to the scrap heap. If we are going to go with “well it could shoot it” then all the Bofors 40mm, like the dusters, get VT… not that I wouldn’t enjoy the CAS screeching mind you.
1 Like
Page 46 of this Army ammo register says one of the 40mm shells used the navy fuse.
And also looks to have dates of 1963 and 1964.
also
This Russian paper that was translated in 1972 says
" The
high-explosive fragmentation shells use a radio fuze which is actuated
4.8 m from the target."
on page 198
This is all old information that has been pointed out to Gaijin multiple times.
Just because Gaijin wants to pick and choose which Information it calls “correct” doesnt mean there isnt evidence out there, and we all know Gaijin has a bad habit of cherry picking info.
No yall dont, and your next statement just shows that.
At least with the APDS ammo the VEAK would be useful against tanks.
While there doesnt appear to be any direct evidence that the VEAK fired the “VT” shell, there is plenty of evidence to show it fired a shell similar enough to it that Gaijin could just tweak the parameter of an existing VT shell in game to get the same effect.
Gaijin already does this with multiple other vehicles and ammo types in game.
Taking away the one shell that made this tank useful at all saying “but historical reasons” while at the same time knowing, and ignoring, the correct ammo for the tank is just hypocritical.
3 Likes
Biggest issue we face right now is just that of the fact we have no propper sources for what this Munition was
Copied from page 198
Gun feed is automatic, from a magazine. The basic ammunition
load is 425 rounds with high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. The
high-explosive fragmentation shells use a radio fuze which is actuated
4.8 m from the target.
It even gives you the trigger distance for the fused shells.
The Army ammo register gives you the explosive content of the shell.
There we have a pretty good source, however more than one is often preferred- but for now it at least confirms the VEAK 40 had- some HE munitions with a burst function-
What would be really, really ideal is. What is the shell designation? That would be ideal for confirming it was a real thing. That would be the “nail in the coffin” since that would allow for a deeper research into the specific ammunition’s
Digging around in the Army ammo register and attempting to translate it, it seems to show the 40mm high explosive shells had interchangeable fuses.
This is probably what has caused so much confusion over this is the shell designation doesnt change, just the fuse does.
The Army ammo register makes mention of an “reinforced navy fuze” as well as a high sensitivity contact fuze.
Here is a picture I found showing a collection of early war and late war contact fuzes.
Seems the fuze would just screw ontop of the shell.
3 Likes
Page 46 talks about 47mm shells and doesn’t mention any proxy rounds? (are you using the PDF page number or the copied work page number?)
I can’t see any mention of proxy fuse for the 40mm shells in this version (i have personally looked through it before and i know Swedish). Edit: the Swedish designation for proxy fuses are “zonr” or “zonar” depending on if it also has a secondary contact fuse or not. The page for each ammo type also lists the fuses that are compatible.
RU sources are sadly not accepted for western vehicles as far as i understand it.
Is there? where? I’ve spent hours on this exact topic and found VERY little evidence of this. Everything i’ve personally seen and found so far is just guesses and assumptions.
This is true
PDF page number 46
I also said this section mentioned the navy fuse, not a proxy specifically.
“Rören har sprängkapselsäkring marinens ammunition.
och armeras 0,4 m framför mynningen.”
And the “navy fuze” info probably wouldn’t be on the army’s ammo register. We would have to turn up the navy’s version of it to get that info.
Unless the Necronomica tag has been used by multiple people, you know exactly as you have been apart of this issue for years. Im not going to be bothered reposting every thing for you.
Also, unless someone has directly talked to either the people who loaded the ammo into the tank, or the tank crew that then fired the ammo, EVERYTHING else is a “secondary” source.
This is pretty amusing as Gaijin has used sources from competing nations with various vehicles before.
Intelligence reports would be one of the better sources of direct information about a vehicle’s capability.
Given How Gaijin has chosen to blatantly ignore information even directly from manufactures before, there is nothing I can do other than quote the info and sources I can find and hope Gaijin, and yall, choose not to cherry pick around it based on Gaijin’s agenda.
3 Likes
I edited my last 2 posts a bit
This just means that the fuse is not able to be triggered until 0.4m after it has left the barrel, nothing mentioned about proximity fuse. The “ö hk sar” at the start means: “ö” (ögonblicklig) “hk” (högkänslig) “sar” (spetsanslagsrör) which directly translated means immediate, high sensitive, point-contact-tube. So it’s just a normal fuse triggered on a direct hit.
We have already done that in this thread: (Veak 40 ammo change) , no proxy fuses available until 1977 for the navy. McPuff has access to several of the ammunition registers.
Which is exactly why i’m saying this. i haven’t seen any proof, even through extensive searching, you can read through the above linked thread.
Edited for clarity and spelling
yes you have, you are just choosing to ignore it.
Direct Info we can find from the 60’s is going to be limited to what someone else copied into a computer at a later date.
We will never have a complete picture of what went on.
So far Ive found several other forums discussing the 40mm ammo and the VEAK, but they have been light on providing source material.
Finding information on the 40mm shell in general is much easier, but doesnt tie directly to what the VEAK was tested with.
When discussing vehicles that were only prototyped or only tested, we have to keep in mind that what was proposed or used in testing was probably what was easily on hand at the time and not what a fully in service vehicle would have been limited to.
I just ran accros another fourm talking about the VEAK being tested with the HEVT ammo since they were developed at the same time. It was also mentioned again that the fuze was just added onto the already existing 40mm slsgr.
Only this picture was provided, said to be from 1967, Hopefully i can find the source.
1 Like