I think i read somewhere that they had been given wrong information stating that the 40mm slsgr is inherently a proxy round or something to that effect, not entirely sure though.
1 Like
I read that too. According to info ive seen its just a designation for the high explosive shell. But this info was pretty easy to come across, so im not sure how Gaijin could have gotten that confused if they did any googling of their own…
The army ammo thing I posted just lists different types of slsgr, of which the difference is in which explosive filler was used.
It would still be extremely interesting to know what those sources were exactly.
Sweden’s shell designations are a bit weird it seems. There is a main designation, but it doesn’t appear to change based on any modifications to the shell.
For example there were many iterations of the contact fuse for 40mm slsgr, the fuse number changed 251 through 255, but the shell didnt.
Which makes sense in a way as the base shell didnt change, but doesnt give us a clear separation of which fuse is on a particular shell unless you happen to have that shell in your hands.
The AMKAT (ammunition registry) does list every shell a gun could fire and the fuses it can be fired with in that specific gun (and casing), that is also why there are three sections of 40mm in the 1960 version as there are 3 different categories of 40mm guns that could fire different types of ammunition/fuse combinations. This also explains why the same shell/fuse combos are sometimes listed more than once. For example the “slsgr m/-483 ö hk sar m/483” combo is listed twice as it could be fired with both shorter and longer casings but not in the older guns that used the short casing, only the newer ones (new/old is a bit reductive but i think it gets the point across).
True. But this list is incomplete for the purpose of the VEAK as it is a list of currently existing shells at the time of the list(1960) when the VEAK prototype was tested in 1964, and doesn’t include things in development. Also the registry doesnt give specifics on which specific platforms fired which shells at which time.
On a funny side note, trying to find independent info on the VEAK is getting quite amusing as Google keeps trying to redirect me back to a warthunder forum.
2 Likes
I may have found some proof that the 40mm proxy fuse existed, and was being tested at Bofors during the same time the VEAK was being tested.
AGA and SATT had developed a “jammer” that could be mounted in an aircraft that would set off proxy shells early. From the paper linked, on pdf page 20, they tested the jammer at Bofors firing range 1964-65 against a 40mm shell that was “induced to detonate”.
2 Likes
Already discussed and shown in the previously linked thread (you should really read that thread, a lot of the sources you find are already linked in there)
I did read that, I just forgot i read it lol.
Lots of tabs open at the moment.
but if the VEAK was tested in 64, and the jammer was tested 64 through 65, Then both existed at the same place, during the same time.
From what i have been able to find the VEAK was tested in '63 and then the planned production deliveries slated for '66-68 were put on hold due to the vehicle being to expensive. No mention of any tests in '64.
To be honest Gaijin should treat fake ammo just like they treat fake vehicles, just hide it from further research but allow people that already have it to continue using it.
We could have VEAK 40 at 7.7 and then a hidden version named something like VEAK 40 (HE-VT) at 8.7.
Den kompletta prototypen till den nya
bandluftvärnsvagnen – som Bofors valde att benämna VEAK 40 –(VEAK, som
stod för Vagn Eldledning Automat-Kanon) levererades först hösten 1964.
says the full prototype was delivered in fall of 64.
That section you highlighted seems to talk about the trials of the radar.
1 Like
So by then it was no longer on the Bofors field where the proxy was tested. So there might be a VERY small window where both existed together on the same field for one summer or something like that.
1 Like
On the next page after the one you quoted.
När prototypen väl hade levererats, utfördes ett antal försök som föll väl ut. Vagnen var i många avseenden långt före sin
tid, men den bedömdes bli för dyr.
Possibly, It doesnt appear to mention where it was delivered to. It could have been brung to Bofors own testing grounds, which I doubt were right outside the factory.
well the prototype would have been tested on the Bofors testing grounds next to where it was being built, delivering it to the army later i assume that they then take it to the armies own testing fields. The army likely doesn’t use Bofors areas for testing.
True.
If we make some inferences from what we know, if the jammer was tested at Bofors firing range in 64, and since they used the 40mm shell to test it, that must mean the shell was in a near full workable state. Otherwise they wouldnt have used that shell to test the jammer.
We also know the full prototype wasnt delivered until 64. The VEAK wasnt fully assembled and then shipped out same day so the full tank was there for a period of time with the fuse shell before it was delivered elsewhere.
I kinda doubt they would have used the VEAK to fire at the jammer, but given they were already testing an mid development round against an experimental jammer it kinda makes a weird amount of sense.
They would have needed to test fire the VEAK before its delivery anyways…
1 Like
The 40mm was used according to one secondary source that is a collection of interviews. I also find it doubtful they had a near full working round in 64 when it wasn’t put into service in the Swedish navy until '77. sounds a bit to long between working prototype and to put something like that into service during the height of the cold war. But that’s just speculation. (well, all of this is at this point)
1 Like
Sadly there doesnt seem to be any other source for the jammer but the one. Ive kinda switched my focus for now and am trying to find info on the jammer itself.
LOL, maybe I should just try to call Bofors up and ask them, I believe they are apart of BAE systems now a days.
Indeed they are-
Bofors, Hägglund BAE are both BAE
1 Like
It’s highly likely the budgetary constraints that killed the VEAK also seriously delayed work on the 40mm HEVT round.
No-one’s saying the round was perfect and ready to put into production at this point. There was likely still some amount of work that would have been required to perfect the round and/or streamline it for mass production. The project was probably deprived of funding, but since it would be much less expensive to run and implement it probably limped along until they put together a finished product.
Even if the round wasn’t 100% reliable, those considerations are not modeled in game. We don’t have to worry about the Maus’s APHEDS shattering as it mostly did IRL. We don’t have to worry about the F-14’s engines deciding to compressor stall during manuevers and killing the engine. Nor any of the other countless examples. All that’s required is a baseline level of functionality. Which, considering they were apparently happy to fire live rounds at planes, the HEVT fuse probably had.
I also find it wild to assume that Sweden was developing a cutting edge, world class SPAA, as well as a cutting edge, world class round that is inherently compatible with the SPAA, and the idea that the former should use the later never occured to them. Of course it was planned that it would have recieved HEVT later in life had it entered service. And giving prototype vehicles capabilities they were intended to recieve had they entered service is already a precident Gaijin has established with the Yak-141.
1 Like
And that then makes it less probable it was used for testing other new prototypes because then you wouldn’t know if the round failed or the new prototype jammer failed, it wouldn’t give reliable results in any usable way.
This is also where i’m personally at in line of thinking :) Sad to have no proof of it though.