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.
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.
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.
Not in the slightest, please enlighten me of the proof that i am “ignoring”. Do note that i’m using “proof” here in reference to the requirements that Gaijin has for something to be accepted as a source.
So in other words, there is no proof and only conjecture.
That image is from a source that i linked in the above mentioned thread.
The paper states on page 119 that " 57 mm lvzonrör är f n i produktion och rörets storlek
skiljer sig inte mycket från ett normalt anslagsrör. Figur 8 visar den
relativa storleken av rör av 50-talets generation, av 60-talsmodell
och av en tänkbar 70-talskonstruktion. "
and translated:
“57mm antiair-proximity fuse is currently in production and the fuse size does not differ by much compared to a normal fuse. figure 8 shows the relative sizes of fuses with technology from 50’s, 60’s and a future imagined 70’s construction.”
So the 40mm mentioned there is what the author imagined a 70’s fuse to be.
Looks like a confirmed date of 1967 for the picture then.
This is true. but it is also true for almost every other prototype in the game and for the ammo they were tested with. And as another member here pointed out, Gaijin does give other tanks ammo that came after the tank.
I still haven’t found any direct documentation that states what ammo the VEAK test fired.
I have only found a list of ammo the tank could fire, one of which being the 40mm slsgr which from other documents could have had the proxy fuse screwed on to it, as well as a host of other fuses.
Just out of curiosity sake, I wonder what sources Gaijin used when making the VEAK that decided what ammo was used.
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.
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.
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”.
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)
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.
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.
