Your comments are mostly incorrect. Bofors is a Swedish company in the 1980s, calling it anything else is just ridiculous. Bofors didn’t come under foreign ownership until 2000, well after Trinity. Also, it was not BAE Systems that bought Bofors in 2000 but United Defense. Bofors most definitely had involvement in mounting Trinity to Shark. Bofors marketed the system on various platforms including the Shark entirely independently of MOWAG. The Trinity mounted on Shark was tested in Sweden too, the photo of the system without the armoured turret is taken on the Bofors firing range in Karlskoga. It was a joint venture, not a case of Bofors selling a turret to another company and if you have evidence to the contrary I would be very happy to see it. Switzerland has no more claim to it than Sweden
The shark never went to Sweden which is well recorded.
it was in Germany most of the time during the 6 years it was commercialized. it tested the serial turret it received.
this specific one also received the Wildcat turret in 1983 and the Crotal in 1984. it was in 1988 that the Trinity was built.
in 1986 Bofors was sued by the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association due to a large sale of armament that was likely obtained by a bride to the Swedish sales commission and broke the law about the Arms Export Act an also a scandal about the export of the Robot 70 to UAE. the legal case reduced a lot the value of Bofor in the stock exchange and was definitively not something a State-owned company would have done. this led to a period of legal difficulty which led to the end of Bofors in the following years.
in 1991 Aktiebolaget Bofors-Gullspång and Förenade Fabriksverken i Eskilstuna merged and was bought by the Celcius group which was formerly Svenska Varv and this one was mostly state-owned. that means before 1991 Bofor was not state-owned and this changed in 1999 when SAAB bought Celsius which was state-owned. in 1993 Celsius was added in the Stock Exchange of Stockholm which marked the return of AB Bofor on the public market. SAAB and Celsius merged to raise the Value of SAAB and sell it to United Defense industry which is American in 2000. it was then moved to the Stock Exchange in 2001 and was acquired by BAE Systems in 2005
but you were right, it was not BAE who bought SAAB in 2001, it was United Defense Industries, i forgot this little part of Bofors history.
as for the Trinity, no, Bofor was not involved directly, they only gave their tumps up for eventual negotiation. The shark was not successful in the market and Mowag was already commercializing the Piranah in 1985/1986 which was much cheaper and successful.
Sweden had never any intention to buy an additional wheeled vehicle, they ordered the Patria XA in 1984-1985 and it was delivered in 1988 the same year the Shark got the Trinity turret. why they would have sent the Shark there? it is also well-confirmed that it was in Western Europe this whole time.
Again, do you have any source for what you’re saying?
I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make about company ownership as a lot of the arms companies that produced export vehicles in-game are private entities, this is nothing unique to Bofors. Do you think American tanks are produced by the US federal state? Sweden already has vehicles intended for export anyhow. I think you’re mixing up your history too, the Peace and Arbitration Association filed a police report regarding the RBS 70 smuggling in 1984. 1986 is when India signed an order for FH 77B howitzers which was subsequently surrounded by bribery accusations. Bofors also illegally exported gun powder to Iran via the DDR during the Iran-Iraq War. Not something a state owned entity would do, but Bofors had never been state owned up until that point and that wasn’t my point
Sweden never intended to buy the Shark Trinity, but neither did Switzerland. It doesn’t matter because vehicles are implemented based on who created them, not the intended operator, especially in cases where the system wasn’t purchased. The Japanese F-16 is an exception made out of necessity, as has been clarified by Gaijin. By your logic it would go to Germany which makes no sense.
Who integrated the Trinity turret on the Shark hull if not Bofors in Sweden? Bofors clearly had a stake in the Trinity Shark and didn’t simply sell the turret to MOWAG since Bofors marketed the combination independently of MOWAG.
Also, Sweden did buy additional wheeled vehicles around that times, purchasing Piranha 10x10s for the coastal artillery in the 90s and there was serious interest in buying more 6x6 or 8x8 (can’t remember) variants for use in airfield security, at least one was tested in Sweden.
The below photo was taken by the Swedish photographer Sture Traneving and comes from a Swedish book about Karlskoga, the home of Bofors. It can be said with quite high certainty that the vehicle is in Sweden at this point, and judging by the incomplete turret and external cables the photo most likely depicts the integration process being conducted by Bofors in Sweden.
This is a Bofors ad for Trinity, notice the Shark to the right. This was done independently of MOWAG and I don’t see why Bofors would run an ad to sell what you claim to be a MOWAG product.
Just google it at this point. there is plenty of trace of it and none of the Sharks in Sweden. even Wikipedia said it. and try to check out the Boforsaffären too
at this point, i will not bother to try to correct the false information based on assumption.
The cables are often used by about every single country to safely use the weaponry. the vehicle was not in Sweden at all and the armour of the turret was simply removed in order to install the cable. it wasn’t a brand-new turret.
they didn’t have either of the 2 other vehicles in Sweden either. what they are showing there is the turret was adaptable in many vehicles, not that it was selling the Shark. Thompson-CSF did the same to sell the Crotal to Canada and it was the very same chassis that later mounted the trinity. only in this case, the vehicle was indeed tested by the Canadian stationed in Germany
it was in 1992 they developed it, and only in 1997 when Sweden got it. it was ages after the Shark. it is not related
the Piranha III was not designed for Sweden specifically but for the international market. Sweden has been the first to order it. by them the Shark was already history and Sweden never tested it.
All of the following are taken at the upper firing range at Bofors Test Center in Karlskoga. Bear in mind that the dates vary widely so details have changed, but the red shack, sand pile, and concrete structure is there
that sounds like a good source. if you can prove the photo was indeed Bofor’s proving ground, I will admit my arguments are invalid and change my mind
You have a +1 from me, as for what tree this should go into, ideally, I’d love to see an Independent Swiss Tree as they have more than enough for a Ground Tree (Air is iffy), aside from that I’d be fine with it in the Swedish Tree
That brings up another arguing point if Bofors and Hägglund and söner now BAE systems is private company, then why is the CV90s going to sweden. Yea, its a company founded in sweden with close ties to the Swedish goverment like SAAB is a Company??!!
+1 För Svenska tech tree as a researchable stridsfordon.
More SPAAs are long overdue at pretty much all BRs outside of Russia
Now with the VEAK 40 changes, this would fit really well at 9.0 or 9.3 to fit into Sweden’s 9.3 lineup. It’s performance anti-air wise will probably be very close to how the VEAK used to perform, but it has seperate search- and tracking radar, and it has better mobility than USA’s M247.
My opinion is that it shouldn’t go too high in BR since it will probably still use the tracer rounds like the VEAK did, tracers on SPAA plays a HUGE role on wether or not you will be able to hit an air target from kilometers away.
Hey I think you got the two rates mixed up. For sea trinity Rate of elevation is 45 degrees/sec, for Rate of Train it is 85 degrees per second.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_4cm-70_m1948.php
I was wondering why the horizontal drive is slower than the vertical one.
Thanks for pointing that out =). I looked it up and the source I used actually stated those stats but later on used the correct ones. I must’ve picked out the wrong ones, doh!
Edits:
Data corrected. Removed the traverse speeds from the basic stat card and left them only at the armament stat card, no need for duplicates. Also corrected the depression stat from -5, to -10.
Source: Terry J. Gander. The Bofors Gun.
+1
I just wish 3P was actually implemented correctly in WT. Then there would not be 66%chance of ur rounds doing jack squat
The Brazilian Navy has used the Swedish anti-aircraft defense system for many years, they tried to use the module for a possible sale to Brazil and it only remained in the prototype
Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.