Ok but it didn’t
If that was such a case then the chinese t-34-85 can fire heatfs
2 Likes
And that’s because the D-5T has any resemblance to other 85mm guns? It’s definitely possible to fire any shell from almost any casing so long as it has a sabot, or is the same caliber, and has enough propellant to make it effective. Not really a valid comparison, as the T-34-85 fro china was produced, mass produced, compared to the 1 off VEAK 40.
But this one off VEAK 40 has yet to have solid evidence to back it up, as the 2 were debating earlier.
2 Likes
The closest we have right now is second hand sources that say the VEAK 40 program got canceled a few years after they begun testing the 40mm proxy.
That and both VEAK 40 and the first 40mm proxy was made by the same company.
Well, this is a case of “If (vehicle) went into production it would have had (x)”
You’ll be thrilled to hear the game already makes such assumptions, take the Yak-141 for example.
Except the VEAK’s case is stronger.
We’re not talking about installing complex electronic systems, radar, IRST etc. but something as simple as an ammunition type… one that’s backwards compatible with all L/70 Bofors, it’s as trivial as loading it into the cannon.
If the VEAK was taken into service there’d be nothing stopping them from simply slapping some HE-VT into that bad boi.
1 Like
it shouldn’t though (even if that means the removal of stuff I personally like)
I added a part to my comment, I think the Veak has a stronger case
except that the veak 40 was retired before the 40 mm proxy fuzed shells were available, and we are talking about complex electronic systems. Just insinde the munition.
This is like giving the F14 the AIM 9 X. Yes it is compatible (bc NATO standarization and the backwards mode to emulate an AIM 9 M), but a fantasy, and doesn’t belong on the F14, despite it would be on the concept of the Supertomcat (or if the F14 were still/for longer in US service), which shouldn’t be in the game.
I think the maximum should be, regarding prototypes, that did fire those things, like the F14, testing the AIM 120’s (2), which could be a good event vehicle.
So restricted to 2 AIM 120 A’s, the internal cannon (bc it wasn’t removed) and flares/chaff (same reason).
5 Likes
The F-14D “Super Tomcat” was a real aircraft, 37 were produced and 18 were upgraded from F-14A. It should by all means be in the game, though I agree it shouldn’t get aim-9x. (as there’s no need to from a gameplay or balance perspective)
1 Like
The only m/75 fuze in the army amkat is the universal öf zonar m/75(B) mk aka ÖF ZONAR 75B used by shells of 75 mm caliber and up. This is the same as the one you posted and it is not an anti-aircraft fuze, it even has mark (mk) (ground) in its name. As mentioned, the anti-aircraft fuze used by the navy is the ZONAR 75 L V 40
The artillery handbook also lists this fuze for ground use
It appears that the Mk1 is the KULSGR 75Z ZAR used by the navy which appears in the 1977 navy amkat. The mk2 is presunably the Kulsgr m/87 of the army
no, I am talking about the supertomcat 21, a planned upgrade to the F14 D.
Also gameplay and balance should be done with the mm, not with deciding what plane gets which munitions.
Well, I would agree.
However, this is very much the case of how Gaijin does balancing.
Lots of tanks and aircraft are gimped in terms of ammunition/missiles to fit into a specific BR bracket.
My ideal would be to have BR change depending on what ammunition / missile you bring, as a optional modification.
VEAK 40 was planned for production in the mid 60s. Even with delays, this likely wouldn’t have taken place any later than the early 70s as it was to be produced in parallel with the strv 103 and bkan 1. There is nonthing that substantiates production in the mid to late 70s. The VEAK 40 is not a stable mate of the M247. And again, the army doesn’t seem to have had HE-VT until the late 80s anyhow
yes, and Gaijin should change how they balance things (bc of the obvious fallacies).
Just select a time, and then you have your F14 (1978), like we already have for mods of tanks and ships.
Instead of a random F14 A (early) or B 17 E (early)
1 Like
i don’t personally think “put into service” should be the cutoff time for ammunition for prototype vehicles.
prototype vehicles should have access to prototype ammunition from the same time period they existed as prototypes in my opinion. especially if both ammo and projectile were made by the same company or if both were tested on the same field during the same time.
The first 40mm proxy shells required no modification done to the gun itself as all the electronics were self-contained in the round and sensitivity was set on the fuses themselves in the same way timed fuses were set (looks like an egg-timer).
According to the document in the main post the VEAK 40 had its first ready prototype in 1964. the planned 52 vehicles to be delivered between 1966-68 was put on hold and then ultimately canceled.
Its kind of hard to glean what that exactly means by how the sentence is written but it could be that the project was canceled somewhere between 65-69 (is my personal guess, i would love to know if someone has a more exact date/year). and we have found some documents claiming testing for the 40mm proxy was ongoing at least as early as 1964 (although the source is about countermeasures for jets against proxy rounds so the author might have gotten the size of the shell wrong but 10 years of development before its put into service isn’t that weird considering the Swedish military and their timelines…).
So there is at least SOME evidence of 40mm proxy and the VEAK existing during the same years AND its the same company making both so the likelihood of them using a prototype to test things seems very high.
1 Like
Yeah, i mixed up the zonar m/75(B) with the ZONAR 75 L V 40.
this is what i’ve been seeing. the KULSGR 75Z ZAR in the navy 77 AMKAT could then feasibly have been tested during the time the VEAK 40 existed.
Do you have an image of that specific round in the 77 AMKAT? and perhaps the fuse as well?
My understanding of VEAK 40 is that it was canceled sometime in 1965-1966 but it’s a bit unclear
1 Like
Nice! Thanks ^^
do you have the Navy 77 amkat as a pdf and willing to share?
yes, it should be a time within service (like the F14 1978 I mentioned. That was not the first Tomcat, but the one with the 7 F (1977) and not the AIM 9 L (1979)), that yes, can be chosen at will.
I don’t mean “would work on vehicle so vehicle should get it”.
The VEAK 40 never saw service so we have no idea about what round it would or would not have used, we can only speculate. So giving a prototype vehicle prototype ammunition from the same era would in my opinion be a reasonable choice to make for WT.
I think that its not really comparable to something that was in service, used a specific set of rounds/rockets/missiles and then taken out of service before [insert newer thing here] was introduced. Then i totally agree that that specific vehicle should not get the newer thing because it never used it in service.