Pbv 501 & Stripbv 5011: the Swedish BMP-1s

[Arne7 72]

 

(Source. SPHF ( Svensk PansarHistorisk Förening), https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/fordon/pansarbandvagn/pbv-501-fordonsfamilj/)

 

Swedish Pbv 501/Stripbv 5011 (BMP-1)

The year is 1967, the Russians (by then in the Soviet Union) unveiled the BMP-1, which defined an epoch of modern mechanization and use of IFVs in armoured fights. Fast-forward to 1990 both West and East of Germany, who has since the end of WW2 remained dividied between the Allied and the Soviet sides, finally felled down the Berlin wall and reunified. They were now sitting on a surplus of oudated Soviet technology, among them were MT-LBs and BMP-1s. Like the other Eastern bloc nations, they started to sell off the equipment on the market for anyone interested. Sweden was one of them.

 

They bought 5 BMP-1s from East Germa stock, four for evaluations and one for destructive analysis (not target practice) in 1994. The analysis and evaluations turned out to be so positive that the command decided to place an order of 350 (not including additional 83 to be dissassembled for spare parts) units to their inventory in 1994. But with some modifications, they would be first delivered in 1996 and the entire order completed in 2001, part of the effort to mechanize the infantry in 90's to 00's.

 

The Swedish Pbv 501 wasn't just your ordinary BMP-1. The commission determined the munition used for the gun to be unsafe for peacetime use and thus had very limited access to them as only some of them were converted to practice ammunition. As part of the modernization (ROMOR) program, they deemed the ATGM-firing platform to be superflous and removed it. The autoloader added only discomfort for the gunner, and so was removed as well. - Additionally, some specimens of the Pbv 501 were converted to command vehicles (to be used by company commanders/staff) where it had exchanged some space of the troop compartment for extra radios and facilities for the staff.

 

The Pbv 501s were phased out when the government made the decision to cut down the military budget in the 00's and were put in reserve. In 2005, they started to phase out of the reserves, the last units were finally sold off in 2010.

 

 

 

There are not so many vehicles that Sweden could use as "light tanks" and thus offer the capacity to use the recon function, and thus provide their team information crurical for the outcome of a battle. Since the tank is essentially a nerfed and less combat-capable variant of the BMP-1. Due to the removal of the autoloader and the ATGM-firing platform, and there existed no plans to mount a replacement of their choice, as the Pbv 501 family only served as a stop-gap filler while domestic development of one was in progress.

This post contains suggestion for the two variants; the Pbv 501 and the less occuring command variant Stripbv 5011. Hence the two separate votes, so you can decide on which one you'd prefer first by voting on them separately. But this focuses on the Pbv 501.

 

Pictures & Livery

Spoiler

Evaluation specimen "Monty" (Registration: 204994 ) - note the searchlight at front of the commander hatch

(Source. SPHF ( Svensk PansarHistorisk Förening), https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/fordon/pansarbandvagn/pbv-501-fordonsfamilj/)

 

Evaluation specimen "Rommel" (Registration: 204997 )

(Source. SPHF ( Svensk PansarHistorisk Förening), https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/fordon/pansarbandvagn/pbv-501-fordonsfamilj/)

 

Pbv 501 in an exercise, after ROMOR-program

(Source. SPHF ( Svensk PansarHistorisk Förening), https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/fordon/pansarbandvagn/pbv-501-fordonsfamilj/)

 

Back of a Stripbv 5011 (Registration 501024) - note the extra antennas on top of the back

(Source. SPHF ( Svensk PansarHistorisk Förening), https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/fordon/pansarbandvagn/pbv-501-fordonsfamilj/)

 

Characteristics (Pbv 501)

Spoiler

General

- Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, and Commander) - excluding transport spots for 8

 

Dimensions

- Width: 2,94

- Length: 6,74 m

- Height: 2,07 m

- Weight: 11,9 ton

 

Powerplant: UTD-20 V6 (300 hp)

Performance:

- Max speed: 65 km/h (7 km/h in water)

 

Armament:

- Primary: 1x 73 mm lågtryckskanon 2A28

- Secondary: 1x 7,62 mm ksp 95

 

Equipment:

- Radio: Ra 123 (Russian R 123M)

 

Characteristics (Stripbv 5011)

Spoiler

Same as above (Pbv 501) except:

 

General

- Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, and Commander) - excluding transport spots for 6

 

Dimensions

- Weight: 12 ton

 

Equipment:

- Radio: 2x Ra 480 + 1x Ra 420 radios

 

Sources

Primary:

(Book, Swedish) Pbv [pansarbandvagn] 501: instruktionsbok, Försvarets Materielverk, Stockholm, 1998 (Possibly available at Krigsakrivet)

(Book, Swedish) Pbv [pansarbandvagn] 501: reparationsbok 1 : data, konstruktion och funktion, Försvarets Materielverk, Stockholm, 1999 (Possibly available at Krigsakrivet)

(Book, Swedish) Stripbv [stridsledningspansarbandvagn] 5011: instruktionsbok, Försvarets Materielverk, Stockholm 1999 (Possibly available at Krigsakrivet)

(Book, Swedish) INFANTERISKYTTEBATALJON PBV 501 / 302, Unknown (1999) (Possibly available at Krigsakrivet - evidence of its existence: http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.tradera.com/item/292215/384288993/infanteriskyttebataljon-pbv-501-302-utgava-1999)

 

Secondary:

(Swedish) https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/fordon/pansarbandvagn/pbv-501-fordonsfamilj/

(Swedish) https://www.ointres.se/pbv501.htm

(Swedish) http://smhs.com.dinstudio.se/gallery_233.html Showing off the 73mm rocket for the gun

(Swedish) http://www.foreningenp5.com/page22.html

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Arne7
Formatting + language

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

Open for discussion.

[eleks12 1,079]

+1

[Sternjaeger84 1,076]

350 ******* BMPs boi.

Spoiler

 

It's a +1 my dude, send us the Swedes BMP.

 

Oh and they've also modified the weaponry! Gib.

[Wolf_89 2,525]

PBV 501 in the TT. And StripBv 5011 as a prem.

 

Would also love to see Pansarvärnrobotbandvagn 452(Pvrbbv 452) A Pbv 401 armed with Robot 56 Bill

Spoiler

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Wolf_89

[Arne7 72]

54 minutes ago, Wolf_89 said:

PBV 501 in the TT. And StripBv 5011 as a prem.

 

Would also love to see Pansarvärnrobotbandvagn 452(Pvrbbv 452) A Pbv 401 armed with Robot 56 Bill

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

It's the next item in my to-do list to write about and suggest! I just need more sources than just ointres.se and some magazine about the RBS 56 BILL system; which mentions about one. I sent the military archive a mail asking if they had any material on such, and I am waiting a reply from them.

[Sternjaeger84 1,076]

Stripbv 5011 could be a premium yes!

[Milocat 4,857]

I'll support these.  +1.

[Zombificus 793]

I'd love to see this in-game! In fact, I actually made a suggestion for the Reunified German original, since the lack of an ATGM made it more unique and therefore more likely to get added in my eyes (little did I know they were just going to add the regular DDR BMP-1 anyway). I still think it's worth seeing, whether in the Swedish or German tree (or both!), and from what you say about the lack of an autoloader this might be slightly different to the German one. I don't remember reading that the Germans removed the autoloader when they originally altered them post-reunification, just the ATGM and the fuel tanks in the rear doors, so I assume when you say "some modifications" were made between Sweden testing them and adopting them, that includes removing the autoloader? I voted yes for both, but if we only got one of them I'd prefer the command model, just because the troop compartment is never filled in WT and the radios would at least be modelled. Whatever the case, I'd love to see these vehicles in game! 

 

Also, here's a picture I found last month of a bunch of the Pbv 5011s in a warehouse (IIRC, this was when they were first being delivered?).

Spoiler

Edited March 30, 2020 by Zombificus

[Stridswombat 1,089]

I'm assuming this would be 7.0 then if it doesn't get the auto-loader and ATGM's?

[Zombificus 793]

46 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

I'm assuming this would be 7.0 then if it doesn't get the auto-loader and ATGM's?

Much lower than 7.0, I’d have thought.
 

The ATGMs are a serious advantage to the BMP-1 and a big part of why it’s 7.3. Its basic ATGM pens 400mm, is guided, and can be fired without exposing the rest of the tank. The better ATGM for the BMP-1P upgrade pens 600mm and retains those advantages. These are its best way of dealing with tough or well-armed targets that it can’t risk taking on with its gun alone. By comparison, the BMP-1’s HEAT shell pens 300mm, which although pretty respectable is just 100mm more than the HEAT round used by the PT-76B, which is all the way down at 5.3.

 

Not only does the Swedish version not have these missiles, giving it literally half the max AP (300mm vs 600mm) and no guided capabilities, the one weapon it does keep also fires more slowly. BMP-1 has a 7 RPM fire rate with the autoloader, which is an 8+ second reload. This makes it likely that the gun’s manual ROF will be even slower and probably no better than the ~9 second reloads of 105mm-armed tanks at Tier V like the M48 Patton. 
 

I personally don’t see much reason for it to be higher than 6.3-6.7. The German M41 has a 254mm-penning HEAT shell at 6.3, with twice as much armour and a 7.6 second stock reload. The T92 is even faster-firing, with the same shells and a 6.5 second stock reload, plus it’s still twice as tough as the BMP and has the benefit of being much lower-profile and easier to hide. That one sits at a BR of 6.7.
 

The Pbv 501 would penetrate 46mm more than these tanks do, but its gun would have lower velocity and fire more slowly, and its thin armour would put it at a disadvantage. Both leKPz M41 and T92 are .50 cal proof, but the BMP-1 and by extension Pbv 501 are extremely vulnerable to these AA HMGs. At 6.3, its stock round would be the second highest-penetrating after the Fiat 6614’s HEAT-firing recoilless rifle, but I’d argue it needs that advantage to survive, given its thin armour and slow reload. IMO, removing the ATGM and the autoloader makes it as close to the PT-76 in ability as the BMP-1, and its BR should reflect that. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Zombificus

[Stridswombat 1,089]

43 minutes ago, Zombificus said:

Much lower than 7.0, I’d have thought.
 

The ATGMs are a serious advantage to the BMP-1 and a big part of why it’s 7.3. Its basic ATGM pens 400mm, is guided, and can be fired without exposing the rest of the tank. The better ATGM for the BMP-1P upgrade pens 600mm and retains those advantages. These are its best way of dealing with tough or well-armed targets that it can’t risk taking on with its gun alone. By comparison, the BMP-1’s HEAT shell pens 300mm, which although pretty respectable is just 100mm more than the HEAT round used by the PT-76B, which is all the way down at 5.3.

 

Not only does the Swedish version not have these missiles, giving it literally half the max AP (300mm vs 600mm) and no guided capabilities, the one weapon it does keep also fires more slowly. BMP-1 has a 7 RPM fire rate with the autoloader, which is an 8+ second reload. This makes it likely that the gun’s manual ROF will be even slower and probably no better than the ~9 second reloads of 105mm-armed tanks at Tier V like the M48 Patton. 
 

I personally don’t see much reason for it to be higher than 6.3-6.7. The German M41 has a 254mm-penning HEAT shell at 6.3, with twice as much armour and a 7.6 second stock reload. The T92 is even faster-firing, with the same shells and a 6.5 second stock reload, plus it’s still twice as tough as the BMP and has the benefit of being much lower-profile and easier to hide. That one sits at a BR of 6.7.
 

The Pbv 501 would penetrate 46mm more than these tanks do, but its gun would have lower velocity and fire more slowly, and its thin armour would put it at a disadvantage. Both leKPz M41 and T92 are .50 cal proof, but the BMP-1 and by extension Pbv 501 are extremely vulnerable to these AA HMGs. At 6.3, its stock round would be the second highest-penetrating after the Fiat 6614’s HEAT-firing recoilless rifle, but I’d argue it needs that advantage to survive, given its thin armour and slow reload. IMO, removing the ATGM and the autoloader makes it as close to the PT-76 in ability as the BMP-1, and its BR should reflect that. 

The Soviet BMP has a 6 second reload stock, so it might be a bit lower than 9 seconds maybe. The shells aren't all that large. The power to weight is also slightly better on pbv 501. Would you say 6.3 or 6.7 is a better BR for it?

[Zombificus 793]

37 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

The Soviet BMP has a 6 second reload stock, so it might be a bit lower than 9 seconds maybe. The shells aren't all that large. The power to weight is also slightly better on pbv 501. Would you say 6.3 or 6.7 is a better BR for it?

That’s interesting, the Wiki gives 7.8 seconds for the stock reload. I don’t actually have the BMP yet (about halfway researched) so if the wiki’s wrong I wouldn’t know. I’d probably go 6.3 to start with, then raise the BR if it overperforms. It’s not like it won’t be easily killed even if the pen and mobility combo turns out to be a bit much for 6.3, so I’d put it at a more favourable BR at least initially. As a bonus, it’s also exactly between the PT-76B (5.3) and the BMP-1 (7.3), so there’s that too.

[blockhaj 3,560]

These can not be added. Sweden never adopted the PG-9 HEAT shell and 9M14 ATGM as they were seen as unsafe. The PG-9 grenades were converted into practise ammunition and the ATGM mount was removed and the hole was welded shut. Adding a BMP-1 with only HE is not viable.

[Stridswombat 1,089]

1 hour ago, blockhaj said:

These can not be added. Sweden never adopted the PG-9 HEAT shell and 9M14 ATGM as they were seen as unsafe. The PG-9 grenades were converted into practise ammunition and the ATGM mount was removed and the hole was welded shut. Adding a BMP-1 with only HE is not viable.

They never allowed them to be fired in peacetime. I doubt such a restriction would apply if they actually had to use the things. If you're in war you've got bigger problem than not using ammunition because of poor quality when you're being shot at.

[blockhaj 3,560]

8 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

They never allowed them to be fired in peacetime. I doubt such a restriction would apply if they actually had to use the things. If you're in war you've got bigger problem than not using ammunition because of poor quality when you're being shot at.

While it is possible that the use of such ammunition would be allowed in war time, no such "rule/agreement" was passed. I've heard that Sweden thus never acquired any large amount of PG-9 ammunition and what was acquired was reworked into practice ammunition by replacing the explosives with ballast.

[Stridswombat 1,089]

38 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

While it is possible that the use of such ammunition would be allowed in war time, no such "rule/agreement" was passed. I've heard that Sweden thus never acquired any large amount of PG-9 ammunition and what was acquired was reworked into practice ammunition by replacing the explosives with ballast.

Only enough ammo needed to fill 1 vehicle would be required for it to be in the game. Afterall they never put the APDS shell into service either and yet all the 37mm guns now have it. As for there being no official agreement on it, I don't think that would be needed in wartime and it's so small of a stretch I don't see why that would be a problem.

 

For example there's also shells that were in service that were expressly forbidden in peacetime but I also don't see why they couldn't be used for the game since the game is technically simulating a combat situation.

[blockhaj 3,560]

3 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

Only enough ammo needed to fill 1 vehicle would be required for it to be in the game.

Were did u hear that rule?

3 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

After all they never put the APDS shell into service either and yet all the 37mm guns now have it.

It was service i am afraid 

3 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

As for there being no official agreement on it, I don't think that would be needed in wartime and it's so small of a stretch I don't see why that would be a problem.

Agreements are needed as the vehicles wouldn't get supplied with such ammunition if there was no agreement.

3 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

For example there's also shells that were in service that were expressly forbidden in peacetime but I also don't see why they couldn't be used for the game since the game is technically simulating a combat situation.

Yes but those shells have war time agreements. The PG-9 was simply banned considering current known material. Why don't u throw an email at FMV and ask?

[Stridswombat 1,089]

4 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

Were did u hear that rule?

It was service i am afraid 

Agreements are needed as the vehicles wouldn't get supplied with such ammunition if there was no agreement.

Yes but those shells have war time agreements. The PG-9 was simply banned considering current known material. Why don't u throw an email at FMV and ask?

What ammunition register is that from? It's in neither the 1949 nor the 1960 register. I also heard they didn't produce it since it was found to have manufacturing defects when they first tested it.

 

It's not a rule. But it does have to apply since we have vehicles in the game that never saw service and thus couldn't have enough ammo to operate, but since the ammo existed they got it regardless. We literally have vehicles that the country in question didn't even receive.

 

The PG-9 as has been said was banned in peacetime. It's a tiny stretch at best to say it could be used in wartime where the gun pointing at you are a bigger threat to you than the one pointing away from you.

[blockhaj 3,560]

9 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

What ammunition register is that from? It's in neither the 1949 nor the 1960 register. I also heard they didn't produce it since it was found to have manufacturing defects when they first tested it.

AMKAT 1949 1952 edition. And while it had troubles initially it was all solved by raising the production quality as the shells would not function properly with even the smallest of defect.

Quote

It's not a rule. But it does have to apply since we have vehicles in the game that never saw service and thus couldn't have enough ammo to operate, but since the ammo existed they got it regardless. We literally have vehicles that the country in question didn't even receive.

Well we do not want to promote more problematic game decisions do we?

Quote

The PG-9 as has been said was banned in peacetime. It's a tiny stretch at best to say it could be used in wartime where the gun pointing at you are a bigger threat to you than the one pointing away from you.

Well even then we have no proof that Sweden had stashes of PG-9. Most likely only a limited amount existed in Sweden with the plan being that if needed more could be acquired from abroad. Imo that is not good enough. Besides even if it gets the PG-9 it would be borderline trash as it lacks a missile. The 73 mm gun is absolutely horrible in the long run as it has no range, bad dmg and a slow reload. Even slower for Sweden as we removed the autoloader.

[Stridswombat 1,089]

8 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

AMKAT 1949 1952 edition. And while it had troubles initially it was all solved by raising the production quality as the shells would not function properly with even the smallest of defect.

Well we do not want to promote more problematic game decisions do we?

Well even then we have no proof that Sweden had stashes of PG-9. Most likely only a limited amount existed in Sweden with the plan being that if needed more could be acquired from abroad. Imo that is not good enough. Besides even if it gets the PG-9 it would be borderline trash as it lacks a missile. The 73 mm gun is absolutely horrible in the long run as it has no range, bad dmg and a slow reload. Even slower for Sweden as we removed the autoloader.

If they converted shells they must have had them. Can't convert what you don't have. I mean Sweden literally never used APCBC on the 81's far as I can tell, yet they have it all the same. Doesn't even have a name, they're just called slpprj which is just the generic term for an inert armour piercing projectile.

 

The gun being bad is exactly why you lower the BR to balance around that instead of the ATGM's. It makes it even better in fact as it can now help fill a more sparsely populated portion of the tree. 

 

Btw do you have a link to that ammunition register or any others that might exist online? I'd absolutely love a chance to go through them.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Stridswombat

[blockhaj 3,560]

4 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

If they converted shells they must have had them. Can't convert what you don't have.

Well considering my experience it is just as likely that shells were acquired specifically for conversion. Which means their were never meant to be used operationally.

Quote

The gun being bad is exactly why you lower the BR to balance around that instead of the ATGM's. It makes it even better in fact as it can now help fill a more sparsely populated portion of the tree.

The vehicle is from the 1990's. Why should it fight WW2 vehicles? Even if we throw historical immersion out the window it would still be bad at any br. Besides penetration and mobility the vehicle has nothing going for it. U might as well put it at 1.0 and it would still be bad.

[Stridswombat 1,089]

5 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

Well considering my experience it is just as likely that shells were acquired specifically for conversion. Which means their were never meant to be used operationally.

The vehicle is from the 1990's. Why should it fight WW2 vehicles? Even if we throw historical immersion out the window it would still be bad at any br. Besides penetration and mobility the vehicle has nothing going for it. U might as well put it at 1.0 and it would still be bad.

I updated my post above. I'll just pasted it in here. 

 

"I mean Sweden literally never used APCBC on the 81's far as I can tell, yet they have it all the same. Doesn't even have a name, they're just called slpprj which is just the generic term for an inert armour piercing projectile. Btw do you have a link to that ammunition register or any others that might exist online? I'd absolutely love a chance to go through them." If they bought the shells to convert them to begin with, then that means they had the shells and paid for them. They likely came with the vehicles to begin with.

 

It's not a 1990 vehicle we both know that. It's a ever so slightly modified cold war vehicle and none of the modifications are improvements or couldn't have been done earlier. Also we balance by performance, not time period. There's plenty of cold war vehicles fighting WW2 tanks. The PT-76 for example.

 

Being bad isn't relevant. It's an option. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Stridswombat

[blockhaj 3,560]

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

I updated my post above. I'll just pasted it in here. 

 

"I mean Sweden literally never used APCBC on the 81's far as I can tell, yet they have it all the same. Doesn't even have a name, they're just called slpprj which is just the generic term for an inert armour piercing projectile. 

Well that is a remnant from the Prem 81 in the british tree. I dont think i have to explain that one.

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

Btw do you have a link to that ammunition register or any others that might exist online? I'd absolutely love a chance to go through them."

I have all of them. And i will not share them yet. 

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

If they bought the shells to convert them to begin with, then that means they had the shells and paid for them. They likely came with the vehicles to begin with.

Find some information instead of theorizing.

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

It's not a 1990 vehicle we both know that.

It officially entered service in 1996. Ur point?

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

It's a ever so slightly modified cold war vehicle and none of the modifications are improvements or couldn't have been done earlier.

Historically it is still from the 1990's.

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

Also we balance by performance, not time period. There's plenty of cold war vehicles fighting WW2 tanks. The PT-76 for example.

Just because it has been done previously doesn't meant it isn't controversial. The PT-76 for example is arguably on of the more disliked vehicles in the game and from both parts.

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

Being bad isn't relevant. It's an option. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

Using it isn't the problem, facing it is the problem. Lot's of people including me doesn't want to face vehicles with too big age gaps compared to our own vehicle.

[Stridswombat 1,089]

26 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

Well that is a remnant from the Prem 81 in the british tree. I dont think i have to explain that one.

I have all of them. And i will not share them yet. 

Find some information instead of theorizing.

It officially entered service in 1996. Ur point?

Historically it is still from the 1990's.

Just because it has been done previously doesn't meant it isn't controversial. The PT-76 for example is arguably on of the more disliked vehicles in the game and from both parts.

Using it isn't the problem, facing it is the problem. Lot's of people including me doesn't want to face vehicles with too big age gaps compared to our own vehicle.

When it entered service isn't relevant either. Only its performance is relevant, we have far newer vehicles in the game and if a country were to adopt a M4a1 in the year 2000 it's still a WW2 tank. You're grasping for straws at this point.

 

If they had shells to convert, they must have shells. This is simple reasoning. Unless you have something that states the contrary (and you did say yourself they converted shells) then it is a very reasonable assumption to make. 

 

Lindström himself states "Ammunition blev aldrig godkänd att skjuta i Sverige under fredsförhållanden men troligtvis hade detta förbud hävts i händelse av en krigssituation." This also further indicates they had access to the ammunition. 

 

Being disliked doesn't matter either. How the matchmaking is set up is firmly established and it's not going to go at the same BR as the PT-76 anyhow. If you disagree with that then you fundamentally disagree with the game.

 

I think you're letting your inherent unwillingness to have it be in the game cloud your logic at this point. All it is is at most a 1.0 BR lower version of a service vehicle that's well within the scope of the game. The Unimog is a post-war vehicle at 6.7. Don't see any complaints on it from you. Technically so are Strv 74 and many other vehicles in the Swedish tree aswell. Still don't see any complaints on them from you. In fact you even suggested it for the tree I believe. HEAT isn't anything that didn't exist during WW2 so what makes this for example different than Strv 74 in your eyes according to your logic? Surely you must see the contradictions you're making here.

 

Also making those registers public would do a heck of a lot to sort out inaccuracies in vehicles in the game. The 103's obvious lack of shell velocity being one of them.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Stridswombat