"Video of weapon test vs the S-tank (Swedish Strv 103)" Topic

youtu.be/MiWCpIJ5dBw
A 1971 film made from selected parts of the filmed weapons tests conducted against the S-tank durings it's development and intial troop trials. As the film was made to be shown to S-tank crews as part of their training it is a wee bit selective in what tests were shown. (For example none of the test where the tank was seriously damage or even destroyed are included in the film)

Still the video gives an idea of how resilient the tank was against the threats it was designed to face.

Nic fine, thanks for that.

The Swedes were dismayed to get ahold of some T72s. The 125mm APFSDS round finally stopped moving when it hit the engine block or the ammo stores in the back of the S-tank!

Indeed, but that was with a APFDS round that entered service 20 years after design work on the S-tank began and 9 years after series production began. How many tanks from the 1960's would surive a hit from a 3VBM9/3BM22/23 without help from later upgrades?

And of course everyone quotes the result of the tests conducted at closest range because the result in those were most dramatic.

And the S-tank was only expected to be a 1st line tank for little more than a decade, it was supposed to be replaced in the 1980's which never happend. (Of course the army should have begun to suspect as much early on since they did not get all the S-tanks they wanted to begin with)

Daniel, you're raining on Lion's parade.

Yes but how hard was it to hit an S-tank hull down when all it has is a hull?

Though this level of entrenchment is a bit overdone as it prevents the gun from being depressed.

Was the S Tank designed as a mainly as a defencive tank that would be taking advantage of the terrain in deployment? One would have expected the design to take that into consideration in the same way the Chieftain was able to take advantage of a hull down position on a reverse slope.

Tally Ho!

I wonder if any of those seagulls got hit by the 30mm rounds.

Was the S Tank designed as a mainly as a defencive tank that would be taking advantage of the terrain in deployment? One would have expected the design to take that into consideration in the same way the Chieftain was able to take advantage of a hull down position on a reverse slope.

That's certainly my understanding of the design. Really more of a WW2 tank destroyer than an offensive tank.

But I still plan on buying a full company of them whenever Geoff @ QRF gets around to them!

I think a 115mm APFSDS, would do quite a bit of damage, and if the tanks are hull down HEAT-FS has a curving trajectory. The notion that Sweden would prove anything but an expensive speed bump, is a story fit for the Sagas. All they had to do was make it a painful proposition so any backdoor strategy, past Norway, was not considered.

The S-Tank fitted this strategy, small, with a low silhouette and accurate gun and it would have been ideal in defending. Attacking it would have been far less successful, a mobility kill would be all that was needed, and IIRC it only had one traversable MG.

Well what is an "offensive tank" to begin with? (By 1960's standards rather than that of 1980's MBTs which were true game changers thanks to new technology)

The Germans and Finns certainly had no problem with using tank destroyers and assault guns as offensive weapons and when it was designed the S-tank was able to fight offensivly just as well as any tank. It was tested extensivly against the Chieftain in 1973 when 9 S-tanks visited BAOR. At no point during the test was it proved that the S-tank was at a disadvantage due to it's lack of a turret or due to it's inability to fire on the move.

Any tank or AFV with a good crew takes advantage of the terrain when ever it is possible.

The S-tank was just able to exploit some types of terrain better thanks to it's design.

Being able to dig your own fighting position was also a great aid, particularly one every tank in the platoon was equipped with a dozer blade.

But by the 1980's new tech like large caliber APFDS, the ability to fire on the move at speed and actually hit targets as well as new armour types meant that the S-tank design began to show it's limitations. It is now that we see an increased focus in fighting from defensive positions and the use of overwatch and ambush positions to make the most of the S-tanks strong points and to limit it's weaknesses. It's telling that in the last combat trials carried out with the S-tank in 1997 it was outclassed in mobile situations by the Leopard 2s but when fighting from defensive positions it gave as good as it got and in the last test wipe out the Leopard 2 platoons with only the loss of a single S-tank.

Had the S-tank been called up to fight it's intended enemies the T-55 and T-62 all the evidence suggest that it would have done very well. The T-72 would have been a much tougher customer, not only because it was able to cause devastating damge if it hit the S-tank but because test showed that the Swedish APFDS did much worse than expected against it's frontal armour.

AS a side note there were actually plans to fit the S-tank with composite armour as part of the upgrades which were intended to allow it to replace the Centurions in the Mech brigades once the Armoured brigades got their Leopard 2S.

But the upgrade plans were soon halted (with good reason) and the army got ex-Bundesheer Leopard 2s for the Mechanised brigades instead.

Daniel S wote:

Though this level of entrenchment is a bit overdone as it prevents the gun from being depressed.

Damn. Only capable of massacring onrushing Soviet hordesmen who attack above ground level!

All the best,

John.

I was instantly enamored with this little, armored gem, when I saw it as a kid.

A great, and forward thinking design.

I suspect it would have been very hard to detect, and hit, when dug in defensively, so would have given the Soviets/Warsaw Pact a difficult time.

The Germans and Finns certainly had no problem with using tank destroyers and assault guns as offensive weapons

Those weapons were really best suited to defending infantry formations or positions from enemy tanks. When used offensively as a tank substitute they usually fared poorly.

I love the S-tank -- I built models of it as a kid, although I had no idea where the country was that used it!

Didn't the US just shoot through the Iraqi berms? They might have given the Soviets a hard time, but I wonder how many would have been left immobilised by a RAG? Not to mention the regiment of gunships backing the main thrust. Speed bumps only, albeit niftily designed ones.

Wonder why no one converted some old ones, to represent Sci-fi tanks in a film

Milites,
Keep in mind that the Swedes were not facing a "Fulda Gap" style assault. The S-tank experience was much more likely to consist of hasty counter-attacks against airborne troops or naval infantry who may or may not be supported by bits and pieces of motor-rifle units. By the time the Soviets are able to launch full scale assaults supported by RAGs and regiments of Mi-24's the armoured brigades would have been gone. (As their main mission was preventing the Soviets from getting the beachhead necessary to build up such a force.)

The closest thing to a "classic" Fulda gap experience would have been the northern S-tank units fighting soviets MRD's trying to use Swedish territory to outflank the NATO troops in northern Norway but due to the terrain the Soviet forces were much more likely to have been reinforced battalions or reduced regiments with less plentifull support than would have been found in Germany. (And a rather diffrent equipment mix in many cases)

Getting a RAG onto Swedish soil and keeping it supplied would have been an easy task unless the Soviets were able prevent the Sweden from deploying most of it's muli-tlayered anti-invasion strategy (Starting with the subs lurking in Soviet waters and ending with the pre-position demolition equipment which meant that the local commander could mine and blow up any significant Swedish harbour in a few hours.)

In the north of Sweden deploying a RAG meant using the sparse road network to get the guns and munitions across Finland and then through the border area to where you could deploy it against the Swedish MLR which included a could of S-tank equipped battalions. Along the way you had to deal with destroyed and mined roads, blown up bridges and supply convoys being ambushed by Finnish Sissi and Swedish Jägers who would be operating in the deep woods covering the area.

The Mi-24 could only reach a few parts of Sweden from Soviet bases. To use it effectivly it was vital to secure bases on Swedish territory and to keep such bases operating in the face of lots of unfriendly and armed locals

Now a superpower could do all those things provided it was willing to pay the price. But some options would have been costlier than others, without a lot of margin for error and would have required the Soviets to divert resources from the main fight with NATO. Particularly if we are talking about operations on a truly strategic scale such as using Sweden to get ground troops into southern Norway.

The lack of old S-tanks turning up in movies probably has to do with the highly restrictive Swedish rules concerning the sale of arms and the fact that most S-tanks went directly to the scrapyard rather than being put up for sale.

Problem with digging your own positions with a Dozer Blade is concealment. One of the skills of Engineers is to build positions and ensure they are Camo'd otherwise you are obvious from the Air, or in some cases the ground. This requires a proper Combat Engineering Tractor, but a pinch a Tank with a Dozer Blade is okay but not great.

S-Tank is still a mightily clever desogn and ideally suited to Sweden's needs at the time.

…whenever Geoff @ QRF gets around to them!…

I'll get Nick to post up the preview

Here is almost done S-Tank tank. The model is NOT FINISHED!
I wanted to finish it 2 weeks ago, but I haven't modeled anything due to my illness.

I am currently finalizing the model and adding missing details, so be ready for further updates with lots of changes.