Tango01 | 05 Apr 2016 10:24 p.m. PST |
…Stupid—Design. "The Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (or "S-Tank") was one of the most unusual tanks ever built. Designed to give good defensive firepower to enforce Sweden's armed neutrality, it's unique design came at a cost: it is absolutely no good on offense. During the Cold War Sweden maintained a position of armed neutrality. Sandwiched between NATO powers and members of the Warsaw Pact, it took neither side and prepared to defend its territory from all comers. The trick with armed neutrality is to appear strong enough to deter an enemy from attacking, while appearing weak enough to not look threatening. In other words, build a force that's weak in offensive firepower, but strong in defensive firepower…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
David Manley | 05 Apr 2016 10:46 p.m. PST |
Shared a great many components with the Centurion |
BattleCaptain | 05 Apr 2016 10:57 p.m. PST |
A poor argument. Few, if any, of its contemporaries could fire effectively on the move either. Stabilization systems of the day were useful for keeping a target in view, but not steady enough for accurate aimed fire. |
Mardaddy | 05 Apr 2016 11:30 p.m. PST |
"… and prepared to defend its territory from all comers…" Oh, yea, them Swede's just pissed off the whole world. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact were just itching to get into it with them, it is only by sheer luck they were not invaded. (or maybe it was just prescience… if they were invaded, the Swedish Bikini Team may never had existed?) |
gunnerphil | 06 Apr 2016 1:40 a.m. PST |
A bit off topic, but why is the S tank counted as a tank and not a self propelled anti tank gun? |
Chokidar | 06 Apr 2016 2:58 a.m. PST |
Excellent question Gunnerphil and one I have often (unsuccessfully) pondered.. |
Cosmic Reset | 06 Apr 2016 3:34 a.m. PST |
It was designed and produced to meet the specification for a tank. |
Earl of the North | 06 Apr 2016 3:58 a.m. PST |
Since the S-Tank was in effect a modern tank destroyer design you can certainly point out that like certain WW2 tank destroyer (and some post war) designs it was due to the hull mounted armament best suited to fighting defensively. What that has to do with neutrality I'm unsure about since I doubt anybody was expecting Sweden to invade the Warsaw Pact or NATO. |
Chokidar | 06 Apr 2016 4:02 a.m. PST |
Putin is paranoic enough to believe Russia in imminent danger of invasion by the Newington Boy Scouts – let alone Sweden!!!! |
BattlerBritain | 06 Apr 2016 5:32 a.m. PST |
Didn't the Swedes conduct some firing tests with a T-72 against an S-tank recently? Didn't that 125mm round go in the front and straight out the back? So those S-tanks couldn't have withstood the intended opposing fire anyway. |
Gaz0045 | 06 Apr 2016 5:48 a.m. PST |
Yes, I saw that report, the T72 rounds were going thru' it front to back…….a bit disconcerting if you had were a crewman! |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 06 Apr 2016 7:15 a.m. PST |
It's a 1956 design, remember. At the time the thinking was that a turretless wedge-shaped tank with a low profile is not only harder to hit but also to penetrate due to the likelihood of glancing ricocheting rounds. |
Cyrus the Great | 06 Apr 2016 8:48 a.m. PST |
It was a fun kit to build when I was a child. |
emckinney | 06 Apr 2016 9:07 a.m. PST |
<quote>It's a 1956 design, remember.</quote> That. |
GROSSMAN | 06 Apr 2016 10:16 a.m. PST |
The only thing going for the S tank was it's ability to go hull down and low profile. |
Mako11 | 06 Apr 2016 2:22 p.m. PST |
Michael Wittman's crew did surprisingly well in battle in a StuG, before they converted to the Tiger, so it is possible to use assault guns/tank destroyers on offense, with a well trained, and drilled crew. Not having a turret does tend to put one at a disadvantage on offense though, in many cases. I wonder about how well those Soviet rounds would have penetrated, or if they would have bounced off the S-Tank, if not using the latest "hot-round", end of Cold War era ammunition. Given the low profile, and steep armor, I suspect they'd have fared as well, if not better than many contemporary tanks of the day. |
Daniel S | 06 Apr 2016 3:14 p.m. PST |
So those S-tanks couldn't have withstood the intended opposing fire anyway Umm, neither the T-72 nor the 2A46 125mm gun it was armed with even existed when the Strv 103/S-Tank was designed. It was designed to fight the T-55 with design changes made to ensure it could face the T-62 as well. How many tanks from the same period as the S-tank could have withstood 125mm fire? Testing showed that the S-tank had excellent protection against the enemy tanks it was designed to face and the "fence" did well against Soviet ATGMs as well. The problems started when the S-tank was not replaced by a new design by 1980 (which was the original plan) but rather had to soldier on even though it was increasingly obsolete. And even then it had a fighting chance as the main tank of the Soviet formations intended for operations against Sweden was the T-55, it was not until 1988-1989 that modern tanks started to turn up in serious numbers and this in turn led to the Swedish purchase of the Leo2. (And of course the main Swedish AT weapon was not the S-tank or any other armoured vehicle but rather the Air Force, Navy and Costal Artillery dedicated to sinking the tank transports before they could land their deadly cargo) |
Gennorm | 07 Apr 2016 9:11 a.m. PST |
The Soviet Navy Infantry had T55s so little chance of meeting 125mm fin rounds. |