PDA

View Full Version : Foreign test off the S-Tank (picture and movie)



Hullebullen
11-18-2004, 01:16 PM
Good post!

Edit: and a nice, little vid too...

tenda
11-18-2004, 01:46 PM
...i'm grow up reading book an military magazine and on commando magazine "s" tank was one of my favourite toyz....!!!!!!!! ;)

Luno
11-18-2004, 03:40 PM
Str103 tanks served for some thirty years in Sweden :-) and it where a great tank :D

here are two picture off the last S-tank the Strv103C
(notice the fence, the Fence made the tank almost immune to HEAT-rounds)
http://img64.exs.cx/img64/5608/gardfront.jpg
http://img72.exs.cx/img72/218/gardside.jpg

Heinzi
11-18-2004, 04:22 PM
Bah this here owns the Strv 103

http://www.bwb.org/C1256DC00048AA8F/vwWEBFilesByName/ORGANISATION_WTS_IMAGES/$File/vt1-2.jpg :lol:

Thor
11-18-2004, 05:15 PM
Heinzi:
In your dreams :D

ogukuo72
11-18-2004, 11:44 PM
These are more like tank destroyers, rather than tanks, right?

Heinzi
11-19-2004, 04:27 AM
These are more like tank destroyers, rather than tanks, right?

Yes, I think the anti infantry capabilities are limited compared to tanks.

Luno
11-19-2004, 05:01 AM
These are more like tank destroyers, rather than tanks, right?

Yes, I think the anti infantry capabilities are limited compared to tanks.

And why is the anti infantry capabilities limited on the S-tank?

Heinzi
11-19-2004, 05:04 AM
These are more like tank destroyers, rather than tanks, right?

Yes, I think the anti infantry capabilities are limited compared to tanks.

And why is the anti infantry capabilities limited on the S-tank?

Not turret ;)

With a tank you can make drive by shooting :D

Luno
11-19-2004, 05:06 AM
These are more like tank destroyers, rather than tanks, right?

Yes, I think the anti infantry capabilities are limited compared to tanks.

And why is the anti infantry capabilities limited on the S-tank?

Not turret ;)

With a tank you can make drive by shooting :D

Ahh I see :D but you have a machine gun mounted on the commander cupola that can be used from the inside off the tank for that reason ;)
And donít forget that the tank also have twin coaxial machinegun in the front :D

Tributal
11-19-2004, 10:11 AM
But a definate shortcoming of the S-tank is that it cannot fire in any other direction than the one it is travelling in. But, luckily Sweden is short on deserts where such capability would be "nice". ;)

Werewolf01
11-19-2004, 10:34 AM
Don't knock the concept. Having no turret, the entire German series of Sturmgeschutzen performed yeoman's work during WWII and some of the leading aces of the war rode them (including Michael Wittmann). The S -Tank doesn't present much of a target either. The US has been tinkering with the idea of an S-Tank with an actuated gun or an unmanned turret for years.

Luno
11-19-2004, 11:09 AM
@Werewolf01

I agree with you a Strv 103 in a fire position is hard to spot. And when the threat consisted mainly of T-55 and the odd T-62 it would have been a real hard nut to crack while at the same tome being capable of damage to those foolish enough to positon themselves in front of the gun barrel.

OldRecon
11-19-2004, 11:53 AM
Nice creative concept the S-tank. No doubt about that. But better for defense in close country terrain with a good choice of hull down positions as is norm in Swedish terrain.
Hard to knock out from the front, but vulnerable like any "tank-hunter" to suspension damage.
Also the powerpack of the S-tank could have been better than the combined diesel/gas-turbine solution, though a pioneer tank with the latter type of propulsion.
There was also a 50-ton SPG in service with a less than satisfactory engine (way too underpowered) though it was one of the first SPG's with auto-loader in service anywhere.

OldRecon
03-15-2005, 09:10 AM
Found this link to an analysis of the combat value of the Strv 103 (http://www.forsvarsframjandet.org/FMF-98-4/Strv-103.htm) Unfortunately it's in Swedish only, but if you can get someone to translate you will :lol:. Does not paint a particularly rosy view of the S-tank.

Thor
03-16-2005, 04:53 AM
..and here's an article that counters the first one. :)

http://www.forsvarsframjandet.org/fmf-03-3/Strv_103_-_ett_Ess_S_i_stridsvagnsleken.html

supercontra
03-16-2005, 06:59 AM
During those times the accuracy when firing on the move was not good enough to offset the STRV-103's inability since it had stabilized sights and range finding so the stand-still period was very short. Now the situation is totally different though which is why the S was discarded for the STRV-121/122