Swedish S-Tank (Striedsvagn) in T2k?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Seeing the StuH in the "Can of Worms?" M113 thread got me thinking about the ol' S-Tank a bit; was there any front where these saw serious or considerable use during the Twilight War?

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Seeing the StuH in the "Can of Worms?" M113 thread got me thinking about the ol' S-Tank a bit; was there any front where these saw serious or considerable use during the Twilight War?

Take your pick!

http://twilight2000.wikia.com/wiki/Sweden

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2686

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...ghlight=sweden

True "canon" says nothing about Sweden in V1. Later in Twilight V2 and 2.2 only information is that there were no nuclear strikes to Sweden.

[pmulcahy11b]

Not to blow my own horn, but I have it statted out on my site...

[Legbreaker]

There's a fully operational one sitting in the Armour museum at Punkapunyal here in Australia (on loan from the Swedes).
What's the bet that wouldn't see service against the Indonesians and possibly spread some very interesting rumours about how the Scandanavians have allied with Australia to take over south east Asia.

[pmulcahy11b]

I remember the first time I heard of an S-Tank...I was about 10 years old and an older friend had just bought a model kit of one. Everyone said, "What a cool tank!"

[Panther Al]

Indeed, A very very cool tank. Your page doesn't show the stats for the long barreled 105 that it sports, but, other than that, it's a tank I really like in a TW2K game.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Seeing the StuH in the "Can of Worms?" M113 thread got me thinking about the ol' S-Tank a bit; was there any front where these saw serious or considerable use during the Twilight War?

I would suggest limited use against lost Soviet units on the border.

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by James Langham

I would suggest limited use against lost Soviet units on the border.

The World in Flames
..meanwhile in Sweden



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Trooper

The World in Flames
..meanwhile in Sweden



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg

You do know you just scarred my mind for the rest of the day with that...

Gonna go look for brain cleanser now.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by James Langham

I would suggest limited use against lost Soviet units on the border.

I would agree, the sweds replace it with the leapord I but not sure when, but with low profile and great fire power and the swedish terrian I think the Soviet would be in for nasty surpirse when try and cross the border

[Schone23666]

I would agree the S-Tank is a cool concept...but in practice, I (and just personal opinion here) still think it's a bit limited in use overall being a turretless vehicle. I would assume this vehicle was primarily intended for use as something similiar to a modern day version of a tank destroyer like the ones seen in WWII. In that function, plus perhaps as an assault gun supporting infantry, it could probably do the job fairly well. Attempting to fight from a hull down position, or trying to shoot on the move in any sort of fast paced attack, or being used in an urban scenario where moving the tank around in close build up areas may not be so favorable (though granted urban settings aren't too ideal for tanks, or any vehicle to begin with)...well, that's all another story.

Of course, this is all speculation as there hasn't been any official real-world incidents/engagements where this vehicle actually saw use, so it really comes to personal discretion.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I would agree the S-Tank is a cool concept...but in practice, I (and just personal opinion here) still think it's a bit limited in use overall being a turretless vehicle. I would assume this vehicle was primarily intended for use as something similiar to a modern day version of a tank destroyer like the ones seen in WWII. In that function, plus perhaps as an assault gun supporting infantry, it could probably do the job fairly well. Attempting to fight from a hull down position, or trying to shoot on the move in any sort of fast paced attack, or being used in an urban scenario where moving the tank around in close build up areas may not be so favorable (though granted urban settings aren't too ideal for tanks, or any vehicle to begin with)...well, that's all another story.

Of course, this is all speculation as there hasn't been any official real-world incidents/engagements where this vehicle actually saw use, so it really comes to personal discretion.

In WWII, the Germans found their turretless Jagdpanzers to be fairly effective in the stationary defensive role (except at close range when enemy tanks could work to their flanks) but nearly useless in the offensive (vs. enemy armor) or in urban warfare. I would hazzard to guess that the S-Tank would have nearly the exact same profile.

Since they were faced by a superior number of Soviet AFVs, and it was presumed that the Soviets would be the aggressors and that NATO would be fighting a largely defensive war (at least innitially), I'm kind of surprised that NATO abandoned the concept of the dedicated gun-armed tank destroyer so quickly. I guess when ATGM technology advanced far enough, they figured missiles would be more effective than guns.

[Schone23666]

As a defensive weapon the S-Tank could probably work pretty well against large quantities of enemy armor, but really, ATGM's have come far enough now that they can be used to do more. Also worth noting that with all the weight and space taken by an antitank gun, or one mounted in the S-Tank, you can have something as simple as a Humvee carrying a TOW ATGM set up for an ambush, fire off, then quickly get the hell out of Dodge a lot faster (though granted the S-Tank would have more of a chance of survival if it did get spotted and lit up) but again, pros and cons to every approach.

That's where I think is the S-Tank's strengths and weaknesses as described....it feels more like a niche weapon than a vehicle that can take on different roles.

[Antenna]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

I would agree, the sweds replace it with the leapord I but not sure when, but with low profile and great fire power and the swedish terrian I think the Soviet would be in for nasty surpirse when try and cross the border

That would be Leopard 2

/Antenna

[Antenna]

Originally Posted by James Langham

I would suggest limited use against lost Soviet units on the border.

Well, the doctrin of The Strv103C was that it would flank columns the USSR if they would penetrate thru Finland into Sweden. Also a thing I forgot to mention earlier today was that the pretty thing can float on water w/o any preparation, and in the river- and sea-rich Sweden that is a great plus if you are a little tank or tankdestroyer.

/Antenna

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Antenna

Also a thing I forgot to mention earlier today was that the pretty thing can float on water w/o any preparation, and in the river- and sea-rich Sweden that is a great plus if you are a little tank or tankdestroyer.

/Antenna

I want to see it shoot while swimming! Do you have any video?

[dylan]

Hmm, I'd always thought Strv103 needed about 20 minutes prep before swimming. Not so useful in battle.

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Ikv91?

[Antenna]

Originally Posted by dylan

Hmm, I'd always thought Strv103 needed about 20 minutes prep before swimming. Not so useful in battle.

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Ikv91?

You are probably right on the swimming ability of Strv103 and Ikv91.
It been a while I was listening on the officer that informed us airforce guys what the other branches had to toy with =)

/Antenna

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dylan

Hmm, I'd always thought Strv103 needed about 20 minutes prep before swimming. Not so useful in battle.

I vaguely recall a screen needs to be erected before it enters the water...