Swedish S-Tank (Striedsvagn) in T2k?

[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.

[ArmySGT.]

The S-Tank is decent as it is played to its strenghts - a defensive tank destroyer.

Play to that strength then and task reorganize them into Battalion size units that are task organized down to the Company and Platoon level for the Tank Destroyer / Assault gun mission.

If I was Sweden this would be on my keep list with a look to upgrading the gun to an Israeli or Rheinmetal 120mm (with a look to the future 135mm). The Commander station should receive a fully rotating cupola with atleast a .30 gpmg, separate commanders thermal sight, and a laser rangefinder / designator.

I would go so far as to add a coaxial 25mm or 35mm to the main gun for targets like BMPs and other IFV maximizing the Main gun load in APFDS.

The Commander could then also call very accurate defensive artillery fires to engage targets before giving his own away and outside his own main gun range.

The Armor should focus on the Leopard 2 and organize themselve that way.

How fast is the autoloader on the S-tank. Without a turret and those complications I would think the S-tank would have pretty high ROF

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The S-Tank is decent as it is played to its strenghts - a defensive tank destroyer.

Play to that strength then and task reorganize them into Battalion size units that are task organized down to the Company and Platoon level for the Tank Destroyer / Assault gun mission.

If I was Sweden this would be on my keep list with a look to upgrading the gun to an Israeli or Rheinmetal 120mm (with a look to the future 135mm). The Commander station should receive a fully rotating cupola with atleast a .30 gpmg, separate commanders thermal sight, and a laser rangefinder / designator.

I would go so far as to add a coaxial 25mm or 35mm to the main gun for targets like BMPs and other IFV maximizing the Main gun load in APFDS.

The Commander could then also call very accurate defensive artillery fires to engage targets before giving his own away and outside his own main gun range.

The Armor should focus on the Leopard 2 and organize themselve that way.

How fast is the autoloader on the S-tank. Without a turret and those complications I would think the S-tank would have pretty high ROF

Not bad idea's on the whole, but for one thing.


There isn't room for all that. The S Tank is very small. Fitting a 120 is a possible, but only just - with your ammo load being very small - small as in 20 rounds max. And OWS - sure. Coaxial automatic cannon? No way. Just not that big a tank alas.

[Antenna]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The S-Tank is decent as it is played to its strenghts - a defensive tank destroyer.

Play to that strength then and task reorganize them into Battalion size units that are task organized down to the Company and Platoon level for the Tank Destroyer / Assault gun mission.

If I was Sweden this would be on my keep list with a look to upgrading the gun to an Israeli or Rheinmetal 120mm (with a look to the future 135mm). The Commander station should receive a fully rotating cupola with atleast a .30 gpmg, separate commanders thermal sight, and a laser rangefinder / designator.

I would go so far as to add a coaxial 25mm or 35mm to the main gun for targets like BMPs and other IFV maximizing the Main gun load in APFDS.

The Commander could then also call very accurate defensive artillery fires to engage targets before giving his own away and outside his own main gun range.

The Armor should focus on the Leopard 2 and organize themselve that way.

How fast is the autoloader on the S-tank. Without a turret and those complications I would think the S-tank would have pretty high ROF

Some facts about the S-tank...

When Sweden got a hand on couple of T-72's when the wall fell they tested both the T-72 and the S-tank.

-The S-tank could take a round from the 125mm T-72 canon and the 125mm round wouldn't penetrate the S-tanks front armor.
-The S-tank couldn't penetrate the T-72's front armor with its 105mm L7.

This concluded to an update of the S-tank to muster the rheinmetal 120mm. Then it get silent about the changes due to budget cuts in the Swedish armed forces. I belive that the update is put on the backburner and if there is remaining Strv103C's they would be updated if the situation in Scandinavia (that would be Norway, Sweden and Finland) would worsen.

Then I have the S tank on my homepages but the data doesn't account the testsfires with the T72 a decade or two ago.

/Antenna

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes... and no.


Saw that coming didn't you?

Anyways, here is the rub when it comes to missiles. Cost and Availability. Missiles are crazy expensive, and takes a lot of time to manufacture in facilities that are made of eggshells.

Tank rounds are dirt cheap, fast to make, and can be made in a moderately well equipped cave.

Short term, Missiles are far better than guns. In a Twilight scenario, I would go gun all day long. Use the money spent on missiles on more guns instead.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Missiles are crazy expensive

Missiles are dirt cheap compared to tanks. Even when you add on the cost of light wheeled recon vehicles (like hummers) to mount a launcher on, they're still dirt cheap. A country planning on a defensive war can field a whopping number of them for not much outlay, and can make an invader pay dearly. The Soviet doctrine is to overwhelm an enemy by sheer numbers. That doctrine fares poorly when confronted by someone using a somewhat similar tactic, but tweaked to exploit the weaknesses in Soviet methods.

Kind of reminds me of Germany handing out panzerfausts like candy in 1945. Might even have worked if they hadn't been so badly outnumbered.

[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...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

Well if there's going to be an erection involved it had better be warm water...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

Well if there's going to be an erection involved it had better be warm water...

Wouldn't it need to be warm water in a tunnel?