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.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The S103 also shows up in "Tractics III: Modern and Special Weapons" by Gary Gygax and Dave Megarry (old old tabletop wargame that came out around the same time the original three-pamphlet D&D set did - stuff like the Sheridan, S-Tank, TOW missiles etc. were under the "future weapons" section (tho the TOW had been around since the mid-early 60's! Also, amusingly, the rules list that the Sheridan can fire a nuclear artillery shell!)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, my large-caliber gun page hasn't caught up with the general re-write of the web site.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.

Doesn't appear to be smaller than comparable AFV just shorter.

A Coaxial weapons system doesn't necessarily have to be under armor. The M2HB mounted above the barrel on Israeli AFV is an example.

Appears that the later models did gain the Commanders Cupola with GPMG and thermal sight.

Weight 103 C: 42.5 t (46.8 short tons; 41.8 long tons)
Length 9 m (29 ft 6 in) (incl. gun)
Width 103 C: 3.80 m (12 ft 6 in)
Height 2.14 m (7 ft 0 in)
Crew 3 (Commander, gunner/driver, rear driver)[1]

[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.

[Raellus]

I understand the point about ATGM-armed AFVs and light vehicles but these vehicles have some weaknesses not necessarily shared by gun-armed TDs.

First of all, there's the slow reload time. The M113 ITV, for example, can fire only two missiles and then it either needs to get out of dodge or it needs to take several minutes to reload. Under attack, or under fire, this would be very difficult and potentially deadly.

Light vehicles would be extremely vulnerable to artillery fire. The Soviets had butt-loads of artillery and knew how to use it. I can't imagine a TOW-armed Humvee or Jeep surviving very long in a hot sector.

A gun-armed TD is not as limited in terms of ammunition/shot per engagement, nor is it as vulnerable to artillery fire.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Light vehicles would be extremely vulnerable to artillery fire.

The Soviets had butt-loads of artillery and knew how to use it. I can't imagine a TOW-armed Humvee or Jeep surviving very long in a hot sector.

Which is why they must practice shoot-n-scoot, just as artillery needs to do to try to avoid counter-battery fire. The point is, if the defender is matching 1 jeep to 10 tanks, and (only) kills 2-3 tanks before succumbing, the defender is dishing out a very disproportionate loss on the attacker in terms of cost of weapons. Even if the defender gets wiped out, he lost far less value of equipment, and less manpower as well. Plus it takes longer to train tankers than it does to train TOW gunners and jeep drivers.

The Soviets are good at using artillery as preparatory fire, not so much in the close-support role. Even the Soviets cannot maintain a rolling barrage at all times across an entire front as it advances, and nothing less will suffice to deal with the AT skirmishers.

The same skirmishers can be especially dangerous if they manage to avoid the leading tank waves and rip into the troop carriers.

Originally Posted by Raellus

A gun-armed TD is not as limited in terms of ammunition/shot per engagement, nor is it as vulnerable to artillery fire.

True, a TD will probably shrug off shrapnel that will KIA a soft-skinned vehicle. But if it was me having to decide how to spend a small country's very limited defense funds, and the choice was a few TDs or a bunch of missile jeeps, I know which I'd choose. Both will probably all be toast, but the jeeps are more likely (IMO) to inflict more losses on the enemy before they get nailed.

I should include the caveats that my opinion is based upon heavily wooded Scandinavian-type terrain and against 1990s Soviet gear (based on late 80s tech) and tactics. I wouldn't want to try it today. And I would very much not want to try it against the U.S. in any period after 1975.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

But if it was me having to decide how to spend a small country's very limited defense funds, and the choice was a few TDs or a bunch of missile jeeps, I know which I'd choose. Both will probably all be toast, but the jeeps are more likely (IMO) to inflict more losses on the enemy before they get nailed.

I don't disagree with you. Your points are well taken, but the U.S. is not a "small country". I'm not sure you could classify West Germany or even the U.K. as "small" countries (geographically speaking, perhaps, but not economically or, at least in Germany's case, population-wise. During the Cold War, they all could have afforded to convert/develop a light AFV chasis into an armored TD with good mobility, multi-shot capability, and better survivability. Such a vehicle would certainly be cheaper to produce than MBTs, so if one was willing to sacrifice a few of the latter for more of the former, they could have padded their armored AT capability.

No one went that route, so there must be more cons than pros. I'm just sayin', is all.

Back in the mid-to-late '80s, there was a lot of hype/hope about a rail-gun armed vehicle that could rapidly destroy even the most heavily armored MBTs with relatively small projectiles. I'm not clear on why that never panned out. I assume it's because the technology could not be perfected in a cost-efficient manner and, with the end of the Cold War, development was scrapped.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Back in the mid-to-late '80s, there was a lot of hype/hope about a rail-gun armed vehicle that could rapidly destroy even the most heavily armored MBTs with relatively small projectiles. I'm not clear on why that never panned out. I assume it's because the technology could not be perfected in a cost-efficient manner and, with the end of the Cold War, development was scrapped.

Still around, just the Navy is the lead now.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...ile-milestone/

Magnets, superconductors, capacitors, and everything needed to make a rail gun work a making small gains and now small enough to fit into a destroyer.

Heh heh.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just to add a little more to the mix, the Swedish forces had upgraded Centurions as their MBTs and the Infanterikanonvagn 91 (AKA Ikv 91) as an anti-tank vehicle (the Ikv 91 was used by the infantry divisions to provide anti-tank support). The Ikv 91 is essentially the Pbv 302 APC with a turreted 90mm gun.

While Sweden may have classified the Stridsvagn 103 (AKA Strv 103 and S-Tank) as a tank, it is a classic tank-destroyer design in everything but name. It probably got the designation as a tank because its design concept started as a tank and the Swedish employed it throughout its life as a tank.

The main criteria of the Strv 103 design was for a lower profile, that then drove the design into a turretless concept. It was felt by the design team that a lower profile would enable it to survive longer on a battlefield flooded with Soviet tanks.

While it was originally proposed as a replacement for the Centurion MBTs then in service, it never did. Instead it served together with the tank it was meant to supersede. Obviously the design had its advantages but if it never completely replaced the tank it was supposed to supersede, then there were probably enough disadvantages associated with the design to cause this?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Back in the mid-to-late '80s, there was a lot of hype/hope about a rail-gun armed vehicle that could rapidly destroy even the most heavily armored MBTs with relatively small projectiles. I'm not clear on why that never panned out. I assume it's because the technology could not be perfected in a cost-efficient manner and, with the end of the Cold War, development was scrapped.

Electricity storage/generation tech is what is holding back a number of potential battlefield high-tech weapon systems. Rail guns/mass drivers (and battlefield lasers and particle accelerators) need a lot of electricity to power them, and they need to be able to apply it over very short time scales. I expect that over the next 20 years or so we'll see some great leaps forward in the area of small, high output, stable energy generation systems.

[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

[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

[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

[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?