Quoted: Actually, contrary to public perception, the M1 was not the first production tank to enter service with a turbine engine. Strv-103s (S-tanks) were running around with turbines from the 60s to the late 1990s. They're very maneuverable. Personally though, I hate the things. Causing me much more trouble than a diesel would. NTM

Interesting.  Please elaborate on these S-tanks.

I love 3rd world weapons - their attraction mostly stops at the top layer of paint.

Quoted: Quoted: Actually, contrary to public perception, the M1 was not the first production tank to enter service with a turbine engine. Strv-103s (S-tanks) were running around with turbines from the 60s to the late 1990s. They're very maneuverable. Personally though, I hate the things. Causing me much more trouble than a diesel would. NTM Interesting.  Please elaborate on these S-tanks.

………mmm, not so sure on this concept! found this.

"Strv-103C (S-Tank)

Notes: The S-Tank is a radical departure from normal tank design. A Swedish MBT, the S-Tank is fully amphibious and has a very low profile since it has no turret. The suspension causes the vehicle to elevate and depress the gun and the S-Tank is able to pivot 360º very rapidly by track movement. A dozer blade is standard equipment and can be used to clear obstacles and blow mines. (Any hull front hit is 50% likely to hit the dozer blade, which has an armor value of 10 and acts as spaced armor). The S-Tank has two engines, one diesel and one gas turbine; the diesel is normally used on roads and the less economical gas turbine is used cross-country and in combat for better power response. The driver sits to the left of the commander and doubles as gunner, meaning that only a very skilled driver/gunner can fire on the move. The commander has a weapons mount by his hatch on the right center deck (NMT). A radio operator sits behind the driver and can also double as gunner if need be. The S-Tank is amphibious with preparation; a large fording screen must be erected, taking a 15 minutes. The main gun is noteworthy; it is a 105mm rifled gun 62 calibers long."

…so it seems it has a fixed gun, firing on the move is very difficult and firing off axis at a target of opprtunity is a not an option unless you turn the whole tank, it had a very complex twin powerplant and hydro-pnuematc suspension system… I think  this tank would have had a short but exciting war!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ehh?   We are getting non DU M1's with chobham... As for the Leo1, it suits our needs.  Nice and mobile, which we need for our countryside and outback.  Our Army cant go head to head with the larger armies so we are more orientated to less "confrontational" ways, hence the  "large" amount of recon and commando units compared to the size of our army.   Any war in Aus would have alot of manouevring, because of our vast open spaces of nothing.  Not many cities either so a static war would be highly unlikely, unless they get to a population centre.  Indonesia is our main threat, and to get to a major population centre, they have to cross a shitload of desert (Darwin doesnt count, most of the pop is military methinks). That's right Phil, I read about the deal in Janes, Australia is getting an excellent deal and is being invited into the very exclusive  'Inner Circle' of Technology because of your total support in the War on Terror. However the 'other guys' only get M1 'lite'. It's a pretty safe bet you will also be sold the 'full stealth' version of the F-35 that US/UK are getting, not the 'Stealth Lite' version the other buyers will get. For Autralia the Leopard was an ideal tank, vast distances to cover and it will overmatch any conceivable enemy. You also have the worlds best anti tank defence with that desert! However in Europe the Leopard was always 2nd Division stuff even when new. ANdy

Its Pete .

Our desert even owns 4wd's designed for it lol.  

In point of fact, a moving S-Tank could engage a target to its rear faster than an Abrams can.
There should be some movie footage on the web of its performing a 'clutch turn' which basically turns the hull around about as fast as a handbrake turn on a sports car. Also has the benefit of immediately presenting frontal armour to the tank.

Problem is that it cannot fire on the move. Not such a problem for a defensive tank (Remember, Sweden is neutral, so shouldn't be invading anyone), but if you're interested in offensive movement, it's an issue.

The other thing it can do that no other tank can is fight with only one crewman. The driver is also the gunner, and there's an autoloader. Talk about redundancy!

Finally, the thing is absolutely tiny, and looks much smaller than its weight. If it's hull-down, it's nigh-on impossible to see or hit.

The tank has since been replaced by Strv 122s after a long service life. (Uprated Leopard 2s).

NTM

Looks to me like the "S" tank was intended as a dedicated tank destroyer, rather than an MBT.

What's the difference between a tank destroyer and a tank?

M1A1 is more of a tank destroyer than the S-tank. At least the S-tank has high-explosive rounds which are quite useful against targets other than tanks. The M1 is a fantastic armour-killer, but somewhat lacking in the fragmentation department. (No, HEAT or MPAT are not as good as HE).

The presence of a turret or not does not indicate a tank destroyer. Witness M-10 and StugIII.

NTM

I was under the impression that the typical "tank destroyer", at least on the German side, had no turret. Though, as I recall, the Stg-IIIs, were "assault" guns, intended for urban use?

Been a while since I had my old copy of Squad Leader.

Quoted: In point of fact, a moving S-Tank could engage a target to its rear faster than an Abrams can.

Two Points of Fact.

The Abrams can destroy Tanks to its sides WHILE moving foward and gaining ground.  Fire while manuvering is a VERY important thing in modern maneuver warfare.

The S-Tank was developed by a nation that has not really seen war in a long time, particulary armor on armor warfare.  And the tank was developed with a 'Defend the Homeland' type of mindset rather than 'offensive tank battle' mindset.  You don't win wars (or keep your homland) by 'defending and retreating' (ask the French how good that strategy worked).   Overall a really bad idea.

T-72 vs M1A1(HA) Main gun : 125mm 120mm = T-72 wins 5mm Autoloader : Yes No = T-72 wins (until the autoloader loads the gunner or you realize you only have 3 people to do maintenance work) HE-F rounds : Yes No = T-72 wins Gears : 7 4 = T-72 wins Weight : 42t 68t = T-72 wins  That weight works really well - until you learn that means less armor that's why M1s had sabots sticking out of them while T72s were burned hulks... Smoke mortar range: 300m 60m = T-72 wins Track weight : 1t 2t = T-72 wins Ability to fire coax and main gun same time : Yes No = T-72 wins  Does the T-72 require the penetrative abilities of the coax to defeat the enemy?  If I'm the M1s main gun  is firing it doesn't matter if the coax can be used at the same time - the target is dead. Delta-D ability : Yes No = T-72 wins Ability to block LRF returns below 1.2 and 1.8km : Yes No = T-72 wins Height : 2.2m 2.7m = T-72 wins And Width : 3.59m 3.66m = T-72 wins with this Length : 6.93m 7.9m = T-72 wins low profile the M1 still hits the tank and kills it while the T72s are having issues hitting the larger tank... Ground press. : 0.90kg/cm2 0.96kg/cm2 = T-72 wins Max Range : 500km 460km = T-72 wins Fording depth : 1.8m 1.2m = T-72 wins Scraper blade to make own fire positions : Yes No = T-72 wins We don't need it - M1s are too busy destroying the T72s that thoughtfully dug their own graves then blowing by them... FCS max range : 5km 4km = T-72 wins  They wish they had that capability... Cost : 1 million $ 3 million $ = T-72 wins  Penny wise and pound foolish.  You need alot more than 3 T72s to attack an M1 and hope to survive....50cal pen. : 50mm 25mm = T-72 wins Hunter-killer capability : Yes No = T-72 wins I have no idea what your thinking with this TC has own night sight : Yes No = T-72 win Remember, it's a joke. I know there are comparisons that are just plain silly. Then what was the point?

Damn right it's a joke - see my comments in red.

Quoted: What's the difference between a tank destroyer and a tank?

Tank destroyer's job is to destroy tanks - Tanks are designed to support infantry (at least it was that way in WW2 and earlier)

In the old days the 'light' and 'medium' tanks might not have guns big enough to kill the Heavy tanks.

We solved this whole issue with a 'Main Battle Tank' that can kill other tanks while supporting infantry (basically we went to all 'Heavy Tanks').

M1A1 is more of a tank destroyer than the S-tank.

M1s main job is to destroy enemy tanks, and after than enemy APCs and other vehicles.  A job it does very well.

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, and because I enjoy discussion...

The Abrams can destroy Tanks to its sides WHILE moving foward and gaining ground. Fire while manuvering is a VERY important thing in modern maneuver warfare.

Very true. Also true is the fact that no tank built about the same time as the S-tank was designed had a true fire-on-the-move capability. They could probably put some optomistic or suppressive rounds downrange, but would have to stop to place precision fires, just like the S-tank. Modern technology in stabilisers has made the S-tank's fixed gun a greater liability. Remember, Strv-103 is twice the age of Abrams.

Autoloader : Yes No = T-72 wins (until the autoloader loads the gunner or you realize you only have 3 people to do maintenance work)

T-72 autoloading the gunner is a myth, propogated initially by some early Russian autoloaders (BMP? T-64?) grabbing the gunner. They've sorted out that one. The maintenance issue has apparently been solved by the French who have the fourth crewman on their three-man-tank travel along in the headquarters platoon. Finally, I should point out that my tanks are running around with 3-man-crews anyway, though that would be made even more difficult if you only started with three.

That weight works really well - until you learn that means less armor that's why M1s had sabots sticking out of them while T72s were burned hulks...
However, given what the tanks are -currently- used for, the lighter weight might be a certain advantage. I've lost one tank when the ground gave way under its 70-ton weight, and our mobility elsewhere is severely restricted. Such concerns would still be present on a 45ton tank, but probably to a much lesser extent.

Scraper blade would be quite useful actually. Save us from having to drag the M-88 out and about when we need to do some scraping on the roads. Not exactly a deal-breaking issue, however

They wish they had that capability...
Technically, the man is correct. Though 125mm dispersion is horrible and the gun cannot fire with any accuracy to the max range of the FCS, recent T-72 models do have an ATGM ability which is accurate to long range.

M1s main job is to destroy enemy tanks, and after than enemy APCs and other vehicles. A job it does very well.

I rest my case: M-1 is more of a tank destroyer than a tank. It was designed to earn its living by destroying enemy armour. True tanks are a balance with armour defeating and infantry support, a role which the M-1 can be said to have lost with the conversion to the 120mm gun and loss of HE and HEP rounds. Yes, it's still deadly with .50 and 7.62, but a 120mm HE round would be quite useful.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: So was Poland. I mean, we just played wargames with them, I thought we only did that with friendly nations. Besides, I would much rather have India as an ally than Pakistan. India is one of the most underrated countries in the world. Poland is a member of NATO and one of the 3 major powers in Iraq (US, Britian, Poland).  Not only are they the "good guys" they are a pretty close ally now. Poland was always the most "Western" of the old Communist countries. Av.

I know this is off-topic, but I just couldn't let it slide.  Poland might be our friend now - but they sure as hell were not "western" when they were part of WAPA.

In the 1980s, my regiment's function (if the war started) was to dig in on the Zealand coast and slow down the invading forces - to given our armour in Jutland time to organize (with the west germans) and to get british and U.S. reinforcements into Justland as well.  We knew what beaches the armoured divisions would be landing on, and we knew what forces we were expecting.  First we were going to get 10,000 POLISH TROOPS, then 10,000 East Germans, and then 10,000 Soviets.  

Considering that my job was esentially to get killed by Polish troops, I really don't see how that makes them particularly "western" during the Cold War.   If I had to pick the most "western" country of that time, I think I'd go with Czeckoslovakia.


If I misunderstood, and you were just saying that they are the most western of the POST-Cold War era, then pay no attention to my prattling!  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .  If I had to pick the most "western" country of that time, I think I'd go with Czeckoslovakia.

+1 on that DK…

IIRC the Soviets had almost zero confidence in the Czecks willingness to fight, something to do with them overrunning their country in 1945 and again in 1968!

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .  If I had to pick the most "western" country of that time, I think I'd go with Czeckoslovakia. +1 on that DK… IIRC the Soviets had almost zero confidence in the Czecks willingness to fight, something to do with them overrunning their country in 1945 and again in 1968! Andy

+2 re the Czechs being the red headed stepchild members of the Warsaw pact.  
The Hungararians might not be too far behind the Czechs & Poles.  Dad used to work with an immigrant from Hungary.  According to him the general "on the down low" consensus in the Hungarian army (at least among the enlisted & possibly jr officers during his mandatory hitch) was that if TSHTF between the Soviets & the USA their unofficial plan was to piddle fart around & get out of the way.  No love lost for the occupying Russians.