Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:12:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:16:14 PM EST
Bad idea, also not a tank.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:17:11 PM EST
Gotta turn the whole thing to aim the gun... Lol. Thought we learned that was a bad idea during the age of sail?
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:17:54 PM EST
The stank?
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:21:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2015 9:32:16 PM EST by Johnny_Reno]


Our resident Swede discussed this not too long ago and was impressed with it.

I don't recall the basis for that though.


ETA: The flaming tank driving away at 18:30 is kind of entertaining.


Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:22:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ServiceGun:
Bad idea, also not a tank.
View Quote


Good idea for it's designed purpose, firing from pre-prepared positions and quickly falling back to another while attempting to hold out against an overwhelming number of enemy armor.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:27:35 PM EST
Jerry loved the concept. Had TDs until 1990.



Almost built these, too...

Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:28:58 PM EST
If you watch the whole video, it bounced a sabot round from point blank range. Considering the time frame that it was fielded in, trying to find one of those and kill it while it's in defilade would have been quite the challenge. unconventional yes, poor design, no.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:37:29 PM EST
Not an offensive weapon system-designed strictly for defensive use (which reflects Swedish political policies). It's something of a more elaborate Sturmgeschütz. Fire at enemy MBTs during their movement to contact, displace to secondary BPs (or supplementary positions), and repeat until the enemy is either annihilated, or calls off the attack.

I really like it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:39:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By yakrat101:


Good idea for it's designed purpose, firing from pre-prepared positions and quickly falling back to another while attempting to hold out against an overwhelming number of enemy armor.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By yakrat101:
Originally Posted By ServiceGun:
Bad idea, also not a tank.


Good idea for it's designed purpose, firing from pre-prepared positions and quickly falling back to another while attempting to hold out against an overwhelming number of enemy armor.


Surprisingly, no. I thought the thing was mostly a tank destroyer, like the WWII German Hetzer and StuG series. Turns out, not--The Swedes actually considered this thing a tank, and fought it as such. There's video out there of it shooting on the move, and doing all sorts of tank-like things. So, tank destroyer, it is not.

Short little documentary on it:

S Tank Documentary
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:43:22 PM EST
From what I've heard, when employed as a tank destroyer (Not a tank as the swedes partially intended) it is almost unbeatable in the era it was made. The RHA equivilence of the front armor is over 300mm which puts it on fantastic standing against MBTs of the era. The fact it's low to the ground and intended to fight from a fortified position would make it even more effective.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:45:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
Not an offensive weapon system-designed strictly for defensive use (which reflects Swedish political policies). It's something of a more elaborate Sturmgeschütz. Fire at enemy MBTs during their movement to contact, displace to secondary BPs (or supplementary positions), and repeat until the enemy is either annihilated, or calls off the attack.

I really like it.
View Quote



I think I like it too.

I didn't realize that it was a 1960s design. For some reason, I thought it was more modern.

Because the gun was mounted to the body of the tank, it couldn't shoot on the move, but then again, nobody else was doing that at the time either.

For something designed to go up against Warsaw Pact T-62s, I think it would have done pretty well.

As small as it is, in a defensive position, I imagine that it would have been like trying to dig out a buried tick.


Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:45:44 PM EST
I actually really like the concept... Give it better modern armor, better sensors and a 140mm cannon...
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:46:22 PM EST
Needs a claymore front license plate.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:47:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw
View Quote

Link Posted: 8/30/2015 9:49:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:



I think I like it too.

I didn't realize that it was a 1960s design. For some reason, I thought it was more modern.

Because the gun was mounted to the body of the tank, it couldn't shoot on the move, but then again, nobody else was doing that at the time either.

For something designed to go up against Warsaw Pact T-62s, I think it would have done pretty well.

As small as it is, in a defensive position, I imagine that it would have been like trying to dig out a buried tick.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
Not an offensive weapon system-designed strictly for defensive use (which reflects Swedish political policies). It's something of a more elaborate Sturmgeschütz. Fire at enemy MBTs during their movement to contact, displace to secondary BPs (or supplementary positions), and repeat until the enemy is either annihilated, or calls off the attack.

I really like it.



I think I like it too.

I didn't realize that it was a 1960s design. For some reason, I thought it was more modern.

Because the gun was mounted to the body of the tank, it couldn't shoot on the move, but then again, nobody else was doing that at the time either.

For something designed to go up against Warsaw Pact T-62s, I think it would have done pretty well.

As small as it is, in a defensive position, I imagine that it would have been like trying to dig out a buried tick.



Firing on the move would be a bitch, but not impossible. With really good fire control partially linked to the drive control, it is possible.

Now, firing off the side while "crossing the T"... Yeah, that's not going to happen. But in a region with very limited mobility and inherent flank security, that's not really a big concern.
Link Posted: 8/30/2015 10:04:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:



I think I like it too.

I didn't realize that it was a 1960s design. For some reason, I thought it was more modern.

Because the gun was mounted to the body of the tank, it couldn't shoot on the move, but then again, nobody else was doing that at the time either.

For something designed to go up against Warsaw Pact T-62s, I think it would have done pretty well.

As small as it is, in a defensive position, I imagine that it would have been like trying to dig out a buried tick.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
Not an offensive weapon system-designed strictly for defensive use (which reflects Swedish political policies). It's something of a more elaborate Sturmgeschütz. Fire at enemy MBTs during their movement to contact, displace to secondary BPs (or supplementary positions), and repeat until the enemy is either annihilated, or calls off the attack.

I really like it.



I think I like it too.

I didn't realize that it was a 1960s design. For some reason, I thought it was more modern.

Because the gun was mounted to the body of the tank, it couldn't shoot on the move, but then again, nobody else was doing that at the time either.

For something designed to go up against Warsaw Pact T-62s, I think it would have done pretty well.

As small as it is, in a defensive position, I imagine that it would have been like trying to dig out a buried tick.




Actually, it is was a late 1950s idea.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/13/swedish-tanks-part-xvi-the-s-tank-1956-1961/
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/21/swedish-tanks-part-xvii-strv-103/
Link Posted: 8/31/2015 8:06:42 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By M82Assault:
Gotta turn the whole thing to aim the gun... Lol. Thought we learned that was a bad idea during the age of sail?
View Quote

It was made for our dence forests. There is no point in having a turrent there as there are so many trees in the was. It was designed for that and would dominate. Take it out on the open fields and it would be a different storry.
Top Top