Stridsvagan 103 (S-Tank), do you think it would of been good in battle?

[henshao]

Hensh i can call it a failiure because it does not have a turret which severely limits its options.

How fast it can swivel around is dependent on a multitude of factors including what kind of ground its on, is it a steep hill, is it a muddy road etc, a turret can traverse regardless of al those.

I could recount all the modernisations T-55s and T-72s received by the 70s but its pointless, most tanks in Europe would fight each others at ranges between 1-3km but typically at something around 1.X km.

Well, we can agree it's nothing to get worked up about nowadays. I primarily love the Stridsvagn 103 because maybe I could have one someday. Only takes one man to operate. That's a conversation piece in any man's car collection, and I'm a dreamer.

True that a turret can traverse regardless of terrain, but you'll want to turn the hull of the tank, too, otherwise you might be extra easy pickin's. Also, with the complexity of traverse and elevation, there's slightly more that can break down when aiming the main gun of a turreted tank.

Every tank has it's strengths and weaknesses, I think the S-tank ran into problems because it was so polarized in that regard. You really either love it or hate it. I think it would have really benefitted from a BMP-like setup with a SACLOS HEAT missile launcher on the commander's cupola. Shoot on the move, at least enough firepower to make a dent until you can bring the cannon around. But that's my 2 cents.

It's like a one-armed rifleman. Bottom line, I think the Strv 103 could accomplish all the tasks asked of a MBT. Again, I'm no expert. The S-tank really benefits from infantry-like tactics, shoot and scoot/ leap frog.

 

[Yin717]

Well, we can agree it's nothing to get worked up about nowadays. I primarily love the Stridsvagn 103 because maybe I could have one someday. Only takes one man to operate. That's a conversation piece in any man's car collection, and I'm a dreamer.

I think this is one benefit of the S-Tank that you can not deny. I mean, it meant that more tanks could be operated with less men meaning that two tank corps opposing each other with the same men, one could easily be outnumbered by the S-Tank making it a good tank in that sense.

You really either love it or hate it.

That is something I will certainly agree to!

 

[Panzercracker]

I think this is one benefit of the S-Tank that you can not deny. I mean, it meant that more tanks could be operated with less men meaning that two tank corps opposing each other with the same men, one could easily be outnumbered by the S-Tank making it a good tank in that sense.

Tankers are much cheaper then tanks so its not really an issue unless your country has a population of 10 people and a budget of 2 buttons and a penny.

 

[Yin717]

Tankers are much cheaper then tanks so its not really an issue unless your country has a population of 10 people and a budget of 2 buttons and a penny.

True, but if your finding it hard to get people to join the forces, a problem that Britain is currently facing on a small scale, then you would have issues.

 

[henshao]

Yes, I think tankers are much easier to come by than tanks!

However, tankers are also much more vulnerable than tanks. Just sayin'.

One can only wonder how effective an S-tank would be with only one man operating it, though...

 

[Panzercracker]

True, but if your finding it hard to get people to join the forces, a problem that Britain is currently facing on a small scale, then you would have issues.

And thats supposed to ba a pro? I realise we're trying to find some good sides for what is basically a failed concept but the only thing i can come up with is the low silhoutte which alone is not much.

As for how effective would it be with one man? French Somua had the commander multitasking which made an otherwise great tank perform rather poorly so i can imagine one man would be able to drive the thing but wouldnt do much fighting.

 

[Yin717]

I just personally think it has been criticised too hard. I mean, many concepts have looked bad but once used they have been very successful.

 

[Panzercracker]

Its not a bad vehicle per se, its a bad tank. Its menouvarable, reliable and has a low silhoutte but the lack of a turret or remote mg station and thin armor means that if you try to use it like you would normally use a tank its going to have serious issues.

 

[Yin717]

Its not a bad vehicle per se, its a bad tank. Its menouvarable, reliable and has a low silhoutte but the lack of a turret or remote mg station and thin armor means that if you try to use it like you would normally use a tank its going to have serious issues.

But that's the thing! It's not designed to be used like any other tank. At least not entirely. The S-Tank, to be used effectively, must be used differently. This is what I feel is wrong, people look at it from the wrong angle.

 

[Panzercracker]

But that's the thing! It's not designed to be used like any other tank. At least not entirely. The S-Tank, to be used effectively, must be used differently. This is what I feel is wrong, people look at it from the wrong angle.

No people look at it from the right angle because for quite some time it was Swedens only tank which means in the event of the conflict it would have to do the job.