Cheese wedge

it is stridsvagn friday my dudes

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How would this perform i Ukraine now?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      im going to say probably pretty badly

      seems these are purely ambush and defensive weapons in heavy concealment and cover, like a big forest. Probably banking on some kinda decent air cover

      I wouldn't want to be in one.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >seems these are purely ambush and defensive weapons in heavy concealment and cover

        thats more of a myth than anything else. Ill just gonna post this article if you want to be better informed
        https://tanks.mod16.org/2016/08/19/stridsvagn-103-was-not-a-tank-destroyer/

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sweden abandoned the concept in the late 1970s as this design had several huge flaws to give it the advantages it did.
      - Gun traverse depends strictly on movement of the vehicle
      - No firing on the move or stabilization
      - Angling of the front armor became much less effective with newer penetrators in the 80s and 90s
      So really what you had was a tank that was only effective on the defense, and with a lack of a turret its usefulness on the defense was not on the same level as other nation's mbts

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This, it was competitive while the USSR and Warsaw pact mainly had T-55s in their motorrifle units, and poor stabilization systems meant other MBTs couldn't fire very accurately on the move anyway.
        T72s becoming the main tank in motorrifle companies and modern ammunition developed during the 70s and reaching widespread use in the early 80s made them practically obsolete other than in a very highly prepared delaying defense role, and even that was just stalling tactics until the Leopard 2 was adopted.

        >the driver is also the gunner
        >commander is also backup driver/gunner
        >needs a third crew member for maintenance, etc.
        >excellent auto-loader, so no use for a loader
        >third crew member gets to be the radio operator
        >it's more space efficient if the radio operator sits back to back with the driver
        >"hey, if we give the radio operator a steering wheel, he can drive the tank in reverse"
        The reverse driver was an afterthought.

        There is also the problem of neither the driver/gunner or commander having any real rearward visibility.
        In a "normal" tank the commander can usually at least somewhat guide the driver in reverse.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Probably not great, they were designed to be shooting and scooting from prepared defensive positions. The Swedish trials on the T-72 is what started the search for a new MBT because it turned out to be a lot more capable than previously thought so that is saying something.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Probably not great, they were designed to be shooting and scooting from prepared defensive positions.
        Neither the design nor doctrine put any special emphasis on defensive tactics. They were designed to be just straight up tanks, and the doctrine saw infantry do the main defensive job followed by armoured units counter-attacking. No difference was made there between the armoured units with Strv103 and those with Centurion.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >has seat facing rearward to make it easier to drive backwards
          >the design doesn't put emphasis on scooting and shooting

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the driver is also the gunner
            >commander is also backup driver/gunner
            >needs a third crew member for maintenance, etc.
            >excellent auto-loader, so no use for a loader
            >third crew member gets to be the radio operator
            >it's more space efficient if the radio operator sits back to back with the driver
            >"hey, if we give the radio operator a steering wheel, he can drive the tank in reverse"
            The reverse driver was an afterthought.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >No difference was made there between the armoured units with Strv103 and those with Centurion.
          This is kind of irrelevant in the same way Jagdpanzers and StuGs were regularly "used" as tanks as well.
          They still have the disadvantage of not having a rotating turret

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They still have the disadvantage of not having a rotating turret
            At then time of introduction the Strv-103 could come to a stop from full sped, pivot turn the gun on target and put two rounds on target before a period typical Centurion could get the gun pointed on target and get a first shot off, which was far less likely to be a first round hit.
            People seriously underestimate how far fire control and target acquisition systems have come since the 60s.

            The whole "Swedish doctrine and tactics was defensive" argument by people that haven't actually looked it up is fucking retarded.
            The role of the armored units in the Swedish defense plan was aggressive counter attack to push mechanized landing forces on the Baltic coast back into the fucking sea.
            The area where delaying defense was to be used is in the extreme north, and mainly involved mechanized infantry, artillery and stay behind saboteur forces because the terrain is not conducive to armored combat.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >At then time of introduction the Strv-103 could come to a stop from full sped, pivot turn the gun on target and put two rounds on target before a period typical Centurion could get the gun pointed on target and get a first shot off
              What? Centurion just has to turn the turret to get the gun on target. It can even slow down to a stop at the same time while it is rotating the turret.. How is the Strv 103 gonna be faster.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Strv 103 can turn faster than the Centurion can rotate its turret.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                @:32

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So a meme move like the cobra that looks good on the cameras but in real life is likely to detrack the thing.
                There is a reason turretless tanks aren't the mainstay of armored forces unless you are in a total war where lower production costs of casemate tanks matters more

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The strv 103 has a very narrow track contact length and can turn very quickly even stationary. Its also more difficult to detrack than normal tanks. Also reacting to something behind you quickly isn't a "meme move" this isn't a slav jet.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So a meme move like the cobra that looks good on the cameras but in real life is likely to detrack the thing.
                This was standard operating response to targets off the forward axis, and since the tanks was in service for 30 years i think someone would have noticed if this didn't work in reality.
                Hell, the remaining running museum tank regularly does the same during running displays still to this day.
                >There is a reason turretless tanks aren't the mainstay of armored forces
                Yeah, gun targeting technology advanced since the 60s.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about but I'm going to post anyway

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Many such cases

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about but I'm going to post anyway

                Swedes genuinely believe their equipment is the best in the world yet the Grippen constantly loses in foreign sales
                Curious

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one is claiming it is a good concept today.
                The claim is that for a while in the 60s-early70s it rivaled turreted MBTs in first shot time and accuracy.
                Reality is it wasn't until fully stabilized target tracking turrets and guns using automated range finding fire control systems that turreted tanks achieved effective first shot accuracy on the move at normal combat ranges.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Strv-103 can turn the whole tank at full speed faster than the Centurion can turn the turret, and does so far more accurately then the centurion laying the gun on target on the move or while breaking/turning.
                The advantage of the Strv-103 lies in the accuracy and stability of gun laying using the hydraulic system, and very high first round hit probability.

                The first system that offered full gun and turret stabilization that started approaching modern fire control systems capability was on upgraded versions of the the M60A1 in the 70s, and even that is far off in terms of speed and first round hit probability on the move.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's extremely relevant in the context of "what was the tank meant to do", which if you see what I wrote and what I replied to is what's discussed. What it may have been used as in the field on the other hand is of questionable relevance here, not to mention what a pair of completely different vehicles used by a different country at a different point in history were meant to be used and sued as.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Terribly, it's basically a field gun with a sliver of armor and an engine.
      Its only advantage is the low profile, and that's not worth much in the age of drones.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would probably be fairly effective in a defensive role against an armored thrust. However, the Russians seem to have given up on their WWII-style armored thrusts and devolved even further to pre-tank WWI artillery tactics. I wonder if they'll turn to Napoleonic line infantry next.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why was the Swedish Cold War aesthetic so pleasing?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because they built stuff for one single purpose: defens scandinavia from soviets.

      when all your equipment has a clear usecase instead of do-it-all you get a unique and defined style.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Qyg2Yek.jpg

      because they built stuff for one single purpose: defens scandinavia from soviets.

      when all your equipment has a clear usecase instead of do-it-all you get a unique and defined style.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there is a viggen somewhat nearby to where i live on a podium next to some stores and every time i drive by i slow down a bit to look at that sexy beast

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I am s fuckin sick of air superiority gray.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/V5lLPj8.jpg

      [...]

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        omg thats ugly

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All these people saying it’s only good on defense when Ukraine has been on defense this entire time.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the moment you have to do ANYTHING other than fighting from a well-prepared position or scooting to another well prepared position under huge smoke cover, you're fucked

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love him 🙂

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I grew up reading a book called "Modern Battle Tanks" as a kid in the early-mid '90s. Still have the book. It was from about 1970 and covered all the newest tanks, including the MBT-70. The Strv103 was by far my favorite thing in the book. Wish I could get a decent diecast model.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I grew up reading a book called "Modern Battle Tanks" as a kid in the early-mid '90s.
      Yo wtf, I had that same book

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      xD

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.