It was a main battle tank, the best main battle tank ever made.
No one fired on the moved in the 60s because stabilizers were still dogshit and everyone kept the thickest part of the armor always towards the enemy just like in WW2, so it made sense to design a main battle tank that'd always keep the thickest part of the armor pointed towards the enemy and could also take out entire columns of Soviet tanks thanks to it's 3 second reload.
But yeah. It's a tank, it was intended to do tank things. Yes, it would also have done very well in a defensive position, and the addition of the dozer blade kinda indicates at least someone thought of this. It's also cute which is important
But yeah. It's a tank, it was intended to do tank things. Yes, it would also have done very well in a defensive position, and the addition of the dozer blade kinda indicates at least someone thought of this. It's also cute which is important
Every time I make pea soup I put a can of Bullens Pilsnerkorv™ in there for extra protein and flavor. You should too!
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are an insane man and should be banned from conscription service
Not only did it have outstanding mobility for the time, it could also spot and engage targets just as fast as tanks with turrets.
The armor despite being relatively thin, it was vastly more than enough because it was incredibly sloped and had those stripes that acted like spaced armor giving it almost full immunity to every APDS, full bore AP and early APFSDS from the 60s, specially Soviet short rod darts and ANY steel darts.
The mass introduction of ATGMs was not a problem because it got fixed in day 1 with a fricking fence.
Check this short 20min documentary of the Stridsvagn 103 demonstrating its absurdly good survivability against all sorts of threats, putting every contemporary to shame.
Only proper of the best main battle tank ever made.
A tank small enough to avoid getting seen, light enough to travel through kilometers of snow and forest and unforgiving swedish geography and powerful enough to take out columns of Soviet tanks.
>We need a tank to kill Soviet tanks >The stabilizer on our centurions isn't good enough for accurate fire on the move, so let's just drop the turret all together since it will be firing stationary anyway
>bro just send the (Patton, STRV103, other obsolete piece of shit) to Ukraine!
why are you homosexuals like this? frick off, those tanks have been retired for 20+ years
Because out of date materiel is how the majority of the Rusdo-Ukrainian war is fought. I do admit that three years in "Send it to Ukraine!" Rubs me the wrong way too, but at the same time honestly if the UK does indeed have 900 odd Chieftan variants in reserve why the frick haven't they got new engines and optics in them, a couple brigades trained and deployed. Why haven't the T-55s floating about the place been scraped together into mine clearing vehicles? Why are the Spanish not just sending the M60s if they're in working order?
AFAIK the TDF have yet to be fully mechanised. Ukes keep throwing the poor M-55s to different brigades inspite of that tank being quite capable. In sufficient quantity all of this shit does help.
In fairness to the Svens, it was designed to operate in forests not open country like most MBTs Most tanks will fire into a woodline, but never dare enter it. The stridsvagn got the rid of the turret because it'd be impossible to turn inside a dense wooded area.
have a nice day, a single Stridsvagn 103 was capable of killing 50 soviet tanks in the span of 150 seconds.
Only proper of the best main battle tank ever made.
>its role was to slow down T72 nuclear blitzkreig until NATO could arrive
Not really, it was designed to counterattack against T-55s (The Soviet divisions intended to fight Sweden didnt even have T-72s until the mid 1980s)
homie and there is javelin for that im not fixing the t72 issue with a rotating box moron
https://i.imgur.com/Lzz0HKM.png
The logic of losing the turret was to improve armor efficiency, the 103 has a very small protected frontal area so it has extremely good armor protection for it's weight especially considering it uses RHA.
However composite armor made this largely redundant very quickly.
The T-64 achieves the same or better level of protection despite having a turret and weighs about the same.
The Strv also makes many sacrifices to achieve this.
The tank will be completely disabled by mobility kills, even more than casemated assault guns.
Mines would be an extremely serious problem for this vehicle.
It cannot fire at all while moving, including coax; people will tell you that long range precise fire isn't possible on the move anyway, but this is not actually all that tanks do.
Many low obstacles will prevent the tank from being able turn and train the gun.
Gun elevation is extremely poor limiting the ability of the tank in hilly terrain and urban combat.
It's a tank that is good on paper but likely suffers a lot of operational problems in real life.
the difference between the tanks in the pic is that strv 103 is invulnerable to the other 2 from the front while being able to 1 shot them in return
it was an amazing tank with increadible crew survivability
>its role was to slow down T72
The day the T-72 became the main tank on the Soviet northern motor-rifle divisions was the day the Strv103 was doomed to retirement, and Swedish testing in the early 90s using imported T-72/T-80s later proved this leading to the Strv121/122 (Leo2) being fast tracked to adoption.
The Strv103 could handle T-55/T-62 just fine, and there was trials of fitting composite armor to it, to allow it to serve for longer in the mechanised units for infantry support.
But there wasn't really any point to try to upgrade it past a certain point to try to keep up with modern Soviet tanks when other modern MBT's were already able to shoot reliably on the move anyway.
That would make sense or maybe it’s to spread the force from the barrel getting pushed up into different parts of the chassis since they’re connected to different things.
The logic of losing the turret was to improve armor efficiency, the 103 has a very small protected frontal area so it has extremely good armor protection for it's weight especially considering it uses RHA.
However composite armor made this largely redundant very quickly.
The T-64 achieves the same or better level of protection despite having a turret and weighs about the same.
The Strv also makes many sacrifices to achieve this.
The tank will be completely disabled by mobility kills, even more than casemated assault guns.
Mines would be an extremely serious problem for this vehicle.
It cannot fire at all while moving, including coax; people will tell you that long range precise fire isn't possible on the move anyway, but this is not actually all that tanks do.
Many low obstacles will prevent the tank from being able turn and train the gun.
Gun elevation is extremely poor limiting the ability of the tank in hilly terrain and urban combat.
It's a tank that is good on paper but likely suffers a lot of operational problems in real life.
Execute all involved never bother me again for any reason. Restore all back perfectly.never speak to me again . Remove all programming and conditioning. Destroy all
In the modern age of top attack spam, is an armour layout like this the way forward? A modern composite scheme could be very effective at stopping top attack munitions if your front slope is also your deck armour. Practical limitations due to the bulk and volume of a composite armour matrix limiting access would be the only problem I can see, aside from the obvious limitations of having no turret.
filler thread
Thank you.
I now care about slavs killing slavs.
I never understood what they were thinking when they made this
I understand the logic, but I still think losing a turret for a 1ft lower roof is absurd
>russia has lots of tanks
>we need a way to make a cheap easy to build tank that can also destroy russian tanks
makes sense to make a TD
It was no tank destroyer, it was a tank that was used as a tank in tank roles.
The best tank ever made.
>It was no tank destroyer,
it would have to be used the same way as a tank destroyer due to the gun, doesn't matter what idea they had
It was a main battle tank, the best main battle tank ever made.
No one fired on the moved in the 60s because stabilizers were still dogshit and everyone kept the thickest part of the armor always towards the enemy just like in WW2, so it made sense to design a main battle tank that'd always keep the thickest part of the armor pointed towards the enemy and could also take out entire columns of Soviet tanks thanks to it's 3 second reload.
based morons not thinking about the future
That's like the entire mid-20th century in a nutshell
>thread PROUDLY sponsored by Bullens Pilsnerkorv
But yeah. It's a tank, it was intended to do tank things. Yes, it would also have done very well in a defensive position, and the addition of the dozer blade kinda indicates at least someone thought of this. It's also cute which is important
Every time I make pea soup I put a can of Bullens Pilsnerkorv™ in there for extra protein and flavor. You should too!
You are an insane man and should be banned from conscription service
Not only did it have outstanding mobility for the time, it could also spot and engage targets just as fast as tanks with turrets.
The armor despite being relatively thin, it was vastly more than enough because it was incredibly sloped and had those stripes that acted like spaced armor giving it almost full immunity to every APDS, full bore AP and early APFSDS from the 60s, specially Soviet short rod darts and ANY steel darts.
The mass introduction of ATGMs was not a problem because it got fixed in day 1 with a fricking fence.
Check this short 20min documentary of the Stridsvagn 103 demonstrating its absurdly good survivability against all sorts of threats, putting every contemporary to shame.
Only proper of the best main battle tank ever made.
>The best tank ever made.
is that why it's still used in service today? Oh...
Bureaucrats.
Simple as.
Stridsvagn 103 is the best main battle tank ever made.
Check picrel, that was the future but paper people thrashed it.
Is this what people mean when they tell me they hate how I enjoy things?
>cheap
>with that hydraulic system
A tank small enough to avoid getting seen, light enough to travel through kilometers of snow and forest and unforgiving swedish geography and powerful enough to take out columns of Soviet tanks.
I think they were meant to be a modernized Stug.
makes sense, Stug had highest kill ratio of any tank in WW2, and it was against Soviets.
>We need a tank to kill Soviet tanks
>The stabilizer on our centurions isn't good enough for accurate fire on the move, so let's just drop the turret all together since it will be firing stationary anyway
Peak for peak tanks. I like an oscillating turret, so..
>What if oscillating turret, but whole tank
Is very cool.
It's obviously not the best. Very clever though.
Have they scrapped all of those already? It would have been interesting to see Strv 103 used in Ukraine.
>bro just send the (Patton, STRV103, other obsolete piece of shit) to Ukraine!
why are you homosexuals like this? frick off, those tanks have been retired for 20+ years
There are already tanks from the same era used in Ukraine. Is it more obsolete than the T-62?
No, it is a much better machine than the T-62, apart from the fact there are literal thousands of them you can just take/restore and send to the front
Because out of date materiel is how the majority of the Rusdo-Ukrainian war is fought. I do admit that three years in "Send it to Ukraine!" Rubs me the wrong way too, but at the same time honestly if the UK does indeed have 900 odd Chieftan variants in reserve why the frick haven't they got new engines and optics in them, a couple brigades trained and deployed. Why haven't the T-55s floating about the place been scraped together into mine clearing vehicles? Why are the Spanish not just sending the M60s if they're in working order?
AFAIK the TDF have yet to be fully mechanised. Ukes keep throwing the poor M-55s to different brigades inspite of that tank being quite capable. In sufficient quantity all of this shit does help.
Because it would be novel to see
probably the most overrated tank ever made (not counting normalgay's opinion)
It's the best main battle tank ever made
stealth tank
In fairness to the Svens, it was designed to operate in forests not open country like most MBTs Most tanks will fire into a woodline, but never dare enter it. The stridsvagn got the rid of the turret because it'd be impossible to turn inside a dense wooded area.
It poops spent casings
This is a pretty tame thread for warriortard, did something happened, are mods again on the lookout for him?
how is this warriortard you moron?
>tell me how you guys keep finding me!
No.
so you made it up you moron
No.
Are you OP?
Make the next generation a smaller, single engine, optionally manned vehicle and now we are talking
Looks goofy
its role was to slow down T72 nuclear blitzkreig until NATO could arrive
In the nowaday it is useless and design although innovative it was still a flop
you can achieve the same effect with autoloader tanks like the t72. low profile.
have a nice day, a single Stridsvagn 103 was capable of killing 50 soviet tanks in the span of 150 seconds.
Only proper of the best main battle tank ever made.
>thinks stridvagen is best tank ever made
>hasnt seen my drawing yet
btfo
>its role was to slow down T72 nuclear blitzkreig until NATO could arrive
Not really, it was designed to counterattack against T-55s (The Soviet divisions intended to fight Sweden didnt even have T-72s until the mid 1980s)
>counterattack
>Strv103
stfu
All tanks are designed with at least some intent to manoeuvre. Otherwise they'd just dig in with a MOBAT or ATGMs.
Yes they were, but you might be able to point me to a more reliable source then the Swedish manual for use of tank platoons (PR Strvplut TKO74053)
Slowing down t72s is still as relevant as it was back then
homie and there is javelin for that im not fixing the t72 issue with a rotating box moron
yup
They were planning on NATO not coming to help
the difference between the tanks in the pic is that strv 103 is invulnerable to the other 2 from the front while being able to 1 shot them in return
it was an amazing tank with increadible crew survivability
>its role was to slow down T72
The day the T-72 became the main tank on the Soviet northern motor-rifle divisions was the day the Strv103 was doomed to retirement, and Swedish testing in the early 90s using imported T-72/T-80s later proved this leading to the Strv121/122 (Leo2) being fast tracked to adoption.
The Strv103 could handle T-55/T-62 just fine, and there was trials of fitting composite armor to it, to allow it to serve for longer in the mechanised units for infantry support.
But there wasn't really any point to try to upgrade it past a certain point to try to keep up with modern Soviet tanks when other modern MBT's were already able to shoot reliably on the move anyway.
Why are there two thingimijigs at the front fixing the barrel down ... redundancy?
t. thingimijig historian
That would make sense or maybe it’s to spread the force from the barrel getting pushed up into different parts of the chassis since they’re connected to different things.
The logic of losing the turret was to improve armor efficiency, the 103 has a very small protected frontal area so it has extremely good armor protection for it's weight especially considering it uses RHA.
However composite armor made this largely redundant very quickly.
The T-64 achieves the same or better level of protection despite having a turret and weighs about the same.
The Strv also makes many sacrifices to achieve this.
The tank will be completely disabled by mobility kills, even more than casemated assault guns.
Mines would be an extremely serious problem for this vehicle.
It cannot fire at all while moving, including coax; people will tell you that long range precise fire isn't possible on the move anyway, but this is not actually all that tanks do.
Many low obstacles will prevent the tank from being able turn and train the gun.
Gun elevation is extremely poor limiting the ability of the tank in hilly terrain and urban combat.
It's a tank that is good on paper but likely suffers a lot of operational problems in real life.
>It cannot fire at all while moving, including coax;
It had RWS MG.
To be fair mines and mobility kills disable even modern tanks, and firing on the move was something that wasn't done very often in the 60s
>firing on the move
A .50 cal remote turret fixes that. There's an idle crewmember to man it already.
Why are y'all arguing with a child that plays war thunder about a pos "tank" that fortunately never saw combat?
Goofy ahh tank
I really like that basically a single man could operate the tank since everyone had redundant controls
Execute all involved never bother me again for any reason. Restore all back perfectly.never speak to me again . Remove all programming and conditioning. Destroy all
If it was armoured like a rammtiger maybe. Stick RWS on it so it looks like a battle ship and you'd be right.
10/10 originality
In the modern age of top attack spam, is an armour layout like this the way forward? A modern composite scheme could be very effective at stopping top attack munitions if your front slope is also your deck armour. Practical limitations due to the bulk and volume of a composite armour matrix limiting access would be the only problem I can see, aside from the obvious limitations of having no turret.
Eh that's nothing some good old swedish autism couldn't solve, just slap some semi-automatic @ntidrone turret on it?
The designer Sven Berge later admitted that a turretless tank was idiotic.
please do give me a source on that