I think the Strv 103 was peak tank design

I think the Strv 103 was peak tank design

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    filler thread

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you.
      I now care about slavs killing slavs.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I never understood what they were thinking when they made this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I understand the logic, but I still think losing a turret for a 1ft lower roof is absurd

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was no tank destroyer, it was a tank that was used as a tank in tank roles.
        The best tank ever made.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              based morons not thinking about the future

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's like the entire mid-20th century in a nutshell

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >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

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >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!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are an insane man and should be banned from conscription service

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The best tank ever made.
          is that why it's still used in service today? Oh...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bureaucrats.
            Simple as.
            Stridsvagn 103 is the best main battle tank ever made.

            based morons not thinking about the future

            Check picrel, that was the future but paper people thrashed it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Is this what people mean when they tell me they hate how I enjoy things?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >cheap
        >with that hydraulic system

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think they were meant to be a modernized Stug.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        makes sense, Stug had highest kill ratio of any tank in WW2, and it was against Soviets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have they scrapped all of those already? It would have been interesting to see Strv 103 used in Ukraine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There are already tanks from the same era used in Ukraine. Is it more obsolete than the T-62?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because it would be novel to see

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    probably the most overrated tank ever made (not counting normalgay's opinion)

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's the best main battle tank ever made

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    stealth tank

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It poops spent casings

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is a pretty tame thread for warriortard, did something happened, are mods again on the lookout for him?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      how is this warriortard you moron?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >tell me how you guys keep finding me!
        No.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          so you made it up you moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            Are you OP?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Make the next generation a smaller, single engine, optionally manned vehicle and now we are talking

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks goofy

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >thinks stridvagen is best tank ever made
        >hasnt seen my drawing yet
        btfo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >counterattack
        >Strv103
        stfu

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          All tanks are designed with at least some intent to manoeuvre. Otherwise they'd just dig in with a MOBAT or ATGMs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Slowing down t72s is still as relevant as it was back then

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        yup

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They were planning on NATO not coming to help

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are there two thingimijigs at the front fixing the barrel down ... redundancy?
    t. thingimijig historian

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It cannot fire at all while moving, including coax;
      It had RWS MG.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >firing on the move
      A .50 cal remote turret fixes that. There's an idle crewmember to man it already.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are y'all arguing with a child that plays war thunder about a pos "tank" that fortunately never saw combat?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Goofy ahh tank

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I really like that basically a single man could operate the tank since everyone had redundant controls

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If it was armoured like a rammtiger maybe. Stick RWS on it so it looks like a battle ship and you'd be right.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    10/10 originality

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Eh that's nothing some good old swedish autism couldn't solve, just slap some semi-automatic @ntidrone turret on it?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The designer Sven Berge later admitted that a turretless tank was idiotic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      please do give me a source on that

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *