Too much mental energy spent on gadgets and too little on practicality. The S-tank did not only have a hydraulic suspension system, it also had two different kinds of engine.
tbh the definition is of mbt is mostly doctrinal anyway.
The S tank was actually pretty competitive in its day, remember that before stabilised turrets tanks couldn't hit shit while on the move anyway.
It was also the first tank to use a turbine engine.
Very unconventional Swedish tank, the Stridsvagn 103. The cannon is completely fixed to the hull, and the gunner aims it by pivoting the entire tank. It never saw combat and was eventually replaced by Leopard 2's. It is one of the few AFV's made after WW2 with a hull-mounted cannon instead of a turret and looks very derpy
>Build an SPG >Insist that it's a main battle tank
What the frick were the Swedes thinking?
IMO it's not a tank but it makes sense for a defensive war in the 80s / 90s. Hell it would probably still to pretty good against Russia today seeing they have frick all PGMs.
The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
Every russian tank was a technical disaster. Every tank of the IS-series had more breakdowns than a Tiger II. Russia had only two good designs: T-34 and T-54.
The rest was just propaganda because they won the war.
There was a reason why the russians never used the T-72 in the afghan war. Because they knew that this tank was not good enough.
There are many books from the 80s about this matter. Even german DDR ones and that if it comes to a battle with west germany and the nato bloc that they should use T-62 and T-55 tanks first because better reliability.
>The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
egptian IS-3As never fought M50s or M51s
the only battalion committed to battle fought M46s
their armor did prove effective, with even HEAT leaving non-penetrating hits on its front, but still lost the engagement with several destroyed to flanking
the rest were disabled by operational losses
M51s did destroy T-55s however
The T-35, a Soviet heavy tank with 5 turrets (3 with cannons, 2 with mg's). As you might expect, they were too heavy and unreliable to be truly effective in combat.
>three man crew >the turret would probably be insanely >cramped >no improvement in firepower over the S->35
The radio and sloped armor are good features, and a decent french medium tank with Christie suspension would certainly be interesting, but I don't think it'd do particularly well
Because it would be horrifyingly complex from a mechanical perspective. In a turn while driving forwards, each of the four tracks would need to be moving at a different speed, necessitating four separate transmissions.
Pros are it has good deflection on the turret and and lots of space for the gun. The cons are the the turret could simply be shorter and you woulf not have a massive shot trap in the middle re all everything below the mid point of the turret is creating a shot trap.
Lower it and it kind of prints a modern taks sillowet.
How, uh, how do you see out? The driver has three slits, there's what appears to be a hole for a stereoscopic rangefinder, and then what? Is that it? There's no cupola, no vision blocks, no periscope?
assuming it was ready in time for 1940, it would have performed similiarly to other french tanks of its time
a straight overmatch against germans tactically due to its impressive for its day hard stats
but operationally inferior due to bad soft stats, poor vision for the turret, a 2-man turret, slow top speed
no
king meme tank reporting in
>Build an SPG
>Insist that it's a main battle tank
What the frick were the Swedes thinking?
>What the frick were the Swedes thinking?
Too much mental energy spent on gadgets and too little on practicality. The S-tank did not only have a hydraulic suspension system, it also had two different kinds of engine.
tbh the definition is of mbt is mostly doctrinal anyway.
The S tank was actually pretty competitive in its day, remember that before stabilised turrets tanks couldn't hit shit while on the move anyway.
It was also the first tank to use a turbine engine.
Gun stabilizers existed before the S tank. The Sherman had a gun stabilizer, ffs.
>The Sherman had a gun stabilizer
Vertical stabilizer, not two-plane stabilizer.
Fine then; the Centurion Mk.3 had a two-plane stabilizer in 50s, which the Swedes operated.
Still wasn't able to usefully fire on the move
How do blast 100 rushing USSR med tanks with 1 swe tank before they occupy everything, and be able to out run them so I can fight 100 more tomorrow.
That baby could dig it's own trench with a shovel-attachment
The reason for choosing the design was the result of studies from WW2 which showed that almost no shots hit lower than 1 meter on the tank
Call me a newbie, but what the frick am I even looking at here?
The wedge tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103
At a tank that found a penny.
sus dog
Hearty chuckle
Very unconventional Swedish tank, the Stridsvagn 103. The cannon is completely fixed to the hull, and the gunner aims it by pivoting the entire tank. It never saw combat and was eventually replaced by Leopard 2's. It is one of the few AFV's made after WW2 with a hull-mounted cannon instead of a turret and looks very derpy
It can even shoot down enemy aircraft!
>when the birds wake you up before sunrise
SLAMMED
T
A
N
C
E
D
>me when not thinking of little girls
IMO it's not a tank but it makes sense for a defensive war in the 80s / 90s. Hell it would probably still to pretty good against Russia today seeing they have frick all PGMs.
Sorry, but if I saw this fricking thing, I'd run like hell.
Definitely not a meme.
HESH
Go back to arabia
SHEESH
>Super High Explosive Expanding Squash Head
I like it.
Is this the beast with a 183 mm gun ?
Yes
Also I think it was only fired once with a crew inside and it lifted the front of the tank off the ground and the crew said
"No we are not going to test it with the gun aiming to the side next"
>sharts on your IS3/IS7
The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
Every russian tank was a technical disaster. Every tank of the IS-series had more breakdowns than a Tiger II. Russia had only two good designs: T-34 and T-54.
The rest was just propaganda because they won the war.
>The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
lolno
T-72 was good at it's introduction, it's just been kept about 40 years too long.
There was a reason why the russians never used the T-72 in the afghan war. Because they knew that this tank was not good enough.
There are many books from the 80s about this matter. Even german DDR ones and that if it comes to a battle with west germany and the nato bloc that they should use T-62 and T-55 tanks first because better reliability.
>There was a reason why the russians never used the T-72 in the afghan war.
Where on earth do you get this shit from?
>they should use T-62 and T-55 tanks first because better reliability
They mix their old and their new in together to make the new last longer.
>The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
egptian IS-3As never fought M50s or M51s
the only battalion committed to battle fought M46s
their armor did prove effective, with even HEAT leaving non-penetrating hits on its front, but still lost the engagement with several destroyed to flanking
the rest were disabled by operational losses
M51s did destroy T-55s however
T-34 was equally garbage and is glorified because they won the war. The Russians were losing 9 T-34s for every German tank they knocked out.
but warthunder told me hesh/hep fricking sucks
>believing a russian bias grinding game
The T-35, a Soviet heavy tank with 5 turrets (3 with cannons, 2 with mg's). As you might expect, they were too heavy and unreliable to be truly effective in combat.
>three man crew
>the turret would probably be insanely >cramped
>no improvement in firepower over the S->35
The radio and sloped armor are good features, and a decent french medium tank with Christie suspension would certainly be interesting, but I don't think it'd do particularly well
I see your round tank and raise you this.
At least it could turn around
Why the frick aren't there more 4 track tanks? You could put so much more armor on.
Because it would be horrifyingly complex from a mechanical perspective. In a turn while driving forwards, each of the four tracks would need to be moving at a different speed, necessitating four separate transmissions.
Couldn't you just make two of the tracks undriven, just there to carry the weight?
I guess not because you might get stuck on things if your drive tracks come off the ground. But still.
Pros are it has good deflection on the turret and and lots of space for the gun. The cons are the the turret could simply be shorter and you woulf not have a massive shot trap in the middle re all everything below the mid point of the turret is creating a shot trap.
Lower it and it kind of prints a modern taks sillowet.
How, uh, how do you see out? The driver has three slits, there's what appears to be a hole for a stereoscopic rangefinder, and then what? Is that it? There's no cupola, no vision blocks, no periscope?
>when you frick up the Y axis on a 3D model.
>When your MRE is shit and you farted inside your tank too often.
Does this count as brap posting or inflation?
vore (crew entering tank), fart (crew farting), and inflation (tank inflating from vored crew farts)
it's the /d/ank tank
-No hatches on the turret and shit visibility.
-2 man turret.
Yikes Hard Pass
assuming it was ready in time for 1940, it would have performed similiarly to other french tanks of its time
a straight overmatch against germans tactically due to its impressive for its day hard stats
but operationally inferior due to bad soft stats, poor vision for the turret, a 2-man turret, slow top speed
Man the post CD on this board sucks.
To bad this was never made. 40k in real life right there.
It's WAY bigger than the Baneblade.
Are there any new tanks designed around how strikes from above are the main problem with modern stuff