what happened?

what happened? I guess its not able to "fire on the move" but I hear that is pretty much a meme and everyone in fact will stop briefly to fire.

slap a 30mm RWS on top and you'd be golden. Bonus, since no turret to turn, you could slap the RWS anywhere, like towards the front.

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

    considering you posted a toy model i dont think you really care that much

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not even a crude mock up

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a scale model not a toy albeit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's not a toy MOM

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't want to hear your excuses. The tank needs to be at least three times bigger than this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >toy
      >model
      Anon, how do you not forget how to breathe with IQ this low

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    too specialized

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >BREAKING NEWS!
      >Military equipment designed by one nation to suit that nations doctrine, terrain, and expected use is no good outside of that doctrine, terrain, and expected use!
      >moronic sources state that they cannot imagine why anybody would do such a thing.
      >We'll come back to this story after our exclusive expose on bears, and where they shit.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"fire on the move" but I hear that is pretty much a meme
    It's a cope meme for countries that can't afford fire-on-the-move systems

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >can't afford fire-on-the-move systems
      How would you even make fine azimuth/elevation adjustments with that thing? Do you really think the track drives are accurate enough?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what normally happens with modern tanks is the weapons are placed in movable mounts. its a very good system, been around for a century at this point

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you are a moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the weapons are placed in movable mounts
          OP's pic doesn't look like the weapon can move w.r.t. the chassis.

          It was a great idea for the 1950s/60s, when it was developed and all tanks had to stop to fire anyway since stabilizers were garbage or in most cases non-existant. If a target appeared 90° to the left or right, traversing the hull of a Strv 103 was faster then traversing the turret on a Centurion tank. That said, as soon as working, reliable twoplane stabilizers were a thing, it was basically outdated by the most modern standards. The reson it was kept in service for so long was because Sweden wasnt a primary target for the USSR and we knew that most of the tanks used by the naval divisions intended to land here in case of a shithot war was T-55s or or even PT-76, something the Strv 103 was still perfectly capable to deal with. Will accept questions btw

          t. mechanic conscript on Strv 103 in the 1990s

          If a target appeared 90° to the left or right, traversing the hull of a Strv 103 was faster then traversing the turret on a Centurion tank.
          Yeah. Turn toward the target. Stop. Make fine adjustments of the gun. Fire.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah. Turn toward the target. Stop. Make fine adjustments of the gun. Fire.
            I might be too ESL to understand what you are stating, but basically deadstop the left (or right) track untill you are roughly on bearing. Since the driver is also the gunner, let him do some fine adjustments and thats it. This isnt even a Swede bias thing, the bongs themself stated this was the case, and I doubth its down to crew training since we are a conscript army and the bongs a professional one. The tests was done in 1968 IIRC

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Seems to have been.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Morning warming up

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the squat benderrr

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        IIRC in one way better because suspension of normal tank always "soft" but S-Tank would have suspension "locked" when firing.

        Hear is a big trade off for a tank to have good soft off road suspension for the crew VS harder for the gun.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nearly all footage of abrams and Bradley's have been stationary shots. No matter how good your stabilisation is, it's still more accurate stationary.
      It's good to have, but not really necessary to have the best stabilisation given the type of warfare we're seeing honestly.
      Better to focus on tank "artillery" that can fire on the move imo, than tanks who will die on the frontline from a tank sat in a bush they didn't see on thermals because it was covered in thermal regulator blankies

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you mean footage from Ukraine, that's because those crews got about three weeks of training& very small ammo reserves for training. American crews had excellent accuracy on the move at 73 Eastings.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They never had good accuracy, just good enough accuracy. It was at the time more useful then to be moving, this stalemate shit it doesn't seem to be so valuable, you just run into more mines

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They were also not likely to fight at super long ranges given they're built more for ambush-type encounters in forests

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Nearly all footage of abrams and Bradley's have been stationary shots. No matter how good your stabilisation is, it's still more accurate stationary.
        Not enough to matter at a distance for tank of tank combat. For long shots it's less about your platform than about if the target is moving.
        Shooting on the move with a sabot out to 2000m which is a bit past the book optimal tank engagement range just slightly move the gun barrel for elevation. Like the whole sabot elevation adjustment from zero to 2000m is less than the adjustment for a HEAT/HESH round going from 1000m to 1200m.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's loads of footage of Bradley firing on the move, hosing down treelines while driving and almost every shot is going where it should do. The video of it slapping a T-90 around its moving too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >can't afford fire-on-the-move systems
      Like? literally everyone has them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The UK

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >can't afford fire-on-the-move systems
      Like? literally everyone has them

      >Nearly all footage of abrams and Bradley's have been stationary shots. No matter how good your stabilisation is, it's still more accurate stationary.
      Not enough to matter at a distance for tank of tank combat. For long shots it's less about your platform than about if the target is moving.
      Shooting on the move with a sabot out to 2000m which is a bit past the book optimal tank engagement range just slightly move the gun barrel for elevation. Like the whole sabot elevation adjustment from zero to 2000m is less than the adjustment for a HEAT/HESH round going from 1000m to 1200m.

      The only country with true fire on the move capability is Japan with slalom firing. Everyone elses "fire on the move capability" requires the firing tank to just move in a straight line at a constant speed while typically firing against a target that is stationary or has the same linear movement.

      ?si=mzC91bSyTc9jlme0&t=41

      ?si=MAjK2M6FL8IscfH5&t=75
      The closest thing you find to western tanks firing on the move is in stong europe where they just drive in a straight line.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        thx, and you gotta wonder how accurate any of that shit is, given they aren't showing you even a few curated events.

        I'm thinking an S-Tank with at least 4-point locked to the hard ground stance, with its entire 40ton weight acting as "turret", is inherently very accurate.

        Its like bench shooting with bipod and stock-bag, VS a turret tank would be prone or squat shooting and tank shooting on move would be like walking off-hand shooting.

        • 1 month ago
          KM

          Speaking of Swedish oddities, here's tank concept UDES XX 20, which got as far as to a few technology demonstrator/test-bed vehicles in the seventies. Didn't work out terribly well though, and then all the budget went into what would become Strf90 (CV90).

          >is inherently very accurate.
          The immovable gun also made for a very fast and reliable autoloader. Plus having that i the back resulted in Strv 103 having the longest barrel of all the NATO 105mm tanks, so harder hitting and easier to hit moving targets.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It also makes the whole vehicle much smaller and lighter for the same level of protection.
            If large militaries ever start building heavy fortifications again then assault guns like pic related will reappear, If walking "spider" tanks are ever going to be a thing they will probably have fixed guns like the strv103.

            • 1 month ago
              KM

              >It also makes the whole vehicle much smaller and lighter for the same level of protection.
              There's always the unmanned turret for that, seems like a more popular concept nowadays.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's made to sit in forests and roadside ditches (in forests) and snipe things in low mobility environments, of course it's not intended to do european plain ungabunga tank stuff. The thing's completely non-traditional.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >moron who knows nothing offers his shitwit opinion anyways
      people as stupid and lazy as you shouldn't be allowed to own guns or vote.

      When it was developed, stabilized guns weren't a thing and only limited/crude vertical stabilizers existed. Even a turreted tank would need to stop and fire.

      Doctrinally and in practice, the Swedish Army made no distinction in the tactics used by the Strv 103 and the Strv 110 (the centurion). Both were intended to be used in flexible and mobile armored groups that were to act aggressively.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Strv 110
        Typo? Centurion was, depending on the exact variant, Strv 81, 101, 102 or 104.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The swedish naming system makes quite a lot of sense when looking at tanks.
          First 2 digits is caliber in cm, third digit is "x" tank with said caliber.
          STRV 122 translates to Main battle tank, 2'nd with 12cm gun

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Typo?
          Yes. Thank you for correction.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >When it was developed, stabilized guns weren't a thing
        Stabilizers were around in the 1930's. By 1944 all new production US tanks featured gyroscopically stabilized guns. Centurions had stabilizers from 1948 on

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Read the rest of his sentence dumbass.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and he's wrong you chucklefrick

            Cents has fully stabilized guns that could be fired on the move in 1948 (designed 1946)

            S-tank was 20 years after that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Lmao. How are you this confident despite being so ignorant? They absolutely were not able to stabilize a gun to the point where it could maneuver cross-country and fire accurately.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, and stabilizers were garbage back then, hence why everyone who wants to hit something beyond 300 yards stopped to fire. Literally look at any footage from the period and you will see that tanks usually were stationary when using their main gun

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was a great idea for the 1950s/60s, when it was developed and all tanks had to stop to fire anyway since stabilizers were garbage or in most cases non-existant. If a target appeared 90° to the left or right, traversing the hull of a Strv 103 was faster then traversing the turret on a Centurion tank. That said, as soon as working, reliable twoplane stabilizers were a thing, it was basically outdated by the most modern standards. The reson it was kept in service for so long was because Sweden wasnt a primary target for the USSR and we knew that most of the tanks used by the naval divisions intended to land here in case of a shithot war was T-55s or or even PT-76, something the Strv 103 was still perfectly capable to deal with. Will accept questions btw

    t. mechanic conscript on Strv 103 in the 1990s

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's such a cool fricking tank

      >t.Svennebög
      Did the Strv 103C ever stand a chance of being adopted? Alternatively a "modern" s-tank concept?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >. If a target appeared 90° to the left or right, traversing the hull of a Strv 103 was faster then traversing the turret on a Centurion tank.
      It should be noted that Strv 103 had hunter killer commander sight. While in the move tank couldn't aim gun, it could acquire target on the move. So when Strv stopped for shot commander/gunner didn't need to move sight on target, it was already in his sight crosshairs, it's tank turned to bring gun aim to the point where sight crosshairs were already pointing.
      Also should be noted Strv 103 gun commander sight had unique design that is not matched until this day. It's based on the unity sight (like in Sherman tank) telescopic sight plus unmagnified periscope, but Strv periscope had unique massive 90 degrees field of view. To this day it's unmatched, no gunner's sight has combination of unmagnified field of view plus magnified sight.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Will accept questions btw
      Are you the same Swede who occasionally makes interesting posts about ham radios?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, but now I am interested in said ham radios

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I guess its not able to "fire on the move" but I hear that is pretty much a meme and everyone in fact will stop briefly to fire
    https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-S-Tank-decommissioned
    apparently that was the reason, tanks now could fire on the move.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Given how absolute dogshit russian tanks has preformed so far in Ukraine, if old reserves of this shit was still around, how do you think it would preform? The gun is a 105mm L62, as opposed to the regular L7 105mm L52, so it should pack a bit more punch then any regular Leopard 1 etc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >how do you think it would preform
      drone goes brrrrrrr

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Probably true tbh, given the shit thickness of its armour. Slopes was all the hot shit before any angle attack came into consideration. Any Strv 103 variant against for example Javelin or NLAW would be toast as hell

        t.

        It was a great idea for the 1950s/60s, when it was developed and all tanks had to stop to fire anyway since stabilizers were garbage or in most cases non-existant. If a target appeared 90° to the left or right, traversing the hull of a Strv 103 was faster then traversing the turret on a Centurion tank. That said, as soon as working, reliable twoplane stabilizers were a thing, it was basically outdated by the most modern standards. The reson it was kept in service for so long was because Sweden wasnt a primary target for the USSR and we knew that most of the tanks used by the naval divisions intended to land here in case of a shithot war was T-55s or or even PT-76, something the Strv 103 was still perfectly capable to deal with. Will accept questions btw

        t. mechanic conscript on Strv 103 in the 1990s

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >and everyone in fact will stop briefly to fire.
    a turret helps from firing on short stop as well
    its faster to aim by slewing the turret than it is to pivot, and a stabilized gun, even a crappy 60s stabilizer, improves firing on short stops by a huge degree
    turret helps on the move, while stationary, and on short stops
    there is no situation where you woulnt rather have a turret

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >there is no situation where you woulnt rather have a turret
      1. Your tank is too tall to go hull down or turret down because of the extra hull height of the drive mechanism, but your tactical situation would benefit from it.
      2. You are now an infantryman or manpack/towed tube gunner because your country could not afford turreted tanks, but it could have afforded casemate tanks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >1. Your tank is too tall to go hull down or turret down because of the extra hull height of the drive mechanism, but your tactical situation would benefit from it.

        The ability to peak the turret over while keeping the body of the tank protected is far better then having to expose the hull of the tank to have LoS.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just imagine one of these babies being modernized with a newer FCS and a newer 105mm dart HNNNNGGGGG!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now they're in Nato the swedes could have used Lithuanian levitation technology to make them hover tanks anyway.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cost of Maintenance: The Strv 103 had a complex fixed-gear transmission and a low-profile hull design that made maintenance difficult and expensive.
    Shifting Doctrine: Following the Cold War, Sweden's focus shifted from pure defense against a Soviet invasion to a more expeditionary role. The Strv 103, designed for ambushes and static defense, wasn't as well suited for these new requirements.
    Logistics and Standardization: Having a more common tank design simplified logistics and offered greater interoperability with potential allies who used NATO-standard tanks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Strv 103, designed for ambushes and static defense,
      Absolutely unfricking true. See

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

      >moron who knows nothing offers his shitwit opinion anyways
      people as stupid and lazy as you shouldn't be allowed to own guns or vote.

      When it was developed, stabilized guns weren't a thing and only limited/crude vertical stabilizers existed. Even a turreted tank would need to stop and fire.

      Doctrinally and in practice, the Swedish Army made no distinction in the tactics used by the Strv 103 and the Strv 110 (the centurion). Both were intended to be used in flexible and mobile armored groups that were to act aggressively.

      The design wasn't able to be updated to carry the heavier armor and guns of the next tank generations without a complete redesign. By that time, stabilizers had advanced and allowed firing on the move, giving a great advantage to a turreted design. Almost no change in doctrine was made when converting tank units to the Strv 121.

      Post '91 draw downs in the defense budget also meant that they weren't married to the idea of paying for a domestic design if a good foreign design was available. They liked the Leopard 2 for the same reason everyone likes the Leopard 2, so they licensed the design and adopted the Strv 121.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're right, I'm moronic.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it was like 30 years old and taken out of service because it was 30 years old

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My favourite tank
    It's so pretty

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no point building an entire vehicle around an anti tank gun when just about any vehicle can support an anti tank missile.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was designed in 1957.
    That's what happened.
    Once the T-72 was the standard Soviet tanks of the northern Motor-Rifle divisions in the mid to late 80s it was no longer going to keep up, and Swedish testing in the early 90's later proved that, which led to the Leo-2 being fast tracked to replace it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      please explain? was it issue with SPG design or just needed bigger gun?

      Anyways, seems S-Tank is what Booker M-10 shouda been, if you want to reduce size and logistics for a big gun that isn't going to be MBT vs MBT rock'em sock'em robots.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >eems S-Tank is what Booker M-10 shouda been
        S-tank would have failed the MPF requirement to have a turret

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >eems S-Tank is what Booker M-10 shouda been
        S-tank would have failed the MPF requirement to have a turret

        I you want something low-profile and lightweight, the T-64 would had unironically made a good basis given all the tooling is in friendly hands now.

      • 1 month ago
        KM

        >please explain? was it issue with SPG design or just needed bigger gun?
        It was just old, and thus outmatched by modern tanks in just about every way. Same with the Centurions it served alongside, the turretless design of Strv 103 didn't really help or hurt.
        As for the choice of replacement it was thought the existing tank fleet was so badly outdated as to need replacement in a hurry, meaning there wouldn't be time to develop a new domestic design. So while the Swedish army probably didn't have anything particular against unconventional designs (nor for them) everything on the market were conventional turreted designs and so that's what they ended up with.
        Now Sweden a the time had been looking into various concepts for a new tank for quite some time, and the then favourite one was the unimaginatively named "Stridsvagn 2000 T140/40" which had reached the first-wooden-mockup stage. As you can see it was rather more conventional than Strv 103 in that it had a turret, but the 140mm main gun and 40mm coaxial would have made it stand out a bit from the current crop of tanks if it had ever come to be. Now whether this armament would actually have been retained all the way through the design process or if it had been replaced with something a touch more pedestrian is of course impossible to say. But I think we can at least assume that it wouldn't have been too strange for the Swedish army.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >11° gun elevation
    >Can't fire on the move
    >Can't train the gun without turning the hull

    I don't know why people advertise it as somehow more adapted to Ukrainian conditions.
    The whole super angled wedge design was intended to make the most of RHA in the time before composite arrays.

    It seems like it would be good in the frictionless 72 hour battlefield that is often imagined for a cold war gone hot.

    But in the shattered and mine filled landscape of the Ukrainian conflict it would probably do quite badly.
    Mobility kills render it completely defenseless.
    It would struggle to accurately turn the hull in gnarled hedgerows and crater shattered terrain.
    It wouldn't be able to fire at targets as it moved along demined paths.
    The very limited gun elevation would restrict Indirect fire and fire support capability in urban combat.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    too autistic.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i miss him !!

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