Weapons test against Strv 103 (S-tank)

[Zimme83]

An interesting film of weapon effect test against the S-tank. its of course an old film with weapons from the 60:s but still worth watching. Pretty good to be able to take 105mm hits in the side from point blank range.
(W english subtitles)

[save]

I did some time in Strv103(S-tank), slow bugger compared to my normal IKV91, but agile in turns, and reloaded its 105mm cannon  ridiculously fast

In the cold winters of Sweden you could spot a S-tank coming miles away due to its hot exhaust from the turbine engine.

Running it only on its regular piston engine made the tank very slow. In winters all diesel vehicles had about 50% kerosine in
the diesel in northern Sweden.

Its probably the best descendant of the  Stug/Hetzer era, Sweden bought a small number of Hetzers after the war.
With it's shovel it dug in itself into the ambush.

[Zimme83]

It had its flaws but against T-55/64 it should have a good chance. It performed about equal to other western tanks of the era.

[save]

As a pure defensive tank it was really good compared with t62/55.
the where meant to dug them-self in along main roads, and kill first tank and call down arty on the column, while the rear-driver took them at full speed to next location further back.

[Volron]

Seen this before, but still neat.  That is one way to test your stuff.   But you'd never see the US do that to an Abrams.  If I recall correctly, the S-tank's that were being tested on were fully operational and combat ready.  IF the US wanted to test an Abrams, you can bet it would be a "bare bones" chassis, stripped of a bit of equipment.  I'm fairly certain this would apply to the UK and GER as well.

[PR3D4TOR]

WoT just unleashed the Swedish tank line. The S-tank is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIfQvx17hA

[DaveBB]

Purely defensive in nature. In real life it could not fire on movie.

[Zimme83]

Of course it could fire on the move. hitting anything was a bit harder 

In tests against its western counterparts (M60, Leo 1 and Cheftain) the S-tank showed that it was just as effective in combat. While not being able to shoot on the move, it was more accurate and reload time was much shorter. It also had a more powerful gun and was better protected.

Here is some interesting Reading: http://tanks.mod16.org/2016/08/19/stridsvagn-103-was-not-a-tank-destroyer/ 

[Oldman731]

Of course it could fire on the move. hitting anything was a bit harder 

In tests against its western counterparts (M60, Leo 1 and Cheftain) the S-tank showed that it was just as effective in combat. While not being able to shoot on the move, it was more accurate and reload time was much shorter. It also had a more powerful gun and was better protected.

Here is some interesting Reading: http://tanks.mod16.org/2016/08/19/stridsvagn-103-was-not-a-tank-destroyer/

And one of the nice things about the AH crowd is that we have an S-tanker in our own midst.  Save, what say you?

- oldman

[DaveBB]

I was getting my information from the full documentary on the S-tank.  In the documentary, the narrator said that they tank can't fire on the move and is purely defensive in nature.  But realizing it is just a modern assault gun, I imagine it could be employed in the attack role.

6:40

[Zimme83]

A lot of foreign experts seems to have hard to accept that a tank doesnt need a turret, they seem to think that " a tank must have a turret and the S-tank has no turret so it must be a tank destroyer".

But the thing is that it wasnt a defensive weapon, it was the main offensive weapon for the Swedish Ground forces. It was the armored brigades with the S-tank that would have led the counter offensive against a Sovjet invasion. It's first objective was of course to stop the Soviet advance but after that the intention was to use the S-tank in an offensive role.

It was designed as a MBT and was used in the role of a MBT so the S-tank was a tank - Turret or not.
There was a tank destroyer/ assault gun in the Swedish army as well, the IKV-91:


It was, unlike the S-tank and the Centurions (That served in the Mechanized brigades) a part of the infantry brigades in order to boost their anti tank capability. And despite having a turret it was not designed, designated or used as a tank...

[save]

I been driving a few tanks in my days, remember I did my first service 79-80, when T62 was the top notch adversary.
the S-tank was a defensive tank in it's role, attacking with it needed terrain suited for the attack.
It was sitting along the highways to hit and run at full  speed backwards to next position, it could turn with redicule speed when needed.

The later reincarnations of the tank offered better protection still, but was aging in it's role, mainly due to antitank helicopters becoming more effective, hitting vulnerable top of the tank- and expensive repairs.

The IKV91 was fast - 70km/h ( with higher turbo  boost you could drive at about 90km/h) compared, had a comparably weak 90mm low pressure gun, aided with laser and computer guidance for shooting at range / things that moved. It used HEAT ammo, and HE.

It is a tank destroyer, weighs less than halt of the S-tank, the S-tank guys called it a antitank gun with rain cover , it could travel pretty much everywhere with it's low bandpressure, where tanks at the time simply could not go.

You would be waiting hidden behind a slope looing down on attacking colums, on small roads - killing first and last vehicle, and call down artillery on the trapped force, and move to next location back.

The terrain in  north of Sweden is to 95% covered with heavy woods, winter is normally from October to May, with smaller roads.

Below from a drill in 1982 , with me in the tank commander cuopla, driving trough woods.

[Zimme83]

Ahh the artillery, if the IKV was light weight the supporting artillery was in the opposite end:
Bandkanon 1, 52 ton of firepower:

[Serenity]

I been driving a few tanks in my days, remember I did my first service 79-80, when T62 was the top notch adversary.
the S-tank was a defensive tank in it's role, attacking with it needed terrain suited for the attack.
It was sitting along the highways to hit and run at full  speed backwards to next position, it could turn with redicule speed when needed.

The later reincarnations of the tank offered better protection still, but was aging in it's role, mainly due to antitank helicopters becoming more effective, hitting vulnerable top of the tank- and expensive repairs.

The IKV91 was fast - 70km/h ( with higher turbo  boost you could drive at about 90km/h) compared, had a comparably weak 90mm low pressure gun, aided with laser and computer guidance for shooting at range / things that moved. It used HEAT ammo, and HE.

It is a tank destroyer, weighs less than halt of the S-tank, the S-tank guys called it a antitank gun with rain cover , it could travel pretty much everywhere with it's low bandpressure, where tanks at the time simply could not go.

You would be waiting hidden behind a slope looing down on attacking colums, on small roads - killing first and last vehicle, and call down artillery on the trapped force, and move to next location back.

The terrain in  north of Sweden is to 95% covered with heavy woods, winter is normally from October to May, with smaller roads.

Below from a drill in 1982 , with me in the tank commander cuopla, driving trough woods.

(Image removed from quote.)

That's an AWESOME picture Save!

[save]

I can also offer (although already posted) a recent picture from the tank museum in Strängnäs.

Orelle left, and Kovel right (visiting me from Spain)



Bandkanon 1A  was actually the first vehicle I drove after taking my drivers license