Strv-103 ''S'' Tank

[PhaseSpace]

Actually, if I was going to put a turret on a S-tank, I'd consider a low-profile fixed gun turret like that of the US experimental T92 tank and use the hydraulics of the S-tank for elevation while the turret handled traverse.

You can look at the tanks the Swedes considered to replace the S-Tank. Including a pop-up gun and an external, rotating gun.

[Weaver]

What if the Swedes had followed the example of the German Jagdpanzers and converted their "Kanones" to "Raketes" by removing the 105mm gun, autoloader and magazine and fitting an ATGW system instead? The quintuple Swingfire box from the Striker would fit well, but almost any other system/missile could be adapted.

Thought I'd seen it: Maverick did this one for the 2008 Armour GB:

[ysi_maniac]

Or maybe a full update/up-gun pending delivery of the Stridsvagn 122?

Love this!

[ysi_maniac]

S tank with 120mm nd 140mm guns, along with original 105mm

[Dizzyfugu]

I have actually been considering mating two "S" tanks (Trumpter 1:72 kits) for a stretched version with a turret, looking much like a Merkava... 

[NARSES2]

I always liked the S Tank. Surprised no one else really ran with the concept.

[Old Wombat]

The problem is its role. Although doctrinally & operationally the Swedes considered the Strv 103 to be a tank, in many ways, it was more of a tank destroyer in design, as Swedish doctrine called for the S-tank to be generally used from the defensive hull-down position. The Swedes had their old Centurions for more offensive tank roles but, again, their tank doctrine was extremely defence oriented. Most, if not all, other nations see the tank as a dual-role vehicle for both defense & assault, verging more into the assault role, so a turret is seen as essential.

The other problem was, in fact, up-gunning the vehicle was very, very difficult & would have meant a completely new design of vehicle. The Strv 103 can't merely be lengthened, it relies on being that length & that width to be able to manoeuvre &, more importantly, aim the gun. Up-gunning would involve lengthening and widening the hull to keep the length/width ratio the same whilst giving room for the larger gun, its recoil & the larger ammunition rounds, redesigning the suspension to allow at least the same elevation, & a new power train (the Strv 103A, only about 80 vehicles all of which were later upgraded to Strv 103B standard, was considerably under-powered & even the later variants were never far from the edge of being under-powered) &, probably, a new auto-loading system for the bigger gun.

Yes, the Germans used the StuG's quite successfully in a tank-like role during WW2 but, usually, against raw, half-trained Soviet crews &, again usually, from positions of ambush. Some exceptionally good StuG commanders & crews were able to take on experienced tank crews successfully (the low profile helped in this, as it would have for the Strv 103) but only until their luck ran out.

[PR19_Kit]

Surely the Swedish politically neutral position meant they never would be in the offensive role, and by definition, the only role left IS defensive?

[scooter]

Surely the Swedish politically neutral position meant they never would be in the offensive role, and by definition, the only role left IS defensive?

Offensive in the "We have an opportunity to attack the flank of the Soviet armoured spearhead, and give the Crown an opportunity to evacuate Stockholm" or "We're going to throw them back into the Baltic" sense.

[Old Wombat]

What scooter said.

"Defence" is not just about holding your position & being pounded by artillery until the enemy decide to come at you. You have to be able to strike the enemy hard, fast & unexpectedly either to break up their assault or to push them to out of your country.

The Israeli's military doctrine is purely defensive, too, but they take a whole other approach to it.

[rickshaw]

The British Army trialed IIRC three strv103s in the mid-1970s in West Germany.   They found the tradeoffs required because the vehicle lack a turret unacceptable.   Some things most people don't appreciate is that for a hull down position, it has to be as wide as the vehicle's turning circle for it to be able to change it's bearing onto other targets than one just in front of it.   Further, in hull down positions, the top of the hull becomes exposed and the hull top was not as heavily armoured as the hull front.   The Swedes appeared accepting of the first problem but they uparmoured the vehicles in latter versions because the hull was considered vulnerable.  They did it by erecting "pickets" which were armoured stakes which stood vertically from the hull front, working on the idea that you to get through them before the incoming rounds struck the hull top.  They also put armoured fuel cells along the hull sides to cover any weak points.  In service you never see an S-Tank with either the pickets or the fuel cells as they were "top secret" and were only to be mounted in case of war.

[ysi_maniac]

IMHO, S-tank is cool, but it is WRONG.

[ysi_maniac]

What if APC based on S-Tank?

[Rheged]

British army did explore the  Strv-103 idea  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV4401_Contentious .  More a tank destroyer than a tank as such, but still an interesting experiment.  The German (and briefly Anglo-German)  Kpz 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank   also looks similar.

[rickshaw]

Trying to turn the Strv-103 into an APC is fraught with difficulty.  The vehicle is so tightly packed there basically isn't any room for dismounts.  The hull is too short and too low and would need lengthening by a wide margin to allow a sufficient number of soldiers to sit in it.  The Swedes recognised that, which is why its successor, the STRV 2000 went with a conventional turret:



Equipped with a 140mm main gun and a 40mm co-ax it was killed by the end of the Cold War.