Talk:Stridsvagn 103/Archive 1

Assault gun?

Isn't this vehicle an assault gun? Oberiko 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"An assault gun is a gun or howitzer mounted on a motor vehicle or armored chassis, designed for use in the direct fire role in support of infantry when attacking other infantry or fortified positions."

The S Tank was designed to defend Sweden from an Invasion by Soviet tanks, it is more of a hybrid between an MBT and a tank destroyer. mhunter 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Having no turret is silly

Having no turret on a turret in Cold War and modern times is rather silly,you have to turn the whole tank just to attack somone on your sides. Dudtz 6/17/06 5:42 PM EST

- The S-tank has a very complex (and somewhat un-reliable) hydraulics system that control the gas presure on ever axel of the bearing wheels, and also controls the drive wheels independantly. With this hydraulics system the tank can stand still and turn sideways and also elevating the chassis - thus elevating the main gun up and down. From what I can remember the tank can do a 180 deg turn, standing still, in around 10 sec, providing the ground is fairly solid like a normal grass field. While driving a 180 deg turn is performed in a split second. So if discovering a foe 90 deg on either side it would take about 5 sec to have the opponent in the gun-sight. A practical problem with this way of aiming the gun is if the crew has chosen a bad firing position with obstacles like big rocks or trees very close to the side that can obstruct turning the chassis sideways. Another problem with this tank is when driving. Since the gun is so long (approx. 6.5 meters) the driver has to be very careful to not dip the muzzle of the gun in the ground if driving in rough terrain. With the hydralics enabling the driver to elevate the chassis, the driver has to build up a good sense and feel for how to compensate for the rough terrain. If the muzzle is dipped and dragged through firm soil or if it hits a solid rock, the contact could drive the barrel backward through the muzzle brake and damage the feeding mechanism, thus requiring repairs before able to fire again. /SashasFarsa

The S-Tank was designed purly to defend Sweden against armoured attack. The mountainous terrain of much of Sweden ( especially the bits open to attack ) would force armoured attackers into predictable routes, the S-tank would move into a good ambush position ( using their local knowledge ) where it would be difficult to out flank the S-tanks. In an ambush the S-tanks would be stationay and camoulfagues and the attckers would have difficulty returning fire. In theory the lack of a turret doesnt matter so much in this scenario. Note this tactic depend upon friendly local infantry ( and Sweden has a large conscript army ) to guide the tanks and protect against infantry trying to out flank the tanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David.j.james (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Sweden had a large conscript army. No longer the case. --Edward Sandstig 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but now Sweden uses Leopard tanks, which have turrets. 71.102.74.156 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On the assault, lacking a turret is totally disastrous. We had to stop the tank, takes 2-3 seconds, aim and fire (another 2-4 seconds) and finally accelerate again (many many seconds). A nightmare.... but on the defence, no matter if you had prepared fire positions or not, you smiled all the time when killing those M1´s, Leopard´s and T-72´s of the "red team". Probably the most accurate gun in the world?, no sweat to hit a stationary baseball at 1500 yards every time with practice ammunition that goes wobbling after leaving the muzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.101.40 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know much about tank warfare or armoured warfare, but arent you supposed to have the front armour pointed at threats? if so why is a turret so important. If you need to shoot that thing over anything else, then it is the most dangerous threat, and thus logically should have the tank turned at it anyway, right? or maybe im missing something :D 92.0.58.103 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"On the assault, lacking a turret is totally disastrous. ", is a bit too strong. As the WW2 German Sturmgeschütz demonstrated in 1941/1942, assault artillery don't suffer much by this, as they're driving forwards towards a clear objective. There's also the aspect of them being CS artillery, firing area-effect shells against static targets. The Stug (unlike the Sv103) also had some traverse in the gun mounting, allowing aiming, if not target choice. Change the rules a bit though (e.g. post 1943) and it's a different game - it's a defensive battle, with moving targets and the need to fire anti-tank shot with more precise aiming needs. Stug took a hammering at that point. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in WWII ALL tanks had to stop to fire, due to lack of stabilisators. The difference between turretless and normal tanks was therefor in much erased. The only difference was that StuG (for instance) perhaps needed another second to switch target, or more if taken by surprise in ambush during advance. Today the 10-20 seconds delay in stopping, aiming, firing and accelerating would make a big difference if you were on the attack. Defending it would make only a minor but I think still meassurable difference, not to the benefit of 103... it is still easier to turn your turret than the whole vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.19.52 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Name in English?

I can only guess, but doesn't mean "Stridsvagn" something like "battle waggon"? Is that just the standard Swedish word for tank? Could somebody please add some sort of translation of the name to the article?--ospalh (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, more or less. Strid(s) means fight(ing), battle and similar, Vagn means wagon, vehicle, carriage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.101.40 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Third crew member

I think the text "though a third man was added for psychological reasons" (removed 07:16, 30 April 2009) should be put back. Not sure where I read it but it was probably in Grenander's book Arméns eldkraft. 85.30.133.221 (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know much about the psychological reasons (and I´m sure no-one with inside knowledge about the tank would put it on print), but I think we could have managed quite well beeing only driver/gunner and commander during most of the "day time". The actual contribution during combat, transport etc from the radio-operator/rearward driver was minimal, both fysical and psysical. BUT!!! - during service and above all during camping and all the work setting up tents, keeping post, doing patrols etc we could have had good use for even a fourth crew member... Being six people in a tank platoon instead of nine is a big difference, and I can assure you that we would have loved beeing twelve instead of nine during patrolling instead of sleeping. (A Swedish tank platoon is/was three tanks with the crews, often one to three additonal crew members for substitution during illness, wounds, leave, officers training...)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.19.52 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 

The third crew member, sitting with his face to the rear, was both radio operator and rearward driver, with controls that allowed him to drive the tank at full speed in reverse. Though with less control than the forward driver (steering with a steering wheel that wasn't a full circle but only a circle segment, like a pizza piece; which meant that he couldn't control the elevation of the tank/gun, something that was done by rotating the handles on the steering bar either forward or to the rear). So he wasn't there just for psychological reasons. All three crew members could drive the tank BTW, because both the driver and the tank commander had full controls (with steering bar) and the radio operator/rearward driver (a job that was usually referred to as "bakåtförare", that is rearward driver) had limited controls. All three of them were also trained as drivers, in addition to their other jobs, i e being commander, gunner and radio operator. Thomas.W (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

British Army tests

I am sure I have read the Army purchased enough to equip a tank battallion of the Royal Armoured Corps to fully test the vehicle under simulated NATO war conditions. This must have been in the late seventies when the Army were trialing the concept of light tanks/tank destroyers. Can anyone shed any more light on this?

Loates Jr (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Andy LoatesLoates Jr (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was just a couple of them. They did carry full British paint and markings (whose radios I wonder?), so they weren't merely short-term loaners from the manufacturer. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Centurions?!

The article claims that the S-tank was the result of a mid-1950s contract tender to replace their Centurion tanks. This seems hard to believe. In the mid-1950s the Centurion was almost new, Sweden's having been acquired less than 5 years previously, and would go on to serve for another 30-odd years. Surely it is meant that the contract was to replace the older Stridsvagn m/42? Not necessarily so. In the mid fifties the Centurion design was already ten years old. It normally takes some 10 years to fully develop a tank during peacetime, and before Centurion most (all?) tanks had a much shorter "top-of-the-line" time than 20 years. It is only the exceptional design of the Centurion that has kept it in use in Sweden and other countries for such a long time, and therefor that the "need" for replacement after 20 years seems out of place. This was perhaps not fully understood when the decision to study the successor was taken. So the need for the "next tank" was probably very real in the 1950s. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

T-72 counterpart?

The article suggest that the importance of the low height of Strv 103 was not so significant, as "its supposed foe the T-72" was only marginally higher - this is not relevant, as Strv 103 was designed 1956 and T-72 entered production in the seventies. The "designed foe" of Strv 103 was T-54, T-55 and T-62 which it could easily destroy at 1600 mtrs. The sight had a special feature, called "combat sight" which enabled the gunner to easily know when to fire and score a frontal kill on a T-55. A side kill from an ambush position could be accounted for as soon as you could identify the tank in your sight as an enemy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.9.127 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)