Stridsvagn 103 ("S-Tank")

Neither have I, the only thing i can go from is gunnery in degraded mode, and even then you do not need pivot steer for horizontal movement.Still not sure I personally would put this in anything but novelty category, but then, nobody asked me...

 

Pretty good novelty then, the Swedes put up with it for 30 years.

 

i managed to dig up an analysis of the S-103's combat value, but they're in swedish. one is by a colonel, who basically considers it to be crap

the rebuttal is by a former major at P5, who has had experience with S-103's since 1967. he think it was a unique tank that required the brass to understand it's strenghts and weaknesses, and to use it in a flexible way, with properly trained crews, and not like they would use a turreted tank

i'll try to translate the important parts if you like?

analysis
http://www.forsvarsframjandet.org/FMF-98-4/Strv-103.htm

rebuttal
http://www.forsvarsframjandet.org/fmf-0 ... leken.html

 

It' all theory and opinion until it's actually used in combat. Unexpected strengths and weaknesses are quickly revealed when an AFV goes up against other AFVs and anti-tank defenses.

 

Kind of like the air filters on the M1 series in Desert Storm..never thought much about them till they tripled in weight from sand and choked of the engine.

 

You think the Swedes are stupid enough to keep a vehicle they know is useless in service for 30 years? If the British and Americans couldn't find anything wrong with it, chances are there isn't anything really wrong with it.

I could make the same "never been used in combat = unproven/useless" argument about the Leopard 1 and 2, the Conqueror, the K1, the Leclerc, the Type90 etc.

 

If it's never been tested in combat how would they know of it's unrevealed weaknesses thus be "stupid" enough to keep it ? That is the point that has apparently elluded you. And yes you could indeed make that same argument about the AFVs that you listed though I think that useless is too strong a term to use.
Unproven, without doubt. Proven, to me means tested under the actual conditions for which it was designed. In the case of AFVs that means in combat as the F in AFV stands for fighting.
Of course one could put a fold down bed in it and a good stereo system, cruise the burger joints and pick up girls in which case the F could have a different meaning...nah..never mind, bad idea

 

You mean "Feeding", right? What with the burgers and all...

 

Most militaries spend more time training than fighting, the purpose of which is to become proficient in the use of the weapons that they have and through experience disclose any faults that may exist, and in this case you expect me to believe that a relatively rich country like Sweden would replace it's Centurions with something that didn't work, and then keep it in service for 30 years?

Thank you, I'd always wondered what that F stood for. Maybe after my nap time could explain to the rest of us children what the A and V are for.

 

Training is essential but it cannot duplicate combat conditions. You keep using terms like "useless", and "didn't work" which are somewhat extreme for the point that I'm making. That weaknesses in any design exists is not theoretical but a definite fact. All parameters cannot be optomized in any design.
Which area of the design turn out to be serious weaknesses cannot be all anticipated during the design process nor during the simulation of training.
What I'm postulating here isn't exactly revolutionary or controversial but is pretty much accepted AFAIK.

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

At the start of WW2 it soon became obvious that tanks of all nations, despite having actually been combat tested (with what were, at the time, satisfying results) in incursions such as the Spanish Civil War and Abyssinia, were obsolete and unsuitable for total war situations...

I have often wondered whether the same could be said of todays tanks... If a large scale war were to occur, would countries rapildy dispose of their current arsenal for reasons unforseen, and commence development of newer, more suitable weapons? reasons for switching in WW2 seemed largely to be with tanks having either too much or too little armor, or not being viable to produce on a large scale...

 

One of the things with modern tanks and aircraft is the complexity, expense, long manufacture times and material requirements involved compared to, say, WW2 equivalents. Today they are designed for maximum effectiveness and survivability largely in the context of fairly short, contained wars. If a long open conflict occurred today where a lot of this modern kit was being eroded at a rate at which it could not be replaced quickly enough we may well see some backtracking to less advanced, easier to produce designs

 

Well then I'm confused what is your point regarding the S-tank?

 

Sorry if I seem patronizing to you but it seems obvious to me:

As though merely having it for 30 years proved it's supposed excellence.
and I stated:

I think that is true. It may be a good design on the drawing board, and a good vehicle in training but until it is truly tested it cannot be considered
first rate IMO. And to reiterate what I said earlier, of course the same goes for any AFV that hasn't been tested in the most demanding environment of combat.

 

The concept of a turreted tank is thoroughly battle tested and works - you can make a good one or a bad one etc .., but we know that the concept works.

The concept of the "S" Tank is not battle tested - so - excellent design and build that it clearly was, it is difficult to judge its effectiveness very well.

 

I never said it proved it's excellence, only that if you knew it didn't work (as in unable to hit a barn if it was inside it, unable to track a target, far to easy for an enemy to hit and destroyit) from testing, training, exercises and war games and that it wasn't a viable weapon system, as some have cast doubt on earlier in this thread, why would you hang on to it for three decades. It may all be theory and opinion as far as you and I are concerned, but in this matter the only people who have any idea how good or bad it was did not throw it out at the earliest opportunity. Obviously they felt it met their needs as an MBT.

It very nearly is Stug, Hetzer ...

 

It may look like one but it's concept is very different from the Stug etc as elevation/traversing systems were designed to emulate the action of a turreted tank to the extent were it had almost the functionality of a turreted tank - tank destroyers and assault guns were never meant to do that.