I have seen many reports on this 'tank' and not once has it said it has been classed in either. I have even watched a program where it said the debate for what the S-Tank was still continues. I think in the eyes on the creators it wasa tank but I see you guys think differently.

From what I have seen on the tank it seemed to be very advanced for it;s time. Way more advanced then any of the other tnaks. Did this make it better than the other tanks? Well as you have pointed out not really. But I strongly believe that if this did tank did ever see battle it sure would have caused some trouble the fact that it was a nimble tank, due to it;s height and it;s power, would have given it a significant advantage.

So what makes it more advanced then say T-64?

Also self propelled guns are by definition not nimble, lack of turret severely hinders their options, the only advantage i can think of is that Swedes would be fighting on familiar ground and be able to set up ambushes, but you can do that with a towed AT gun as well.

Well, the S-Tank was relatively nimble. Compared to some tanks anyway.

Also, could you stop calling a Tank destroyer, for it has been declared wither way.....has it?

Panzercracker is probably correct...The S-103 just dosent fit in as a MBT...Or a tank. Operationaly a MBT is usually the centerpiece in offensive and defensive ATFs. As I have mentioned before the S-103 would be hard to handle efectivly in offensive operations.Also its a common view that the main element of the modern tank is a large, multi-purpose gun in a 360 traverse capable turret. The S-103 just fits more with creatures like the 17 pdr carrying Archer SPG, the SU-152 and the Jagedpanther than with 90% of tanks manufactured sins 1918. So yeah, it is much more of a tank destroyer.
The claims that it was advanced for its time are a bit strange. It had no extraordinary fire control system(infact one could say it had a rather infrior one because fire on the move is impossible, and firing at moving targets is also extremely diffecult). It had no better optics than any other 1960s AFV, inffact as I recall it had no active-IR in the early models, making even the late production T-55 and all T-62s more advanced. Its armor was probably nothing special, as it is with out doubt standart RHS(even if the frontal plates have a very sharp angle). The L7 105mm is a wonderful multi-purpose weapon, but all western tanks of the time weere armed with it. It was not much superior to the 100mm weapon of the T-55, certinly not to the 115mm gun of the T-62, and ofcourse not to the rifled 120mm L11 which armed the far more advanced Chietain only 5 years after the first S-103s rolled off the production line.

Originally Posted by Yin717

Well, the S-Tank was relatively nimble. Compared to some tanks anyway.

Also, could you stop calling a Tank destroyer, for it has been declared wither way.....has it?

I did some research, it had a 50 kmph road speed, thats not nimble, relatively nimble or even a little nimble, thats very slow.

A T-55, a far older tank was about 5 kmph faster, a T-62/64 depending on the power pack are 10-18kmph faster, a T-80 which is only 6 years younger is 20kmph faster (all speeds given are road speeds).

So this SPG was not only turretless but also slower then tanks three decades older then it, it was a slow unwieldy cow, purely defensive in nature.

And i'm not calling it a tank destroyer, its not a dedicated tank destroyer like a Hetzer or Jagdpanther its a self propelleged gun like Soviet ISU-152.

As for evaluation? It appears inferior to all Soviet tanks except T-55s, i dont know who and when compared the machines and came with such favourable conclusions for the Strv-103 but i suspect it was biased, the thing is just not a very good design, it could be viable in infanty support role but it was apparently supposed to be an MBT and in such a role its a complete failure.

A couple of Youtube clips featuring the tank.... Combat vehicle.... vehicle..... This piece of armoured equipment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsz1rSQTAfA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8

I'm no expert, but I've been reviewing the S-tank for a little while now and I think it would not have been any more of a liability on the battlefield than any other MBT. It's obvious that it would do it's best work as a ambushing tank killer. It had an integral dozer blade to dig itself in, and once in defilade only a quarter meter of it (vertically) was exposed to fire.

Bear in mind that from 1970-80, most tanks of the time would probably have been unable to hit the little 103 while they were moving, especially the T-72 with it's inaccurate main gun. If the Strv 103 was also moving, you could forget about it. Furthermore, though the S-tank could not fire it's main gun on the move, the commander's cupola did feature a stabilized light machine gun that could swivel 270 degrees for AA and presumably anti-infantry work.

Though the frontal armor near the the gun was sloped at least 75 degrees, it was frighteningly thin over the engines, perhaps only 20mm, 30mm with the ribs. Bofors clearly sold out on deflecting incoming AP rounds. The front wedge part of the tank was probably a good 500-800mm thick. On top of this section was the anti-RPG/HEAT fence, which even today would still be effective.

The main gun of the S-tank featured APFSDS rounds of a similar nature to the ones fired by American 105mm tanks, and would have been a serious threat to all but the most heavily armored vehicles. It hit harder than an M60 because it had a significantly longer barrel.

Also, the lack of a turret was not as big a problem as you might think, because the tank could come to a complete stop and be pointing backwards in under a second, if it was moving. This was the clutch n' brake technique. Even if sitting still, it traversed faster than most turrets of the day, provided both engines were running. I imagine that they would be if the S-tank needed to kill something.

Originally Posted by henshao

I

Bear in mind that from 1970-80, most tanks of the time would probably have been unable to hit the little 103 while they were moving, especially the T-72 with it's inaccurate main gun.

Which is not much of an advantage when you realise that Strv 103 could not shoot on the move either.

Originally Posted by henshao

If the Strv 103 was also moving, you could forget about it. Furthermore, though the S-tank could not fire it's main gun on the move, the commander's cupola did feature a stabilized light machine gun that could swivel 270 degrees for AA and presumably anti-infantry work.

Actually hitting a moving target is not that much of a fuss, it all depends on the distance and speed but lets not get carried away, if a Strv-103 got spotted at 500-2000 meters hitting it wouldnt be that much of a deal, even for a T-55.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Which is not much of an advantage when you realise that Strv 103 could not shoot on the move either.

I thought it was obvious...

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Actually hitting a moving target is not that much of a fuss, it all depends on the distance and speed but lets not get carried away, if a Strv-103 got spotted at 500-2000 meters hitting it wouldnt be that much of a deal, even for a T-55.

Wikipedia claims the mean error of the T-72's main gun is 1 meter at 1.8km, and it's more advanced than the D-10 of the T-55. The S-tank isn't very big. You could hit it some of the time from a T-55 but realistically most tanks are goners if they get spotted first. Don't you dare miss.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

I did some research, it had a 50 kmph road speed, thats not nimble, relatively nimble or even a little nimble, thats very slow.

A T-55, a far older tank was about 5 kmph faster, a T-62/64 depending on the power pack are 10-18kmph faster, a T-80 which is only 6 years younger is 20kmph faster (all speeds given are road speeds).

So this SPG was not only turretless but also slower then tanks three decades older then it, it was a slow unwieldy cow, purely defensive in nature.

And i'm not calling it a tank destroyer, its not a dedicated tank destroyer like a Hetzer or Jagdpanther its a self propelleged gun like Soviet ISU-152.

As for evaluation? It appears inferior to all Soviet tanks except T-55s, i dont know who and when compared the machines and came with such favourable conclusions for the Strv-103 but i suspect it was biased, the thing is just not a very good design, it could be viable in infanty support role but it was apparently supposed to be an MBT and in such a role its a complete failure.

T-55 Power/weight 14.6 hp/tonne
T-62 Power/weight 14.5 hp/tonne
T-64 Power/weight 18.4 hp/tonne
T-72 Power/weight 19 hp/tonne for T-72 "Urał"
T-80 Power/weight 25.9 hp/tonne T-80B
M-60 Power/weight 14.5 hp/ton (16.3 hp/tonne)
M103 Power/weight 14 hp/tonne
M1 Abrams Power/weight 24.5 hp/tonne
Leopard 1 Power/weight 19.6 PS/tonne (19.4 hp/tonne)
Leopard 2 Power/weight 24.2 hp/tonne
Centurion Power/weight 13 hp/tonne
Chieftain Power/weight 13.4 hp/tonne
Challenger 1 Power/weight 19.4 hp/tonne
Challenger 2 Power/weight 19.2 hp/t
AMX 30
Strv 103 Power/weight, 18.3 hp/tonne (103B), more with the turbine's governor off.

The Strv can do 60kph+ on roads, and is only bested by the latest tanks in performance.

How can you call it a complete failure so hastily? It's virtually guaranteed to knock out anything contemporary to it in one shot, and it had a hard chin itself. Buttoned up, it spots more targets than the Leopard 1.

Furthermore it's rate of fire was ludicrously high compared to these other tanks, 20 rounds per minute. From an ambush it could land maybe 4-5 shots before being fired upon itself.

Hensh i can call it a failiure because it does not have a turret which severely limits its options.

How fast it can swivel around is dependent on a multitude of factors including what kind of ground its on, is it a steep hill, is it a muddy road etc, a turret can traverse regardless of al those.

I could recount all the modernisations T-55s and T-72s received by the 70s but its pointless, most tanks in Europe would fight each others at ranges between 1-3km but typically at something around 1.X km.