The S-Tank has been one of my most favourite tanks for a long time. It had some of the best technology for it's time as well. Auto-loader, elevation and depressing of about 20 degrees and could even be driven by one man! For me it's amazing technology goes on. Of course it did have it's minor problems, one of them being it couldn't fire while on the move making it primarily a defensive tank. Yet it never saw combat and I've always wondered if it would of faired well. I do remember reading about it being on tests in Britain and America and both saying it could be as good as, and maybe even better, than the Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams. Well....that might be an exaggeration but here's what I found:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Stridsvagn 103 never saw combat and so its design remains unproven, unlike turreted main battle tanks. However, for its intended role in the 1960s it had numerous advantages. In 1967, Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard. In April to September 1968, two 103s were tested at the British armour school in Bovington, which reported that "the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." In 1975, two 103s were tested at the American armour center at Fort Knox. The trial demonstrated the 103 fired more accurately than the M60A1E3, but on an average 0.5 seconds slower.[1]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Tank

So I'm just wondering from you tank whizzes out their, do you think it would have been remarkable in combat?

I sure think so, so long as it stayed in it's own territory. Its a unmatched tank for the role it was meant to play, defend Sweden from a Soviet attack. It was designed completely based on the Swedish terrain.

Outside of Sweden however..it would have become a bad choice, it lacked a torrent and its low silhouet would not have given it the first look a tank needs in most places such as Europe.

It's strengths in Sweden would become its greatest faults, but if the Russians did attack Sweden i have no doubts the S-tank would slaughter Russian armor even if it fought 4 on one. It was perfectly adapted to it's own land.

Originally Posted by Britney

I sure think so, so long as it stayed in it's own territory. Its a unmatched tank for the role it was meant to play, defend Sweden from a Soviet attack. It was designed completely based on the Swedish terrain.

Outside of Sweden however..it would have become a bad choice, it lacked a torrent and its low silhouet would not have given it the first look a tank needs in most places such as Europe.

It's strengths in Sweden would become its greatest faults, but if the Russians did attack Sweden i have no doubts the S-tank would slaughter Russian armor even if it fought 4 on one. It was perfectly adapted to it's own land.

I guess what you have said is problem's with most tank design's. Perfectly designed for their countries terrain but not so perfect in other places. I guess this is what makes tank design hard.

I would say its not really a tank, in the sens that the role it was built for is of a tank destroyer...Mostly defensive work, never fire on the move(as the driver is the gunner), etc. As tank destroyers go, it probably would have done very well, if used by sound tactical commanders.

As far as slaughtering russian armor...Dont know about that...The 105mm should have done a good job but still fighting T-72 and T-80 operated by the than well trained Russians...I think any one who puts their money on almost entirely defensive hardware is looking for trouble. I cant imagine an armored task force based on the S-tank conducting a counter-offensive...No shoot-on-the-move, and rather diffecult to deal with infantry when you cant traverse the main gun and coax without pivoting the entire vehicle.

Its a tank destroyer/assault gun so you're not going to be able to use it like you use a tank, lack of turret focks up any hopes of using it offensively.

Its nothing special, definitely not superior to Russian tanks.

@Britney.

Better Russian designs such as T-64s and T-80s could take a 105mm to the face and keep rolling, on the other hand this contraption would likely fall to bits after a direct hit from a Soviet 125mm.

@Yin.
M1 Abrams was originally a sh*tty tank on par with the basic T-72M, it became a monster it is through decades of upgrading so the claims that it was as good as original M1 dont really mean much here though i dont believe your claims for one minute.

Challenger 2 was introduced in 98 its 30 years younger then this bucket of bolts and i doubt anyone would ever compare the two seriously.

It was never compared to the Challenger 2. If anything it was compared to the Chieftain...

@panzercracker
The Worlds Great Tanks by Roger Ford rates the RHA figures for the S-tank at 90-100mm...Not much. Janes dosent offer a figure in the 2000 Tanks and Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide...100mm is crap...But I have to wonder why? I mean they took off the turret and all those systems...And still a combat weight of ~40 tons...They should have been able to give it serious frontal protection...

The S- tank were created as mobile antitank gun.
In the densly forested areas of northern Sweden it would probably have been up to the task of armorambushes.
I think it could have performed that role in central germany as well.
A skilled company commander could make a mess of an armored convoy using these things in the manner they were designed to be used.

They were never intended to be a MBT.

As for the armor, without knowing for sure I think those figures are off.
Atleast the front were better protected then the average MBT of that era.

//KJ.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

It was never compared to the Challenger 2. If anything it was compared to the Chieftain...

@panzercracker
The Worlds Great Tanks by Roger Ford rates the RHA figures for the S-tank at 90-100mm...Not much. Janes dosent offer a figure in the 2000 Tanks and Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide...100mm is crap...But I have to wonder why? I mean they took off the turret and all those systems...And still a combat weight of ~40 tons...They should have been able to give it serious frontal protection...

I dont buy the 90-100mm, not with 43 tonnes combat weight, its small, turretless so where did all the weight go? I'd have to know what does Ford base his estimates on.


@KJ.

The topic is whether the tank was a good machine when compared to contemporary MBTs, it was not.

Turretless SPGs were only built in WW2 as an economy class armored vehicles, the lack of turret and pure defensive nature makes then downright unsuited to most tasks a tank can perform.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

I dont buy the 90-100mm, not with 43 tonnes combat weight, its small, turretless so where did all the weight go? I'd have to know what does Ford base his estimates on.


@KJ.

The topic is whether the tank was a good machine when compared to contemporary MBTs, it was not.

Turretless SPGs were only built in WW2 as an economy class armored vehicles, the lack of turret and pure defensive nature makes then downright unsuited to most tasks a tank can perform.

Not really, the question were and I quote: " Stridsvagn 103, do you think it would have been good in battle?"

Nowhere in that question do I see a comparison with current MBT,s

That comparison might have come about after that report from the Norwegian fieldtesting where it was compared to and outclassed the Leo 1 in both first look and rate of fire.

I personally find it about as rediculous to compare a defensive tank killer to a MBT as to compare apples with oranges.

I maintain my stance that for what it was built for, it would probably have worked.

//KJ.

KJ is correct the question was rather the vehicle could prefom well, not how it compares to MBTs(as it seems we all agree it was infact not a MBT, and perhaps not even a tank at all). However as its main role would have bee to kill off T-72, T-64 and T-80 it is intresting to compare what we know of this AFVs.

I agree with both of you that Ford's 100mm claim is strange...I would guess at least 230mm at the gun mantlet and 170mm on the rest of the frontal armor, with 60-70mm side armor...There is no reason it would be infrior to the T-55 or T-62 considering similar weight but smaller vehicle. In fact it should have been far better protected than those tanks.

As far as beating the Leopard 1, the early versions of the Leo were not very good vehicles. They had thin armor and poor fire control.