Stridsvagan 103 (S-Tank), do you think it would of been good in battle?

Yin717

Active member
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:

Wikipedia said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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...

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.

Panzercracker said:
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.
 
Back
Top