Sweedish S-Tank - Page 2




 
--
 
August 25th, 2004  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
hmmm....I wouldent want to be in one in combat.
It won't be that bad. I if I were to come up with a new design, I would put extra-super-heavy sloped armor up front where it counted. I would arm it with at least a 120mm gun, maybe 155. And use a sophisticated targeting system.

I would try to make it the modern day equivalent of a Jagpanther or Rhino if I can.

For defensive purposes this wouldn't be too bad. I wouldn't take it on the offense its not made for that.
August 25th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Yes, but you have to see that there is little place for purely defensive weapons in a modern battle field. In order to defend, you must conduct counter-attacks, and in order to do that you need armour(for now, at least). There is no point in having tanks that are only capable of defense. By the way, the Sweeds called the S-103 an MBT, which to me is a joke. It is a Tank-Destoryer, maybe a Heavy Tank-Destroyer. Also note Sweeden dose deploy the Ikv-91 Tank Destroyer,a 16000 Kg vehiecle witha 90mm main gun.
August 25th, 2004  
gladius
 
Yes true.

Counter-attacks.... I forgot about those.
--
August 26th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
Yes, but you have to see that there is little place for purely defensive weapons in a modern battle field. In order to defend, you must conduct counter-attacks, and in order to do that you need armour(for now, at least). There is no point in having tanks that are only capable of defense. By the way, the Sweeds called the S-103 an MBT, which to me is a joke. It is a Tank-Destoryer, maybe a Heavy Tank-Destroyer. Also note Sweeden dose deploy the Ikv-91 Tank Destroyer,a 16000 Kg vehiecle witha 90mm main gun.
It was a MBT in the sense of being out Main Battle Tank but not in the sense of the word nowadays.

Also i don't see any real need for a upgraded 103, or even a new 103 type of tank as we already got STRV 122. Also it would be a clumpsy system, to make a targeting system for a fixed gun wouldn't be practical and would be hard to get a system as good as today tank systems.

You would basically have to move the whole tank to turn the gun, you would probably have to use hydraulics in the front and back to make the gun lower and raise. Also the maker of the 103 is busy with the STRV 122 and other weapons systems.
August 26th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
its not a MBT. its just not. weve had this discussion before...
August 26th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
its not a MBT. its just not. weve had this discussion before...
I wasnt in that discussion :P

If someone use it as a main battle tank it is a MBT :P
August 26th, 2004  
Sea_Cadet
 
The tank in general is good the only fall back is the gun, the reason for having a fixed turret is to have a smaller profile than other tanks.
August 27th, 2004  
Ashes
 
Your talking about a system that was developed in the late 50's. It was an innovative and interesting concept at the time.
They're all mothballed now.