Shakey985 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 One that is great for shopping It comes with its own wine rack, hydrologic suspension for ease of getting on and is powered by a diesel engine and a turbine for quick get aways Paul Downunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Nice, what is it and whose ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Burley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Its Swedish.Bit of a flop,if you ask me,as the whole tank had to turn in order to fire the gun.Only good thing about it,was the fact it had an automatic loading system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Not having a turret gave it another good point, it had a very low profile and was a much smaller target Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Burley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I think the tank museum has one.Having seen it being demonstarated,then i conclude it wasnt very impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Nice, what is it and whose ?? Nio idea whose it is - but it's a Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank. One of my all-time favourite vehiclkes.. A unique concept whereby you aimed the tank not the gun, specifically designed for Swedish terrain/tactics which involved a lot of hull-down engagements followed by a quick scoot away. They were replaced in service in the 1990's by Leopard 2's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 In the fourth photo there appears to be a Halftrack with smoke dischargers? and a nice looking Sherman any details about them , Oh yeah nice tank ! perfect for those low rider cruses down main street , just kidding . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 If an S-103 came up for sale I'm not sure what I'd do - the "buy it now" compulsion might have severe repercussions with the wife!!! :shake::shake: Thats how badly I want one!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 It was developed specifically to defend Sweden by ambush and run. Not for classic tankfighting so as such a turret isn't very neccesary. Compare it to the German Jagdpanzers/Sturmgeschutze, it isn't a tank. The S tank is a small taget indeed. Guess they figured having a big TANK is better because it also gives offensive capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Nio idea whose it is - Neil, I think you will find that it belongs to the Royal Australian Armoured Corps Museum at Puckapunyal, gifted to them by the Swedish Army, as was the one at The Tank Museum. Would guess there is no likelyhood of them coming on the market though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 To be honest Richard - I don't know of any in private hands. They are all in museums. Even the forum at Föreningen Stridsvagn S is not sure if any exist in private hands... :cry: :cry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakey985 Posted August 9, 2008 Author Share Posted August 9, 2008 You are correct in saying that it is in the RAAC Tank museum. All my photos are from my collection (wish I Had a camera when I was young). The tank Museum copy right free ( there will be more and if you have requests? send and I will try to Help. I also have some from the 1 Armoured Regiment Association which I haven't posted yet but will once I receive permission to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Its Swedish.Bit of a flop,if you ask me,as the whole tank had to turn in order to fire the gun.Only good thing about it,was the fact it had an automatic loading system. Not a flop at all. The Swedes designed it to be as small as possible to hide in the woods and advance easily backwards through them when the Commies came. Small population, limited human resources for crewing: autoloader reduces the manpower of the armoured corps by 25% at a stroke (I am guessing at a three-man crew. It might be a two-man crew, in which case it has reduced armoured corps staffing by 1/3). Removing the turret reduces the height and complexity enormously. Imagine the one in the pic with the suspension in its normal, level state, it is no higher than the man standing by it. The design was so good that in 1976-77 I saw a Chieftain hacked about by removing the turret and mounting the 120 directly through the glacis plate, being driven behind our barracks onto Salisbury Plain for trials. Obviously it never came into service. Pictures are like rocking-horse droppings, though I vaguely remember seeing on www.arrse.co.uk somewhere a picture of a hangar at Bovvy where the vehicle at the back might have been said Chieftain S-tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I remember in the 80s, the Russians pulled a number stunt on NATO during a round of arms reductions. Both sides agreed to reducing armoured corps staffing. What the Russians didn't say was that they were replacing their four-man T62s with three-man T64s (plus autoloader) and selling off the T62s. Tank crews reduced by 25%; tanks reduced by ... nothing at all. In fact the T64 was a complete new generation, a huge improvement on the T62. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 <snipped>limited human resources for crewing: autoloader reduces the manpower of the armoured corps by 25% at a stroke (I am guessing at a three-man crew. It might be a two-man crew, in which case it has reduced armoured corps staffing by 1/3). <snipped> You are correct AFTM - the S-103's had a crew of 3 comprising 3 Commander, Gunner/driver and Rear driver, And certainly not a flop - they were very successful at what they were designed to do which - as AFTM rightly says was a "shoot 'n scoot" policy. I'd still love to get hold of one!!:-D :-D :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antar Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Not so sure tht battery starter pack will be much use for it though ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakey985 Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 The battery pack works fine on all our vehicles, with 80 plus vehicles battery's are always a problem. I haven't used it on a Leopard but in starts all our M113 fleet, S tank, IKV and other vehicles. We used it when we went to Corowa for a M113 and had no problem even thou we never put it on charge for a week. I find that it is the answer to dead and I mean Dead battery's at around $200 and you can take it out and put it on charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashley Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 . The design was so good that in 1976-77 I saw a Chieftain hacked about by removing the turret and mounting the 120 directly through the glacis plate, being driven behind our barracks onto Salisbury Plain for trials. Obviously it never came into service. Pictures are like rocking-horse droppings, though I vaguely remember seeing on www.arrse.co.uk somewhere a picture of a hangar at Bovvy where the vehicle at the back might have been said Chieftain S-tank. This was still at Bovvy a couple of years ago in a shed in the workshop area. Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chambers101 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Are those Bushmasters in the background.Just curious because last week down at Bovington saw a few being delivered to the Army for testing purposes i presume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakey985 Posted August 19, 2008 Author Share Posted August 19, 2008 No they are Tiepans, South African trial Vehicle's. The Bushmaster survived the trials and after a lot of modification including an internal weapons system, it is now a very good vehicle. It would appear that a lot of country's are looking at them. Here are some more of the S-Tank next to a Leopard give an idea of its hight when in its normal running condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 The S is a lovely machine - I envy you the chance of playing with that one!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuno Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Checked out the i'net a little bit about that particular tank (it was said that it is an MBT and definitely not a tank-hunter). --- Just now - in another forum- I came accross this: Seems that someone in UK has taken up the design... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuno Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 ...if you allow me to add my comments: The argument of better protection of the crew, if the engine is placed in front has already been solved in the design of the Israeli MERKAVA. Above drawing (if it is in scale) does not prove a remarkable lower appearance lathough the turret is avoided. What is the BIG PLUS, if a tank has no more 360-degree-turret? A fixed gun cannot be recognized as a benefit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Significantly simpler and cheaper to build, crew and maintain. A big plus for a nation that is Was) supposedly neutral but needed to suggest to the Soviet Union that it was not an easy target whilst still managing to implement a successful Socialist regime. These tanks were only designed to retreat - I mean advance backwards - from an invading army whose movements were restricted to avenues of advance known to the defenders (and AFAIK amplified by the widespread use of minefields). Knowing where the enemy was coming from, they did not need turret traverse to cover these avenues. Besides, if the Soviets ever crossed the border all would be lost anyway. IMCO it was all just a posture. In the last year or so I have come to the conclusion that the entire Cold War was an absolute waste of time on every side. Everybody thought the other side would attack and steamroller over, but nobody actually had the resources to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I think it was mentioned here on another thread - but in the Seventies at least the opinion was that if hell kicked off the Soviet forces would have been first across the borders with the other Warsaw pact countries in support. Which is where it got interesting as no one I ever spoke to would commit to an opinion as to which way the Poles would go... Broad speculation was the Polish Armed Forces would let the Soviets engage NATO - then kick 'em in the butt so to speak..... That could have lead to a VERY interesting scenario!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.