what do you guys at /k/ think about the swedish main battle tank strv122 (otherwise known as the leopard 2a5)
It's an improved winterized Leopard 2A5.
They should develop Strv 2000 instead. Or at least buy T80U. They are so cozy.
it's taken from a somalian recruitment campaign. also pic related lent the officers their nuts back for a day.
Does a turrent really belong on a tank? You can make a superior vehicle without the turret, and you want to present your front to any threat.
Plus you can likely turn the tank faster than the turrent.
>turn speed of over 9000
Clearly turrets are superior Lord Shitpost.
You are lower, and have superior camoflage becauase you don't have a turrent moving independently of the body
So you spot the enemy first, & engage him with your 200mm cannon that will penetrate any known tank from stem to stern.
No, you can't. When fighting on the offensive you need a turret in order to slew the gun onto the target and return fire.
The Strv-103 was used for defensive action and ambushes only, regular MBTs were used for other cases.
But, for what it was designed to do, the Strv-103 was a beast (engine reliability issues aside). They would only present a ~40cm tall target when hull-down and the armour was resistant to APDS (but not APFSDS), and resistant to HEAT thanks to the SUPER SEKRIT™ slat armour on the front.
It would have been a T-55 or T-62 tanker's worst nightmare.
They were never to face enemy tanks in open combat, they only there to ambush the enemy tanks, then GTFO and set up a new ambush. Centurions would be used in counter-attacks and head-to-head encounters.
With modern technology, there is no reason to NOT use a turreted design. Modern MBTs can slew their turrets so fast that they'll make you sick if you're not used to it.
Lol defensive warfare is for orc-like slavs and progressive homosexuals.
>With modern technology, there is no reason to NOT use a turreted design.
Except that the non-turreted design will ALWAYS be superior in frontal armor and gun power for a given weight.
So in a case of a fight between a turreted and non-turreted, you would prefer to be in the one lacking the turret.
You can turn your tank just as fast as you can turn a turret.
So turrets seem more fit to light/medium tank roles since targets you can present your side to, don't need a 120mm cannon to kill.
>You can turn your tank just as fast as you can turn a turret.
Also in soft ground traversing a tank is always problematic if not catastrofic. Pic related.
Before contact yes you want to keep the forward towards the estimated enemy direction.
In contact you want to shoot and scoot to cover, not stay put and start traversing. That would be like begging to get hit.
If no cover you is available then maybe, but that's already a mistake if you are in a such open position.
Compared to contemporary tanks, the 103 was a better choice. Sure, a centurion could fire faster, but firing while moving in contemporary tanks meant that you couldnt hit a barn from inside. If you were really close or were completely surprised; you would fire as fast as you can while praying for good fortunes, but otherwise, you'd need to be stationary if you wanted to fire accurately.
And the 103 did the whole stop-aim-fire part faster than its contemporaries, which is why it wasnt as bad at taking terrain as people seem to think. During an exercise in Sweden during the 90s, 12 103s crushed 12 leo2s during both offensive and defensive actions. Of course, being a tank exercise it's not really comperable, but it makes you think. It was a nasty tank.
Still it would be just stupid, no modern armor is impenetrable. No matter how heavy armour your tank might have eventually you will be destroyed if you stay in a open position where enemies are able to shoot at you.
Cover > Open always.
>if houses couldn't catch fire there would be no problem
>but no such house has been invented
>well then I guess it's OK when your house burns down and everybody in it dies
this is some next-level autism.