strv122

Well... I might say that it is a tank?

>>28603596
The leo is a good tank but i know shit about the sweidish extras...

>>28603669
they are basically modified with newer equipment such as radios and targeting and more suited for the swedish terrain

>>28603596
It's Halal

File: 1447981368096.jpg (1MB, 2808x1872px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2808x1872px

>>28603596
It's pretty good.

File: Stridsvagn 122 turret roof hatches.jpg (625KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 2048x1536px

>>28603596

It's an improved winterized Leopard 2A5.

>>28603596

Strv 122 once left the gas burner on and left the house to score weed. Burned my entire house down and no insurance company wants to talk to me now.

>>28603596
if i removed the mirror what would happen

>>28604103
It would be extremely dangerous.

File: strv2000_attrapp-web[1].jpg (754KB, 1134x638px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1134x638px

>>28603596
They should develop Strv 2000 instead. Or at least buy T80U. They are so cozy.

File: pz87 140mm.jpg (100KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1024x768px

140mm gun when

>>28604800
never because europeans can't lift 50lb+ shells and steroids are illegal in sweden

>>28603738
How'd they afford posing their entire armed forces for a single picture?

File: n00187424-b.jpg (26KB, 650x365px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 650x365px

>>28605558
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.

File: 1437272982669.jpg (23KB, 273x252px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 273x252px

>>28605698
>turn tank+turret
>turn speed of over 9000
Clearly turrets are superior Lord Shitpost.

File: 1438399994618.png (28KB, 357x339px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 357x339px

>>28605698

>>28605737
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.

>>28605698
Modern tanks can do a 360 in 9 seconds.

>>28605698
It's only good for fighting defensively and utilizing ambushes. That's it.
That's why Sweden had Centurions as well.

File: 1411640832407.jpg (336KB, 1841x2048px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1841x2048px

>>28605698
this desu

>>28605884
Thats nonsense, you can use it every place you would use a turretted tank

>>28605913
They would get wrecked in COIN.

>>28605950
How so?

You'd want some sort of AFV with an autocannon and a mortar to COIN anyways.

>>28605913

Yeah, how about no. There is a reason why almost all modern tanks have turrets.

>>28605913
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.

>>28604103
it would not be able to see behind it.

File: 1451508155110.jpg (28KB, 444x337px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 444x337px

>>28605763
Lol defensive warfare is for orc-like slavs and progressive homosexuals.

>>28606025
>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.

File: GregoireBC003.jpg (22KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x338px

>>28606154
>You can turn your tank just as fast as you can turn a turret.
<Citation needed

Also in soft ground traversing a tank is always problematic if not catastrofic. Pic related.

>>28606025
>It would have been a T-55 or T-62 tanker's worst nightmare.
Well atleast those have the ability to fire on the move and fight during the night.

>>28606366
How often do properly maintained modern tanks throw tracks?

File: 555b.jpg (124KB, 960x574px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 960x574px

>>28606366

Also related

>>28606435

Depends on the ground you are operating and the crews skill. But on soft ground: Pretty often.

I'm pretty sure every tanker has to fix the track at some point of their service.

>>28606440
Poor guy, I know exactly what he thinks right now. "Fuck. Why me?"

>>28606454
Maybe some work would need to be done to prevent that.
And training.

Don't you want to turn your tank to face the threat ASAP anyways?

>>28606440
Hey that's the same stance as I use when I lose a track on my bobcat usually mumbling fuck me

>>28605913
it must make you shiver at night, knowing that the stug killed more tanks than any other tank during ww2

hue

>>28606490
How long do you stare it while talking to yourself? Half an hour?

>>28606473
>Maybe some work would need to be done to prevent that.

Are you fucking retarded?

>>28606473

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.

>>28606502
If the tracks were physically unable to fall off, then there would be no problem, m8

>>28606544

No such track has ever been invented

>>28606569
Which is why throwing a track is obviously not that big of an issue.

>>28606366
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.

>>28606595

Or it is just impossible to invent such a track

>>28606509
But if your tank can penetrate the enemies anywhere, while your front cannot be penetrated.
Seeking cover doesn't need to be your first step.

>>28606625

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.

>>28606690
Don't they have smoke grenades for that thing?

>>28606435

All the time.

Centurions loved to give the crews extra work from what ive heard

>>28606738
smoke grenades are almost useless in tank vs tank battles nowadays because of IR

>>28607244
infrared blocking smoke?

>>28607306
could work

>>28607244
Then again, brass flakes in smoke granade launchers means that IR vision is obscured aswell.

>>28606544
>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.

>>28604696
>>28604800
STRV 3000 when