The Strv 103 is a garbage idea and a shitty vehicle with

>>33924902

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOn6QrN6pCA

Strv 103 a CUTE

>>33924984
I just finished watching this video about 20 seconds ago.

>>33924984
>>33924994
Hence, the thread on /k/ I made about it.

>>33924902
>Swedish Tank.
Turrets were too offensive, I mean being able to fire in º360 arc is ableist.
CHECK
YOUR
PRIVILEGE.

>>33925011
don't wanna trigger you but this isn't really very funny.

Anyway, Swedes are a joke

T-80U a best

>>33924902

Correct.

>>33924902
>no real benefits.
Allows for a long gun that does not hit trees.

>>33926043

Surely this must be worth all of its disadvantages.

File: 2000.jpg (25KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 470x313px

>>33924902
Maybe, but it's planned successor still gives me a boner.

>>33926202
In our glorias state of cuckistan we will never see a tiertonk

>>33924902
I don't think you understand the terrain in northern Sweden, it's not a sandbox built for tank on tank action

>>33926874
The entire goddamn purpose of having a design like that is so a big gun with a breach that would normally be hard to fit into a turret can just sit inside the tank instead. The lack of a turret and the outdated nature of the tank in general are huge unavoidable drawbacks. Its 105mm gun can easily fit into a turret. I cannot name a single reason why this was designed in the first place besides the 'low silhouette' meme.

File: Swedish Karosseri Pansar.jpg (106KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x680px

>>33924902
Sweden in the 50s and 60s was trying to be Wehrmacht lite.

They even have a not-Hanomag looking armored personnel carrier/armored car.

>>33926909
Is.. is that a fucking Vickers water-cooled mg mounted on the top? Hold on. Are you telling me that they would actually be willing to send that into combat?

Hahahahahahahaha

>>33924902
A snail walks into a tank dealership, and he asks the salesman about tank configurations. He shows the salesman a tank that he's thinking about buying, but there's something he wants to change about it. The salesman asks him what it is, and the snail tells him he wants turret deleted, and the gun way down into hull, and hydraulics in the treads to control the gun's elevation. The salesman asks why, and the snail responds:
"Because when I drive out of the forest, I want to hear Russians say 'hey, look at that S-tank go!'"

>>33926936
what's wrong with a vickers?

>>33924902
>MMUH SMALL FOR AMBUSH
1 ATGM from 5 km = 3 graves

>>33926202
muh dicc

File: WRONG.jpg (160KB, 882x486px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 882x486px

>>33926936
You know the brits used the Vickers until like the 50s or 60s right? And the US is still using the m2. Plus you see Maxims pop up in the Ukraine war

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/?st=j2k5znep&sh=95600c5f

If anyone is interested in STRV103 development.

>>33926936
retard
you can fire a water cooled mg like a Vickers for literally days at a time before it gives up without changing the barrel or stopping

they only moved to newer designs so they could be more portable by infantry. But attached to a vehicle the advantages of a vickers shine

>>33927245
>you can fire a water cooled mg like a Vickers for literally days at a time before it gives up without changing the barrel or stopping

You have to change the barrel after a while, as the shots going through it will wear it out no matter what, it's not only a question of temperature.
But otherwise correct, as long as you provide ammo, water and barrels, a Maxim gun can fire indefinitely for all intents and purposes.

In 1963 in Yorkshire, a class of British Army armorers put one Vickers gun through probably the most strenuous test ever given to an individual gun. The base had a stockpile of approximately 5 million rounds of Mk VII ammunition which was no longer approved for military use. They took a newly rebuilt Vickers gun, and proceeded to fire the entire stock of ammo through it over the course of seven days. They worked in pairs, switching off at 30 minute intervals, with a third man shoveling away spent brass. The gun was fired in 250-round solid bursts, and the worn out barrels were changed every hour and a half. At the end of the five million rounds, the gun was taken back into the shop for inspection. It was found to be within service spec in every dimension.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/paean-to-the-vickers-gun/

File: mobilen 268.jpg (676KB, 1280x825px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1280x825px

It was built for swedish tactics during the cold war, it is´t a modern multiroll tank. Can´t say it´s a bad tank neither a good one. The engineering of its time was top notch.

>>33926936
Upgraded swedish version of the Browning M1917 MG, which in turn is an upgraded Maxim.
Vickers was in British service until the late 60's- the M1919 in .303 and then .308 was in British service until damned near the 90's - not that they hated the L7 MAG GPMG, they just had a bunch of shit that utilized M1919's and the .308 conversion was an easy fix.

>>33926936
Water cooled MG's are more than fine for several roles. The only reason they aren't standard on tanks is because forced air cooling systems exist now

>>33924902
Must be the reason why it regularly beat Leo 2s in defensive and offensive roles during training.

>>33926899
autoloader, weight, better protection, low quality of stabilizers until very recently.

File: 1493729450447.jpg (45KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1500x1500px

>>33926941

File: a22.png (94KB, 634x697px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 634x697px

>>33926941
That joke is so bad it's good.

File: sell.jpg (19KB, 408x317px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 408x317px

>>33926941
That's good. I hate it, but it's good.

>>33926941
Took awhile till I got it. Very funny 10/10

>>33926941
[spoiler]I don't get it[/spoiler]

>>33924902
For it's time it was a very good vehicle (with a big exception).
Unlike what people believe, it's NOT a "defensive" vehicle (although it does shine in that role).
It was built as an offensive MBT to attack Soviet armoured groups.

To understand the rational of the designers, you have to go back to the 50's & 60s. Tank stabilizers weren't really a thing. You didn't fire on the move, even at low speed you couldn't hit a target beyond point-blank range.
Studying German tank combat reports from the war, the Swedish designers noted that there was a strong correlation between vehicle height and getting hit.
Combine this with the non-reality of firing on the move, they settled on a turretless design. Foreign trials performed showed no disadvantage to the turretless design.

But it did have a big problem: maintenance. It had a complex engines & gearbox arrangement, and the gas-turbine engine was a maintenance hog.
There was a saying among Swedish tankers, "We will survive combat, but we won't survive the march".

By the late late early 80's, gun stabilizers had advanced quite a bit, allowing for firing on the move. And just like that there was no reason to use a turretless design.

>>33926202
You're a big gun.

>>33925717
>a feminist.

>>33930809
UU
UU

>>33924902
AGreed

the famas is the best gun with all the benifits

>>33926936
nothing wrong with 600 rounds per minute senpai