worst weapons of all time pic related

>>34027112

Who would make an assault gun without the ability to traverse the gun?

Or am I missing something?

>>34028796
Its all about the suspension.

File: 1488972194951.jpg (91KB, 881x578px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 881x578px

>>34027112
>Side skirts made of fuel canisters.

That's some Soviet tier engineering right there.

>>34028848
it's diesel it doesnt catch fire and they tested it

>>34028828
more like the suspension of disbelief.

>>34028924
That's a load of horse shit, any high explosive can cause diesel to light.

>>34028946
why would you shoot HE at a tank?

File: 1420329831830.gif (80KB, 250x174px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 250x174px

>>34028956
To ignite the fuel canister side skirts ofc

File: natsuiro kiseki yuka.png (351KB, 754x1059px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 754x1059px

>>34028956
probably to blow it up or something

File: C2oZgbNWgAAF_6H.jpg (176KB, 1200x667px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1200x667px

>>34027112
>never fought in a war
>entire design is a marketing ploy to sell perforated aluminum from the 50's as an armor scheme

>>34028967
implying they know that

>>34028975
>shooting HE at a tank

>>34029003
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a20273/sweden-s-tank-no-turret-design/

>>34029018
needs eurobeat for second half

File: C2oZgbWXgAEfeWa.jpg (90KB, 1200x743px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1200x743px

>>34029032
> It mounted the British L-7 tank gun, the same gun that equipped into early versions of the U.S. Abrams tank
discarded. swediboo's are even worse than small dicked german bloods

File: 1414888089486.gif (1MB, 245x190px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x190px

>>34029058
>L7 was a bad gun in the 50s

>>34029010
didn't this piece of shit actually wind up costing more than something they could have bought from the US or the UK?

>>34029018
fun on a bun

>>34029018
holy shit, it poops out the shell

>>34027112
>>34028796
it's like these people have never heard of tank destroyers

>>34029068
just like everything else? yeah. you fucking retard. also it was far from bad

>>34029067
Um no the fact that this retard is trying to associate the abrams which used a complete;y different gun firing over pressured specialty rounds as a stop gap not. The US never used the L-7" we used a heavily modified varriant. he should have said the same gun as on the Centurion

>>34029085
td's could still traverse their guns. this design is just retardation

>>34029116
but it works so you're wrong.

>>34029116
There is video proof in this very thread of it effectively traversing the gun.

>>34027112
The S-Tank is ultimately a product of it's time and during that time it would have served the Swedish military well in its intended role.

It's low profile, emphasis on the ability to be used by very little crew and auto-loader are all subject to the design of the tank. While it is referred too as an MBT and is often compared to it's other contemporaries. Leopard 1, Chieftain, T-64, T-72, T-80, Late M-60 models and M1's.

It's a product of the cold war and designed to fight a conflict that never happened. Which is a Soviet, or possibly NATO, aligned invading force. As such, it is designed with defence in mind. It's low profile, high mobility, crew requirements are all based around this philosophy and as MBT's are considered the evolution of the Heavy, Medium and Light tank concepts. The S-Tank can be considered the evolution of the concept assault guns like the Stug brought to the table.

Spotting one of these things, and subsequently digging it out of a prepared fighting position would have been nightmarish for any assault force to consider. While the gun is somewhat lacklustre when compared to later model T-series tanks it would have still been more than adequate against the vast majority of soviet armour deployed at the time and, due to Sweden's neutrality and location, the idea that if one power bloc was invading, the other would come to their assistance.

1/??

>>34029145
>>34029150
it was removed from service for a reason. it's shit and there's a reason it was taken out of service other than the germans trying to sell them overpriced garbage

>>34029173
just stop, and cry you utter failure

>>34027112
>Mount the third crew member facing backwards so that he can drive when the vehicle is in reverse

>>34029100
Dude, it's Popular Mechanics, it's not exactly written for people who know things about stuff.

>>34029191
>In service 1960s–1997
>in service that long even tho it was shit
no, kid, it was removed because it became outdated and they decided to buy leo2s and have a single type of tank live everyone else for obvious reasons.

>>34029198
says the guy that's shitposting for a living on a mongolian cavepainting board

>>34029173
(cont.)

The S-Tank isn't a war winning weapon, not an impervious wonder weapon that'll single-handedly win any way it might get into. It serves as a cheap deterrence and a delaying action against hostile forces. Using a combination of both it's design and crew's knowledge of the surrounding terrain. The home advantage as it were.

It is not, however, a tank destroyer. Tank destroyers are almost entirely a doctrinal thing, tanks support the infantry, infantry support the tanks, tank destroyers fight other tanks but in actuality your normal tank can blow up an enemy tank just as well. Don't let video games and modern pop culture cloud your perception of such things. A Sherman could take out a panther just as well as a Panther could a Sherman and often he who fired first won. This then evolved further into the MBT concept which is why the S-tank is again, largely considered to be an MBT.

Doctrine determines a tanks role, a tank is a tool, much the same as a spade or a rifle. Both who is using it and how it's being used determines its effectiveness. I'm not that knowledgeable about Swedish armoured doctrine during the cold war but I can tell you that if you're throwing a spade at an enemy, you're probably doing it wrong. With the suspension controlling pitch and yaw of the gun, it doesn't make it conducive to firing on the move, as such it would favour more defensive/ambush tactics from prepared positions.

2/??

>>34029212
>swedecucks can't afford to buy new shit after threat of cold war dissipates for nearly 15 years
they got memed on by the germans because they can't design tanks worth a shit. they actually managed to be worse than small dicked german bloods. the s-tank was a failure among failures even the disaster that was the amx30 and the leo1 were used in actual combat. this piece of shit was just a decoration so the swedes could pretend they contributed to northag

>>34029245
you're trying to hard, buddy. at least give some reasonable arguments to your bullshit to make it move believable.

>>34029229
(cont.)

To conclude. The S-Tank is a tank. A tank designed to be used in certain ways yes, but still a tank. A Leopard 1 isn't expected to be able to take hits like the Leo-2, Abrams or Challenger. This is true of the S-Tank, it's a specialised tool to be used in a certain way. Whether it is actually good or not comes down to the competence of its crew. Much the same with pretty much any armoured vehicle under the sun. If you're using it wrong, it's going to go wrong.

I have a few bits of further reading/watching for those interested in the S-tank, which like any other tank is absolutely fascinating

https://tanks.mod16.org/2015/04/02/report-from-british-strv-103-trials-at-the-baor-1973/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOn6QrN6pCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59WYcjlnf-U
https://tanks.mod16.org/tag/s-tank/
http://tanknutdave.com/the-swedish-strv103-s-tank/

3/3

>>34029268
sorry m8 you're entire argument seems to have predicated on
>muh this thing looks cool and despite no other country ever using this piece of shit or it's design it must be good because muh norse genes
You're a fucking idiot this thing was a piece of shit
>bad ammo because swedecucked and still firing seated finless sabots like a tardo from the 1940's
>can't fire on the move
>lights on fire in testing rose than an m41 range target with powder bags strewn inside
>is slow despite being lighter than an airdropped light tank
>horrible ground clearance
>orrible gunnery
>non existent armor
>relies on dirt shoveling which was proven during the gulf war to not stop sabots at fucking all
the things a piece of shitank. now fuck off back to wot

>>34029322
and your whole argument is based on your opinions and assumptions
>can't fire on the move
it's made for ambush and defense.
>>lights on fire in testing rose than an m41 range target with powder bags strewn inside
what
>is slow
10km/h slower than an Abrams is slow? kek
>horrible ground clearance
nope
>orrible gunnery
baseless opinions/assumptions
>non existent armor
doesnt need armor for shoot n scoot
>relies on dirt shoveling
no, it's just an extra step to hide

please post more assumptions that you pulled out of your ass without backing it up with evidence

>>34029375
You're just feeding the troll dude. Let it go, it's for the best

>>34028946
>yfw fuel is used as armor on many modern designs

>>34029375
>10km when it weighs less than half of an abrams is bad
yes
>doesnt need armor for shoot n scoot
you're basically retarded if you think this is how tanks are used. there's a reason the leo 1 and amx30 were abject failures. this isn't your shitty pubbie shuffle wot kiddie game nerd

sorry friend but it seems your entire argument and failed attempt at a rebuttal is nothing but you puffing out your chest at how cool your never used norse genes piece of shit never was. get a life read a book and seek help ok friendo :^)

>>34029462
>yes
no
>you're basically retarded if you think this is how tanks are used.
read the doctrine for 103
>ignores all the other points he got rekt on

please tell me what life and books you got so i can avoid them and not turn out like you, friendo :^)

File: Grand_Panjandrum.jpg (160KB, 1200x898px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1200x898px

>>34027112
>of all time
>posts a modern tank


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjandrum

File: 1479391149726.jpg (85KB, 917x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 917x720px

>>34029513
>read the doctrine
Sorry friend if this is a little to fast for your sub community college mind ok my dude. You just aren't on my level if you can't even read my posts and comprehend why I discarded your alternative fact driven false rebuttals. there's no reason for you to project ok :^)

But don't be to upset don't cry to hard. You favorite wot trash tank was just a piece of shit IRL that never worked, but don't let that stop you just a have a good hard cry like you are now ok :^)

File: 918.png (9KB, 861x318px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 861x318px

>>34029592
Have a (you) for you contributions to the science of bait

>>34029592
>>34029615
nah he's not even good, way too obvious. i replied hoping he would post something better, even if it just resembled a chewed up preschooler's homework as some kind of source but it's just more of the same shit

File: 1495249373171.png (193KB, 327x320px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 327x320px

>>34029615
>>34029644
You sound really upset kiddster. tell you what. I'll head over to the gen to make sure I can makefun of you for your not knowing shit about tanks and have having shitty subhuman europoor stats. ok sweetie :^)

>>34029679
ok, have fun in your make-believe world, hun

File: unrotated projectile.webm (1019KB, 714x400px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 714x400px

>>34029563

>>34029644
Yeah, well, that's the nature of the place.

Since we were talking about tanks, and even though this is a b8 thread I might as well make some interesting content.

(I know it's worst weapons but I know the most about tanks.)
The interwar period certain produced a lot of odd balls, as did the cold war. But ultimately as I said before when I talked about the S-tank. A tank is a tool to be used, and if the tool cannot be effectively utilised in its role then it is a bad tool. This goes for everything, not just tanks. If the handle on a shovel snaps after relatively little use then it is a bad shovel.

Depending on who you ask a tank's role will differ but generally it comes down to a big armoured box, with a big gun that can support the infantry. If it can't accomplish to goal in any way it is a bad tank.

The Chieftain was considered to be a very dangerous machine however the problems with the Leyland multi-fuel engine seriously impacted it's potential effectiveness. Yes it's armour was sub-standard against more modern munitions it still packed a whopping big gun still in use today. It's effectiveness compounded by it's lack of reliability and resulting issues with mobility.

Late war german tanks suffered a similar issue. All the armour in the world wont help if you can't get to where you need to go and I'm sure it'll bring the Wheraboo's out in full force when I say that the Tiger II, Panther, Jagdtiger and such are bad tanks. Why? Because they seriously struggled in performing their given task due to over-complicated machinery and poor ability to perform maintenance.

File: Act of kindness.png (264KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 480x480px

>>34027112
Can you imagine that it is just 1 guy that keep's shitting on the stridsvagn 103 again and again and again after some video from the chieftians hatch?

Neither could I but seeing your thread made me realise how wrong I was.

>Soviet doctrine was to have hordes of very fast moving tanks to just swarm over shit
>Sweden makes a tank that can fire 1 round that won't hit anything and then has to retreat because it can't track anything because it moves so slow

SWEDEN YES

>>34029084
Most tanks nowadays do that AFAIK. Mainly the russian auto-loaders and the like.

File: wrongidiot.jpg (28KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x600px

>>34029801

>>34029750
JT is that you?

>>34029890
No, I'm just a tank enthusiast lamenting the lack of /thg/

File: Maus Slide.gif (1MB, 478x405px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 478x405px

>>34029754
>after some video from the chieftians hatch?
Wait, how could the Chieftain not like the S-tank? Just look at all that space to sleep on!

>>34029191
>it was removed from service for a reason.

Yeah, and that reason was that the threat of Soviet/Russian invasion no longer necessitated a dedicated tank destroyer.

I swear, summer comes earlier every year.

>>34030754
>a dedicated tank destroyer.
>
>I swear, summer comes earlier every year.

>>34029173
>>34029229
>>34029298


Good posts, all very well said. Absolutely correct in everything written out.

>>34031114
>t-they never called it a tank destroyer, so it couldn't have been a tank destroyer

PROTIP: it was a tank destroyer

OP how long have you been on this website/board and how old are you?

>>34031327
confidence is cute when it's combined with ignorance

File: 1455909407442.jpg (16KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 447x444px

>>34028975
>blow up a tank with HE

>>34028796
It's was an old Main Battle Tank. Not an assault gun as the Swedes like to correct people on.

File: Focke-Wulf_Ta_154.jpg (103KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 500x290px

>delaminates in flight

>>34028956
For the same reason you'd shoot someone, before throwing them out of a plane.

>>34028848
They dropped a 1000 lbs napalm bomb on it
Napalm test begins at 18:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw

So i it doesn't matter if all those canisters start leaking and begin to burn.

>>34029068
>didn't this piece of shit actually wind up costing more than something they could have bought from the US or the UK?
Yeah, because its a better tank.

>>34029229
>It serves as a cheap deterrence and a delaying action against hostile forces.
It wasn't cheap at all. This isn't STUG or some stop gap solution where they just removed the turret because it was cheaper. They looked at how tanks without turrets did just fine against hordes of commies zerg rushing through Europe and then they thought ''hey, looks like you don't really need a turret when defending and it only makes you a bigger target and more vulnerable anyway'' and then they built tank with a front armor that was literally invulnerable to any contemporary eastern block tank of its time and it also had a really good targeting system for its time.

And it did just fine on trials when compared to other western tanks.

>>34033325
>its a better tank.
It costs more and sacrifices the ability to act offensively for a low silhouette. In theory it could've worked for the swedes but I don't see how it's overall better.

File: He177.jpg (838KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 1920x1080px

>>34027112
>In every way except physical, I am HE177
>[Catches Fire]

>>34029828
nice reply

>>34028848
>What the fuck is ERA?
>He thinks some fuel on the outside can hurt a tank that can withstand a napalm bomb
Strv 103 was a shit tank, but you are fucking dumb nevertheless.

>>34033679
There where few good western tanks of that era.
The burgers where rolling with fucking M60s against T-64 and T-72 while krauts and frogs had tanks that would get raped by a WWII era ZiS-2 gun.
The Strv 103 could stand up to HEAT from the front and kinetic projectiles up until the APFSDS from 125mm cannons came about.
The Strv 103 had a longer 105mm gun than NATO standard to boot which made it more accurate and hit harder and it was mostly hidden inside the tank making itself less prone to thermal drift than other tanks. Only tanks with thermal sleeves did well otherwise, a thing that the patton lacked unti the RISE upgrade.
It did perform well compared to other tanks, only half a second difference between the 103 and a contemporary Centurion when it came to finding and engaging targets in the favor of the 103. While it had disadvantages compared to regular tanks it also had strength that others lacked, it was by no means a bad tank for its time if used with the right doctrine.

>>34033761
The advantages you just listed make it a worthy self-propelled tank destroyer, not a tank and all the less so MBT.

>>34029801
S-Tanks were more accurate than American M60A1s during testing at Fort Knox, but fired 0.5 seconds slower on average due to the autoloader.

Fuck off back to /pol/.

>>34033828
Trials at Aberdeen and Fort Knox show otherwise, it performed just as well as its contemporaries (Latest Centurions & M60A1s), and they found no deficiencies to it not having a turret.
The bad thing about it is that the design went nowhere since gun stabilizers were good enough by the mid 80's to allow accurate firing on the move.

M60s and Centurions can still hold up today thanks to upgrades giving them some composite armour/ERA, modern sensor suites and gun stabilizers.

please define "tank destroyer" and say how the strv103 fits that better than, say an m1a1, which for years could only fire antiarmor ammo from its main gun

>>34028848
>implying those are oil canisters
>implying external oil canisters will do any damage to a modern tank if they are damaged.
You must be 18+ to post here.

>>34029191
Yeah, because tanks that have been in use for 40 years tend to be worn out as shit.

>>34035112
It made for a pretty good short range mortar, tho.

>>34034523
>it performed just as well as its contemporaries
Its contemporaries that lacked gun stabilisation.
>they found no deficiencies to it not having a turret
Except for that little part that you can't even aim on the move, let alone fire.
>gun stabilizers were good enough by the mid 80's
Gun stabilisers were good enough right away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55_Fire_Controls
>M60s and Centurions can still hold up today thanks to upgrades giving them some composite armour
Never happened.

>S-Tank takes position
>Spots enemy at 45 degree angle
>Have to turn entire tank
>Show off side of the tank to entire enemy force

SMRT

>>34034483
please provide source

>>34033291
So they don't fight back as you throw them out of the plane?

>>34029245
So what should sweden had done, oh great one?

Bought more british?
centurion
>is a 20 yo old design in the 60s.
chieftain
>lol expensive and fuck u guv for thinking you can have it!

Bought german?
Leopard
>sorry not NATO puts you on the last spot on the list for the already strained production line, can you wait 15 years?

Bought american?
M48...
>just no

French
>AMX something or other
>Was an option, but then you would have to deal with french people.

>>34034483
>when firing at stationary targets
>soviet doctrine was to swarm masses of fast moving tanks and armor

try again swedecuck

>>34028848
>>34028924
>>34033294
>>34033679
>>34035165
I think he was talking about the T-34 "Fuel tank armor"

>>34027112
This was a really great tank at that time, because other tanks had shitty stabilizers so a fixed turret wasnt such a drawback. Combined with a low profile and smaller weight, it was an interesting design.

There was a thread about it on reddit on a history sub, which explained it pretty well.
>inb4 muh reddit

>>34029375
>made for ambush and defence
This is something that even the designer convinced himself of late in the S-tanks career. In the original specs and in the tactics it first was used it was intended to smash into the flank of a soviet breakout from a beachhead.

It wasnt any slower than turreted tanks to first shot on the advance and the armor was very good for the 60s.
>dat slope

Later in life when they where expected to meet something more competent than a pt-76 and bmps its primary role changed to delaying action. That happened quite early on.

It was however quite good at breaking down and getting stuck in ditches. And my god the hydraulics apparently was a nightmare when it broke.

>>34035908
Turning the tank is STILL even today faster than turning the turrent

Even today you need to stop your tank to fire.

Turrets are an overrated meme, compared to small 2 man casemate tanks.

>>34028796
They where defensive tank destroyers that where made for the Swedish environment and to be stationary from what I heard

Waiting for someone to start screaming that the L7 was a bad gun and that a 90mm gun is better because it is.

File: 4Lc8tWU.jpg (113KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 540x960px

the ar15. constantly jams and blows up but fudds still worship them because the feds had political subsity dick up the ass and wanted something cheap enough to buy and pocket the rest. a good show of the dependability of the weapon is how many countries use it..the ak is king here

File: amx30-firepower-obus-g-heat-round-page-1-e1428293708533.jpg (2MB, 2664x3632px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2664x3632px

>>34036129
Did export models of the AMX-30 still get the Obus G? Because if France isn't willing to share their special snowflake ammo there's not much reason to shell out for the frog tank unless you're married to the idea of a 20mm coaxial.

They could also have gone with the Vickers, but that's both too capitalist for the Swedes and forces you onto a user list populated solely by people who poop in the street.

>>34036445
I'm just going to agree with you out of spite for the yanks.

>>34029067
The L7 didn't really exist during the 1950s:
Centurion Mk.7 went into service 1959.

File: 1402134112.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>34028933

>>34036511
Centurion Mk.5 was the first to mount the L7.

File: t-62 (5).jpg (572KB, 1247x896px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1247x896px

>>34036129
>So what should sweden had done, oh great one?
It should've stopped trying to be special and develop a proper MBT instead of a glorified self-propelled artillery.

>>34029438
>yfw fuel tank is used as armor on both sides of the driver on the M1

>>34036547

Why tho? For swedish conditions the S-tank was perfect.

>>34036547
>proper mbt
>shows off a soviet deathtrap.

>>34036527
>"The first tank to be equipped with the L7 was a single uparmoured Centurion Mark 7 in 1959 which was to prove the viability of up-armouring and up-gunning the Centurion."

>>34036129
>implying there's anything wrong with the M48A5

>>34036602
are you telling me the S-tank is
>a turkey

>>34036599
>Centurion Mk 5/2.
Upgunned to 105 mm.
>Centurion Mk 7
Revised engine decks, and a third internal fuel tank

File: t-64a.jpg (88KB, 580x483px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 580x483px

>>34036571
Because a tank is only useful as long as it can at least hit something.
>For swedish conditions the S-tank was perfect.
Strv 103 relies heavily on defensive terrain and lacks any ability to effectively engage flanking targets, while at the same time being super-exposed to air strikes due to its nature of a sitting duck. If Sweden's intention was to be rolled over and bombed into oblivion in a matter of a week, then yes, the S-"tank" was perfect.

>>34036620
>no radio operators machine gun
>not an M113
>too much useless junk

Confirmed turkey

>>34035834
South Africa still uses Centurions, dick nuts.

>>34036662
Are you a retard
A tank can turn itself faster than it can turn its turret, the S-tank was superior to all its contemporaries

A modern "S-tank" would be ideal

>>34035908
>turn tank to shoot at enemy
>some how you are now exposing your side to the enemy
Retard.

>>34036635
The Centurion Mk 5 and Mk 7 (and Mk8) were originally fitted with the 20lbr, when the L7 was brought into service it was retrofitted onto the Mk 5 and 7 in the form of the Mk 5/2 and the Mk 7/2 respectively.
As i said though, the Mk 7 got it first.

>>34029150

traversing the gun and effectively traversing the gun are different things

this traverses but not very effectively

File: t-64a (1).jpg (1MB, 1200x933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x933px

>>34036678
>What the fuck is gun stabilisation?
It's contemporary was T-64A, dumbass.

>>34036678
And a tank with a turret can engage a target faster by combining the turning ration of its turret and its tracks. There's no scenario here where the Swedish meme tank is remotely useful.

>>34036748
You know how many T-64s that would be fielded against sweden?
>0

>and thinking gun stabilisation made by soviets is something that would be remotely useful

>>34036762
TURNING RATIO

File: Infantry Protection.png (210KB, 699x432px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 699x432px

>>34036175
>I think he was talking about the T-34 "Fuel tank armor"
That was of being no concern, because T-34 already was of having meat armor.

>>34036744
>when the L7 was brought into service it was retrofitted onto the Mk 5 and 7 in the form of the Mk 5/2 and the Mk 7/2 respectively.
This would imply they were fitted with it at the same time.

File: infantry protection original.jpg (255KB, 1500x942px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1500x942px

>>34036771
Here's a better one: do you know how many Strv 103s would have survived Soviet invasion? Zero, shit was so useless it ain't even worth saving it for a museum.
>Thinking a turretless meme tank made by swedes had something that even remotely compensated for its complete inability to serve as am MBT
>>34036778
>This meme again
Daily reminder.

>>34036778
>what are internal tanks

>>34029828

Swede cuck detected

Your new strategy of ruining your country with mudskins and liberal zealots seems to be working. No one wants to invade the cancer that is Sweden.

Well done Sweden. Your ancestors will torment you for eternity in the afterlife and you deserve it.

>>34036826
I wonder if you are a troll or a vatnik, its hard to tell sometimes

>>34032077

So it is an assault gun to be used purely in a defensive role?

Think about it.

>can't fire at moving targets
>is ambush vehicle that has to wait for targets to move into its field of fire

this tank is seriously the most retarded shit ever

File: you tried.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>34036860
>Anyone who is telling the truth about the swedish meme tank is either a troll or a vatnik
Next time just buy a german argument instead of your own.

>>34036911
enjoy being a third world nation vatnik
>average russian makes less than the average poo in the loo

File: Infantry Protection.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>34036826
Anon, it's a fucking joke. It makes you go haha. Curb your autism and stop sperging out.

>>34036852
Is this some sort of Xzibit thing? Where there are tanks in my tanks so I can tank while I'm tanking?

Because if so, you did indeed hear correctly, I like tanks.

File: syrian land.png (3KB, 572x60px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 572x60px

>>34036924
Good, good, let your butthurt flow through you, swedecuck. Enjoy being known as the nation that thought the meme tank was a good idea.

>>34036859
>Your ancestors will torment you for eternity in the afterlife
>implying any of them will get into Valhalla

>>34036957
Please vatnik stop embarassing yourself,. when you have a real argument il care.

File: sweden yes.jpg (1MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3648x2736px

>>34036959
The battle for a muslim cock for your wife is still a battle, I suppose.

>>34036554
word. like i was saying

>>34029988
Moran seemed to like the S-tank.
He said there's some flaws and sacrifices made to the interior to make things more compact, but he also says someone his size would never have been assigned to the vehicle.
Getting a look inside of one was really neat because I never understood them that much.

Definitely a unique, and perhaps overly-complex, solution to the problem Sweden faced but the Swedes made it work and I can see where they were coming from with their design choices. A tank, which can be operated by one crewman if needed, that can position itself to fire a few rounds on advancing enemy armor and then flee to the next position. Sweden could never hope to fight the Soviets in a full on battle so they had to fight smart.
Still waiting on the last video in The Chieftain's series for it, he gets to drive one.

>>34036975
>Asks for a real argument in response to his complete absence of argument
You have nothing on gun stabilisation and CAS, swedecuck.

>>34037006
>CAS
Just move, like any other tank. Defencive warfare =/= static warfare

It has two drivers (or well 3, if you count the commander) for a reson.

>Gun stabilization
It was shit in the 50s and nobody expected it to get any better over the forseable future. Today however it would be a terrible idea to build something like the S-tank.

>>34036662
>russian air strikes
>hitting
Nice meme.
Even today russia have a problem with hitting targets in open terrain as showed by their lackluster performance with pinpoint targets in syrian desert conditions.
If you think that they could hit in heavily forrest conditions, think again.

The Strv 103 could accurately hit targets on the move and employ effective shoot and scoot tactics, something the russians would take heavy losses to.

>>34037056
>The Strv 103 could accurately hit targets on the move

No. It naturally could not, it had to stop for a few seconds

>>34033504
>He-117
>Start Engines. Catches Fire
>Rotate Turret. Catches Fire
>Hans the Gunner Rubs his Hand and generate static energy. Catches Fire
>Olaf the Pilot ajust Flap to takeoff. Catches Fire

>>34036957
At least Sweden has something to be destroyed.
In russia you have mostly russians, a race of subhumans looking and behaving like bleached niggers.

>>34037074
Hit moving targets, that they could hit targets that moved.
There are vatniks in this thread that seems to think the Strv 103 was incapable of this.

>>34037124
Oh. Yeah, well that it was good at.

>>34037036
Just moving means you are abandoning your defensive position and becoming pretty much useless being unable to hit anything.
>Defencive warfare =/= static warfare
It is if you have self-propelled artillery instead of tanks.
>It was shit in the 50s
It was not shit even in the 50s, let alone in the late 60s when Strv-103 was actually introduced.
>nobody expected it to get any better over the forseable future
So just admit swedes were incapable of developing it. It makes sense seeing how they just bought Leo 2 instead of trying to build something on their own and fail desperately again.
>>34037056
>Not hitting sitting ducks
Nice meme.
>Even today russia have a problem with hitting targets
Except it does not.
>as showed by their lackluster performance
Not as showed by nothing then.
>with pinpoint targets in syrian desert conditions
All of which were destroyed through high altitude bombing and not CAS.
>The Strv 103 could accurately hit targets on the move
Lol. The swedecuck is this desperate. Try harder.

>>34028796
This tank was developed in an era where stabilizers on tanks were shit and had to stop to fire. The Swedes knew that and traded the turret for better armor/profile.

File: house sweden.jpg (25KB, 251x367px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 251x367px

>>34037095
>The swedecuck is broken
>Just like his cuck"tank" concept

>>34037152
>stabilizers on tanks were shit
No, they were not.
>and had to stop to fire
The swedish meme tank had to stop to even begin aiming, retard.

>>34029229
So whether or not a vehicle is a tank can be decided by the way it is used?

So if i strap a steel plate on the front side of my pickup and a machinegun in the back and i use it to charge at the enemy and engage armored vehicle does that make it a tank?

Get out of here you pretentious twat

>>34033828
Also the 103 had one of the first autloaders

>>34037173
Find me a NATO tank from the era who could hit anything while moving

>>34037139
>destroyed
>russia
>in syria
Kek, I remember those threads.
>w-we meant to hit that patch of dirt instead of the building, h-honest!

That aside, the Strv 103could do what it was designed to do, hide, kill a few tanks and reverse away and hide again before a response could be organized.

>>34036987
But if you're not holding a weapon when you die you don't get in. And even in a post knife-binning society holding the bull's johnson doesn't count.

>>34037139
>Just moving means you are abandoning your defensive position and becoming pretty much useless being unable to hit anything.
Same goes for any tank with a 50s FCS. Still tho, I recomend that you look up the concept of "Fördröjningsstrid", whatever that is called in english.

>It is if you have self-propelled artillery instead of tanks.
The same could in that case be said about infantry, since soldiers cant hit anything while moving, by your definition they should not move when defending something.

>It was not shit even in the 50s, let alone in the late 60s when Strv-103 was actually introduced.

Yes it was, just read combat reports from the time, and come back when someone accuratly hit something while on the move.

> makes sense seeing how they just bought Leo 2

It was more a case of how the germans had tons of Leos after the cold war that they sold of dirt cheap.

>>34037056

By hitting targets on the move, do you mean run into them? Because they are not hitting shit with that gun on the move.

So now it is a kamikaze tank, that is really an assault gun but only for defensive purposes, and a tank killer that will use static ambush tactics on a highly mobile battlefield.

The kamikaze idea may be the best bet.

>>34037198
>one of the first autoloaders
Nigger, autoloaders have been a thing since WW2

File: Russia+people+is+like+black+but+wrong+colour+by+accident+_c1bd5190d66c15d95ee748b8f00f2520.jpg (21KB, 974x160px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 974x160px

>>34037154
Aww, how cute, a russian thinking he's human :^)

>>34037094
>Fitting fire extinguisher system to engines: turns out they're made of fire

>>34037094
>It rains. Catches Fire

>>34037231
See
>>34037124

>>34037231
>By hitting targets on the move, do you mean run into them? Because they are not hitting shit with that gun on the move.

An integral part of training was for the gunner to be able to hit moving targets at long range, and conscripts did this all the time...

>>34037235
Don't be pedantic.

>>34037283
https://youtu.be/OpbdGnJbneE

>>34029054
Pls make this happrn

>>34037257

Hitting targets on the move and hitting moving targets are different things anon.

Anon said it could accurately hit targets on the move.

I'm sure they did train to "hit targets that are moving". I was trained to fight with an e-tool but I would pick pretty much anything other than that to fight with. That tank abomination would be the worst tool on the battlefield for actually hitting another tank that was moving, it cannot hit dick while actually moving.

>>34037313
It's true the Strv 103 could not accurately fire while moving but that it could not hit moving targets is just plain wrong.
It could hit moving targets just as well as any tank from that era.

>>34037218
None existed. Soviet tanks could since 1956.
>>34037223
>Memes
>From swedecuck
>About Syria
Kek, I remember those threads.
>P-p-p-p-please, stop liberating Aleppo, peaceful terrorists are dying...
Who controls Aleppo now? Say the line, yropoor.
>Strv 103could do what it was designed to do
It had a design of a self-propelled artillery gun and could to exactly that, be a self-propelled artillery gun.
>hide
Can't hide from air forces.
>kill a few tanks
Can't kill any tank if you are a self-propelled artillery gun without the support of the actual tanks.
>and reverse away
Can't retreat while returning fire, no one to return fire for you, since you are supposed to be a tank.
>>34037227
>Same goes for any tank with a 50s FCS.
More like for any tank without a turret and gun stabilisation.
>I recomend that you look up the concept of "Fördröjningsstrid"
Can't effectively delay the enemy offence of the the enemy outflanks you and has air superiority.
>The same could in that case be said about infantry
Infantry are not tanks. What did you even expect to achieve with such a blatant false analogy?
>Yes it was
No, it was not.
>come back when someone accuratly hit something while on the move
Come back when someone else was dumb enough back then to develop something alike Strv 103 and call it an MBT. So basically never. Strv 103 had to stop to even aim at the target, let alone to fire. T-55 could aim on the move, as well as accurately fire as long as it was moving straight. The ability to aim on the move alone is infinitely advantageous.
>It was more a case of how the germans had tons of Leos after the cold war that they sold of dirt cheap.
Gee, how come no one was ever interested in buying Strv 103 or even bothered producing it in large numbers? Could it be because actual tanks are better as tanks than self-propelled artillery?
>>34037237
Aww, how cute, a swedecuck desperately keeps trying to justify the swedish meme "tank".

>>34028975
>what is APFSDS

>>34037357

That is pure delusion. A tank with a turret will be more capable of hitting a moving object than a tank that has to turn.

In combat the enemy tank can be anywhere and preferred cover can be anywhere. A tank with a turret can continue to move in bad terrain and fire at the enemy while heading to better terrain.

A turretless tank can only face the enemy. To move to better ground it has no offense, once there it is now a sitting duck as it tries to spin around to return fire.

If it goes static to traverse, the enemy now is shooting at a stationary tank and stationary tank is shooting at a moving tank. The odds are in the moving tanks favor.

The handicap of not having a turret is evident in the fact that no current tank is built that way. If it was even marginally competitive, the cost savings and increased simplicity of manufacture would breed a few turretless tanks. It doesn't because it is not even close.

It is WWII at best technology being applied at a time when everyone else had advanced, including the enemy it was designed to fight.

>>34037378
>and has air superiority.
Back in those days we had the fourth largest air force on the planet. Way bigger than what the Soviets would be able to field against us (given the fact that they would also at the same time fight Nato and every other western nation)

>Come back when someone else was dumb enough back then to develop something alike Strv 103 and call it an MBT. So basically never. Strv 103 had to stop to even aim at the target, let alone to fire. T-55 could aim on the move, as well as accurately fire as long as it was moving straight. The ability to aim on the move alone is infinitely advantageous.
>T-55
>Hitging anything on the move

Hell, today even 50 years later the T-55s and T-72s stop to fire in Syria...

>Gee, how come no one was ever interested in buying Strv 103 or even bothered producing it in large numbers?
It was produced in the numbers ordered by the Swedish army.

>Everything that isnt exported is shit

Soviets exported tons of stuff, and guess what, whenever it ends up in combat, it turns out to be shit.

>>34037378
>remember those threads.
No such threads vatnik :^)
There where plenty of threads about how shit the russian showings in syria is though as it's painfully hard for russia to hide how obsolete and inefficient it's military is.

>Can't hide from air forces
You are especially retarded,even for a vatnik
The russians have always had crude and inferior optics and sensors, your planes are no exception. Hiding a battalion of tanks from russia would be just as easy as spring a trap with Strv 103 against them as russians are so inferior.

>>34037472
>Implying "NATO and every other western nation" would even bother considering openly defending a non-member against the full force of the WarPac in Europe
Face it, the difference between the first and the fourth air forces was stupendous.
>The gunner had to be careful to figure out where to aim the stabilised gun around the target to avoid such overshooting. That's one of the particular reasons why a well-trained gunner was a very useful asset in a T-54 and T-55 tank. Nevertheless, the tank could fire accurately despite the lack of ballistic computers if the tank was moving at lower speed, or if heading straight towards its target. Also, additional markings to either sides of the main aiming chevron on the TSh2B-32 sight could help the gunner to aim more precisely on the move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55_Fire_Controls#The_gunner
Deal with it.
>Hell, today even 50 years later
Poor training. I repeat. Strv 103 couldn't even aim on the move. T-55 could both aim and shoot. You are basically admitting swedes couldn't even hope to develop anything on the level of T-55 stabilisation, let alone T-64A, the actual contemporary tank.
>whenever it ends up in combat, it turns out to be shit
Less shit than amerishit, that's for pretty damn sure seeing how T-72 kept butchering all western tanks it ment in combat up until 1991.

>>34037465
>Moving goalposts: The post
All you can retort with is how stopping to fire makes you easier to hit.
You have yet to adress why this makes the tank unable to hit a moving target. All you come up with is
"A tank with a turret will be more capable of hitting a moving object than a tank that has to turn." which shows you that you probably is a WoT kiddie that should go back to the wot forums and complain about the Strv 103.
There are no real life reports describing the problems you try to lay on the Strv 103s ability to hit a moving target but there are reports showing that the 103 could do so just as well as turreted NATO contemporaries.

>>34033272
You and the Sweedes can call it a main battle tank, but that doesn't make it true.

>>34037577
>Less shit than amerishit, that's for pretty damn sure seeing how T-72 kept butchering all western tanks it ment in combat up until 1991
>It was great until it actually faced Western tanks and it turned out to be shit
Fucking kek vatniks, I swear.

>>34037601
>Western tanks before M1A1 were not western
Fucking amerishits on suicide watch, I swear.

>>34037585

What is the Strv 103s combat record? How can there be any complaints.

Pretty sure Sweden is going to publish how bad their tank is compared to an actual tank with a turret.

The problems I pointed out are what makes it a bad tank. It is a sitting duck that cannot turn it's weapon without turning the whole tank, it cannot effectively fire on the move, it cannot seek better terrain and suppress.

AND it cannot fire on a moving tank as well as a tank with a turret.

Can it fire on the move at a moving tank? NO
Can a tank with a turret do so? YES
Can it move the hull and barrel to get on target faster? NO
Can a tank with a turret do so? YES
Can it convoy with a tank focused on center, one left, one right, and one rear? NO
Can a tank with a turret do so? YES
Can it go hull down in an entrenchment and still engage targets that are not dead straight ahead of it? NO
Can a tank with a turret do it? YES

It is an outdated and poor design for the time and even static, a tank with a turret will outperform it on moving targets.

The goalpost is a good tank. It never moved. It's not a good tank, not a good assault gun, not a good ambush tank killer. It is just a bad design that they had to live with.

ITT:
>vatniks are so tired about always being massively BTFO in every thread where they try to show that they are still relevant against NATO that they decide to pick on one of the smaller neutral nations instead

Are russians the leading producers of butthurt? I do believe russian posters feel more butthurt per poster than the next five nationalities combined.

>>34037637
Except the kikes wrecked pretty much any vatnik tank they faced without the M1. Turns out russian gear is trash. Again.

>>34037673
Except the kikes got slaughtered by T-72.
>In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[25] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[26] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[25][27]

>>34037649
>b-but it cannot be used in the russian doctrine so it HAS to be bad!
No kid, the russian doctrine was bat not the Swedish tank.
You try to fit it into a role it was never intended.
Those roles where filled by the Centurions alongside which the 103 served.
It is a tank designed to shoot and fall back and at the time of concept up until the mid 80s, no tank could fire on the move and hit accurately enough to make it viable beyond a desperation tactics, especially not the soviet tanks.

>>34028796
It's not an assault gun and there's no need to traverse the gun when the tank will traverse smoothly on its own.

>>34037716
>no tank could fire on the move and hit accurately enough to make it viable beyond a desperation tactics
But, anon, muh T-55 had magic stabilizer that made it hit with pinpoint precision. You Americans would have been able to do this but you didn't bother stabilizing your guns until you designed the M3 Lee.

>>34037700
This is a case where russian trust the words of muslims I presume?
The kikes hotly contest those events.
In any case, the 80s saw the Leo2, a tank vastly superior to the T-72.

>>34037763
This is a case where american trust the words of kikes I presume?
>Leo2, a tank vastly superior to the T-72
That is if you compare modern Leo 2 variants to old T-72s.

>>34036742

Are you under some delusional "ONE V ONE ME RETARD" believe that in real life there's only ever a single enemy and that turning your whole vehicle so you're now facing their lines with your SIDE is not a big fucking disadvantage?

>>34037781
If you compare contemporary Leo 2 with a T-72, the leo 2 is still far superior.

>>34037659
>Are russians the leading producers of butthurt?
They are neck to neck with the Poles. Every day, Poles and Russians strive to out-butthurt each other, but neither can gain a decisive advantage. Over time, they are both becoming even more butthurt without ever being able to settle which of the two is world champion of butthurt.

>>34037783
Just because the russian tankers are retarded it doesn't mean other tankers are so too.
The 103 is meant to fire and fall back over and over. Also, Swedish terrain does not exactly allow for a kilometre wide tank formation and if you tried you'd be picked apart from the innumerable forest lines.

>>34037814
Leo 2 is only far superior if it's a modern Leo 2 model and the T-72 model in question is obsolete.

>>34037783
Real life is not a video game. Tanks do not operate alone, they do not have enemies on every side and if they do, they are fucked no matter which way they turn.

>>34037883
Even the most hyped up T-72B3 is markedly inferior to the leo 2A5, let alone later models.

>>34027112
Pic related worked fine and could engage as easily as contemporary M-60. You just chose a random pic because you are fucking AFV-illiterate and stupid on top of that.

It's a superb defensive tank. German StuG kill rates in WWII were better than all their other AFV.

After it aged out of service it made more economic sense to buy a standard Leo. All design, and purchase, choices are compromises.

>>34037909
Except that this is of course vice versa and T-72B3 is on par with the latest Leo 2 and M1 modifications.

>>34037923
All the T-72B3 is good at is automatically cremating the three doomed vatniks inside when they roll out to meet their inescapable death at the hands of vastly superior Leo 2s and M1A2s.

File: 1487584150581.jpg (65KB, 596x399px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 596x399px

this is the worst thread ever

File: 1493876580632.jpg (36KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x375px

>>34038241
I concur. A whole bunch of arm-chair generals.

Typical faggotry.

>>34038609
>Dat G2 Feelin'
Feels like resistance is fusil.

>>34036676
Do the Israelis still hold them in reserve?

File: defiesswedishlogic.jpg (12KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 276x183px

>>34037716

You really are a fairy tale believing douche. Tank guns have been stabilized since 1938 and American tanks in 1944.

It's a bad tank, it's not thinking outside of the box, it's a indefensible hole that Sweden threw money into that could have been spent on a real tank.

Turrets. Been around since the Civil War. Apparently space magic to Sweden in 1950.

Sweden YES. Turrets NO.

>>34038736

Even ants have turret technology.

Next Sweden will defend bolt action rifles versus auto loaders as they can fire just as fast and accurate.

>>34038241
It certainly got personal. My the Vatnik sure tried to beat up the quiet kid in the school yard and ended up with a bloody nose, didn't he?

>>34038736
>vatnik thinks all stabilized systems has perfect accuracy, stabilizers was perfected 70 years ago

Do you have literal brain damage mayhap?
Stabilizers where good enough to fire accurately on the move came about in the 80s and russia being bacwards and crude didn't get good ones until after they ran their illegal empire into the dirt.
Also that boat was designed by a swede :^)

>>34038736
At least you managed not to stick an "n" in turret. That's a high bar for someone with such poor grasp of logic and reason.

>>34038914

Turrets were around even before stabilizers.

A 50s era stabilized turret is dramatically better than a non turret.

A Swede that was smart enough to leave Sweden. Apparently, they don't like turrets there and will defend that dumb decision to the death.

>>34039016

Says the moron defending a turretless tank. Things become extinct for a reason anon, the reason is not because they were good ideas.

How can this much butthurt be contained in one little Russian?

File: me163in1945.jpg (31KB, 809x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 809x375px

I guess when you're desperate, you make bad decisions

It's like half of /k/ has never heard of tank destroyers...

>>34039625

All of /k/ has heard of them. Just only half is smart enough to know they were obsolete in the '60s.

>>34039625
It's just a Russian who is mad about the Swedes taking home the hockey world championship.

>>34029298
Well said.

>>34039850
So if the Swedes had lost he'd be leafposting?

>>34039625
It's like you have never heard of ATGMs

File: s-tank for the empire.jpg (2MB, 3161x2107px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3161x2107px

>>34027112
No, space-tank is fine. So say Emperor Palpatine

>>34039625
No, it's rather like swedes pretend it's anything other than self-propelled artillery.
>>34039850
http://stats.iihf.com/Hydra/416/IHM416A01_74_3_0.pdf
Ahem. Also better swedes than fucking leafs.

>>34041135
>Stormtrooper S-Tank
Much like vatnik's continuing argument, this vehicle is incapable of hitting.

File: aaaea53698b7a02733e4c713364bef42.jpg (45KB, 700x385px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 700x385px

>>34027112
I came here to post something worse

>>34029058
>L/62
>same gun

>>34028946
Why won't you buy some diesel and drop a lit match in it?

>>34039144
You're like a vatnik don Quijote, completely detached from reality, fighting for a cause that is only real inside your warped mind.
The rest of the world found that the S-tank was a viable concept while your sick mind deluded itself into thinking that a 30s tank could fire with pinpoint accuracy while moving flat out.

>>34039144
>Things become extinct for a reason anon, the reason is not because they were good ideas.
These days the primary reason is because we killed them all. But stronk Russian bear never managed to kill even a single S-Tank.

>>34039694
Good thing the S-tank was a tank then rather than a tank destroyer.

>>34029032
>implying anyone could ever know what they can clearly see right on the side

>>34041135
>no less then 6 different weapons that will be sheared of if you pass through some shrub.
This design is ridiculously shitty, i designed better tanks when i made drawings as a 4 year old kid.