When will the turret meme die?

>>34590390
When will Swedes abandon there dumb hull mounted designs

>>34590959
1997

File: 65266836455625896.gif (3MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x180px

8/10 for style
0/10 for survivability

>>34590390
Great way to throw a track just to show off.

>too poor to afford a turret

>>34590390
In an era when stabelizors was absolute shit it made sense. After all it could turn its tracks faster than most tanks could turn its turret.

Today however it would be a terrible idea, and thats why they are not used anymore

>>34591399
To throw a track in that thing was really quite hard

File: 1495241541389.jpg (37KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x328px

>>34591278
Hey, when you're going to spend your entire service life at home not seeing any conflict you might as well have some style.

File: kellys-heroes-6.jpg (109KB, 1435x620px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1435x620px

>>34590390
I don't know man, if you add a pipe next to that turret. The enemy might think it's another 120mm next to that 100mm turret.

>>34591559
The Stridsvagen was made in the 60s. Stabilizers were fine at that point. While stabilizers for NATO didn't peak until the 70s, there was still no justification for hull mounted over turret. It didn't make sense at all it was just another case of poor design choice revolving around costs. Who knows, maybe their logic was since a cold war gone hot would mainly revolve around NATO on the defensive and thus they thought hull mounted didn't matter and it was cheaper.

File: 1448027466849.jpg (223KB, 2048x1437px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 2048x1437px

>>34591844
>posting stridsvagn for ants

>>34591918
Doctrine pretty much everywhere taught to halt before firing. It made sense at the time with the no turret design. Tests at Aberdeen showed that the turretless design had no significant drawbacks to contemporaries but one cannot argue that it was not a dead end in the light of how good stabilizers became just a decade later.

>>34591918
Stabelizors wasnt good in the 60's (or 50's when it was designed). Just look at the conflicts of that day, in almost every engagement the tanks stops before fiering.

And yeah cost was a big issue too. Having no turret made it rather cheap, wich allowed us to have more Strv 103s.

Sweden wasnt (Isnt) a Nato member, but yeah, our overall doctrine was defensive, and we didnt expect to fight elsewere then in Sweden.

>>34591918
>no justification for hull mounted over turret
>Studies of casualty reports from World War II and the Korean War revealed that the risk of being hit in combat was strongly related to height, with more than half of tank losses being the result of the turret being penetrated
>Swedish experience with Centurions suggested that, in order for tanks to reach acceptable accuracy, they would need to come to a halt anyway
I mean sure you can argue with whether those are good justifications or not but they are justifications nonetheless.

File: t-80u height comparison with strv103.png (849KB, 1600x435px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 1600x435px

>>34590390
Never

>>34592089
Is the interior of the T80 as cramped as the shitty T64?

File: 1448025099863.jpg (397KB, 2048x1719px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 2048x1719px

>>34592643
Dumping

File: 1448025037135.jpg (258KB, 2048x1477px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 2048x1477px

>>34592646

File: j8slUoP[1].jpg (64KB, 700x365px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x365px

The Strv 103 blasted everything it came across in exercises, including Leos 2.

>>34591871
Who do you think we are? Germans?

File: 1442248109516.jpg (352KB, 1841x2048px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1841x2048px

>>34592651

File: 1450175974660.jpg (62KB, 720x695px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x695px

>>34592679

File: pPgI3H3.jpg (255KB, 1415x821px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1415x821px

>>34592683

File: qUTo7cV.jpg (55KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 630x420px

>>34590390
really tho when will the hull meme die

>>34592722
>a fucking nuke

>>34592089
Fair point, but consider that there's less actual tank sticking up above the gun on the wedgetank than on the T-80.

If you're in a dugout defensive hull-down position (which is how the s-tank is meant to be used) then the s-tank has a smaller profile.

>>34593096
You also have to remember that in the 60's it was still a problem penetrating s real angled surface, so that's a bit plus back then

File: 1366334666219.jpg (22KB, 400x263px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x263px

>>34592828
hey man we need to get our depleted uranium from somewhere

File: 1500230655105.png (4MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1280x720px

>tfw you don't live in the popular mechanics timeline where modern tanks have nuclear reactors and 140mm ETC cannons with 40mm coaxs and hyper-kinetic missile pods

>>34591918
>there was still no justification for hull mounted over turret. It didn't make sense at all it was just another case of poor design choice revolving around costs
wrong wrong and wrong.

they did it to simplify the autoloader mechanism and reduce height of the vehicle.

and yes it was solely a defensive weapon specialized for the swedish terrain which is why no one bought it.

>>34591844
>look how nimble our tanks are!
>bury them all

>>34593189
two different arms of doctrine, retard

>>34591918
No, they weren't. They existed, but we're so crude that you couldn't hit anything while moving (also due to suspension being crap) even if you were driving slowly on perfectly flat asphalt. It was really just there so the gunner could take potshots while the driver drove away (and more importantly, to make spotting with the sight easier).

File: 1de.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>34593154
Never really thought much about it before, but where do we get all the DU for the AP rounds in the tank and A-10s?

I don't imagine nuclear power plants would put out enough waste uranium to keep a running stockpile of all that ammo, or am I wrong?

>>34593221
JFGI retard

>>34593221
It isn't the plant that puts out waste uranium. The shit that comes form there is mixed up with a lot of extremely nasty radioactive isotopes, you don't touch that unless you absolutely have to.

Instead the depleted uranium is a byproduct of making fuel for the reactors. You start with natural uranium, extract enriched uranium from it, and you're left with depleted uranium. How much varies with how highly enriched stuff you want, but even for a very low enrichment the pile of depleted uranium will be the bigger one in the end.

And while a commercial reactor probably only needs a partial refuel once a year, that's still a lot of fuel when a large reactor has nearly two hundred tons of fuel in it fully loaded.

File: 1500445463096 - Copy.jpg (501KB, 2039x1431px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 2039x1431px

>>34591938

https://youtu.be/MiWCpIJ5dBw

Obligatory

File: 1490622844271.gif (196KB, 264x269px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 264x269px

>>34593159
i'll have whatever he's smoking

>>34593312
~15:30 is equivalent to a 5kt nuclear bomb detonated at a distance of 500m.

>>34593320
Sounds like a great way to cook the crew. But hey, at least the tank is in one pice

>>34590390
Can't into offensive roles. Puts too much of a strain onto the driver for such a role. Perfect for Sweden, where they only need defensive roles.

>>34594390
>defensive roles
>offensive roles

I get the feeling that you don't have much experience in armoured warfare?

>>34594390
Thats why literally everyone in that tank had driving controls. Whoever spotted the target could just take over.

And even if our whole national doctrine was defensive, the armoured brigades was to do tactical offensive tasks. Purely defensive tasks was to be done by the 20 or so infantery brigades, and local defence troops

>>34591972
Tanks STILL need to halt to fire accurately at range

>>34593296
Cute.

>>34592541

T-80 is basically a turbine powered T-64.

>>34590390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JhKyoHqEvw

>>34591938
Since Russian tanks could only aim 5 degrees below the horizontal this essentially meant that they were invincible. They knew what they were doing.

>>34597657


uhh not really a massive issue more so it was just a short silhoutte... incidentally why the russian tanks had short depression- low overall height

>>34597535
This is retarded, to be expected by some video games company. I can understand that he doesn't drive it harder, but this is basically 18 minutes and the only interesting information is images of the interior, which couldve been a 5-minute video.

Taking up that bong trial in the 70s is also rather strange. The test was done with british soldiers in both tanks, trained by swedes (with german envoys present as well). The only conclusion drawn from that was that the average british tank crew is garbage-tier.