is there any doubt what an incredible failure this thing would

>>34870492
Ambush. withdrawal. Ambush. repeat.

Sweden had a fairly capable military in the cold war period,f or its role

These days though it's laughably bad, an SJW institution overrun with muslims, trannys, and snowflakes. It has no combat mindset or doctrine. Russia is weak and shitty but even they could overrun it pretty fast.

Honestly Poland should conquer Sweden in revenge for the deluge, or maybe Israel lands 150 jews with guns and secures the country as revenge for collaboration with the Nazis.

I just realized the entire point of the S-Tank was to design a tank so bad that allied nations would not want Sweden participating in a third world war and would let them off the hook so they could go off and be uninvolved (like always)

>>34870507
What happens when you need to go on the offensive and counter attack to reclaim all the land you lost while withdrawing after the retreat phase?

>>34870545
Creep assault.

Send infantry in, they ID targets for arty, arty eliminates. Infantry moves forward. Tanks occupy.
Tanks also act as fire support.

S tank engagement rules per the manual:

- do not engage targets beyond 1300m
- only engage tank size targets that are stationary up to 1000m
- do not engage moving targets over 800m
- do not fire on the move at targets over 100m

what a fucking turd

>>34870572
yo just made that entire shit up

it would have been less than useless

hordes of T-72s as shitty as they are would demolish any S-tanks in a day and there is no way to use the S-tank offensively

you just turn the tank

bam, you did it buddy

>>34870614
If there are hordes of them then why aren't they attacking?

If you're attacking hordes of tanks you shouldn't be attacking. But using the same tactics in a static targeting. ID targets for Arty, arty pounds them and grinds them. When there are a lack of targets then creep.

Don't be stupid.

>>34870492
It filled the EXACT role as a tank designed with a turret. No, it was not at all a "purely defensive tank", and it wasn't used much different from it's counterparts.

It was capable of engaging as many targets as any other contemporary tank, and actually faster if we're talking accurate fire than most other tanks.

It was not designed as a tank hunter, nor was it used as such.

>>34870545
Then you have hundreds of Centurions.

Also, it was great in assaults. In one exercise 10 of them took out 12 Leopard 2s with only one loss.

>>34870614
The S-tank was designed in the 50s so naturally a T-72 would be better.

Also agree that >>34870572 is a faggot. They could go on the offence just like any other tank in the 60s, wich means stopping to fire.

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (146KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1280x720px

https://youtu.be/bSNNNMYmTKQ?t=9

>>34870578
This was as we expected the enemy to be better than us at long range combat, so It made sense to let them come closer before we fire.

It could fire at further ranges, but the doctrine was to get them close.

>>34870492

>if WW3 had begun with hordes of fast moving Soviet tanks charging banzai like into your lines?

Because soviet doctrines didn`t evolve throughout WW2

>>34870509
>Sweden had a fairly capable military in the cold war period,f or its role

Yep, fourth largest air force in the world, and one of the worlds most modern at the same time is one example.

>These days though it's laughably bad, an SJW institution overrun with muslims, trannys, and snowflakes. It has no combat mindset or doctrine.
Not at all, wich regiment do you serve at? I dont experience that at all where I am. If anything we have more of a combat mindset now then we had when the bulk of our forces consisted of unmotivated conscripts.

>Russia is weak and shitty but even they could overrun it pretty fast.
Yep, the size of our forces is the problem, not the quality of it.

>Honestly Poland should conquer Sweden in revenge for the deluge, or maybe Israel lands 150 jews with guns and secures the country as revenge for collaboration with the Nazis.
>posting bait

>>34870701
Okay, it evolved to spam nukes, then spam tanks like a retard.

>>34870684
>lindy

Go stick your dick in a live lamp socket.

No, wait, go stick his dick in a lamp socket. Then shove your dick down his throat, and turn the power on.

>Assault gun
>Post WW2

Unquestionably directly connected to Sweden's current social state of being ravaged by niggers.

>>34870741
As stated. It wasnt an assault gun. We did however have assault guns too, and one of them was turreted.

>>34870676
No, Just No.

Sweden didn't have access to the ammo that the british and israelis used that could take out t72 (even then it was lower glacis only)

That whole exercise was in reverse the S tank was used defensively, the leopard 2s were eliminated by rounding hills and leaving their sides exposed, But even then it was evenly pitched with same losses.

The S tank couldn't fire on the move which even the Centurion could do.

File: cbdJqTn.jpg (2MB, 3364x3364px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3364x3364px

>NATO bigboys having doubts if they can hold the Fulda gap against the Soviets
Swedes and their cuck tank wouldn't have stood a chance.

>>34870578
Sorry shitstick, but the S-tank was actually the most accurate tank when compared to it's contemporaries with turrets. You see, when there's no moving parts between the gun and the sight (which a turreted design from this era has) and the S-tank has an 18x magnification in its sights (compared to 12x for most tanks), i think you understand why this is.

During trials at Fort Knox in 1975, two S-tanks participated alongside both the M60A3 and T-62 (as well as some IFVs) and the S-tank came out as more accurate than the M60A3 (especially at longer ranges, around 2km). Time to fire was reported as having a tenth of a second in difference in the favour of the M60. All tanks were crewed by US crews

firing on the move is a meme, I don't understand where you people get this crap from

>>34870786
Pro tip, the Fulda gap isnt in Sweden.

File: Dragon_Stug_IIIG.jpg (81KB, 600x355px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x355px

>>34870763
Oh yeah yeah yeah totally, it was an MBT with a fixed turret, my bad, Oskarr.

>>34870509
>>34870509
>These days though it's laughably bad, an SJW institution overrun with muslims, trannys, and snowflakes.

What.

Btw theres a thing called Finland blocking the way to Sweden
t. Finn
ps. you swedish fucks better help us next time russia invades instead of being unhelpful cunts like the last war, excluding volunteers ofc

>>34870813
They just want to shit on Sweden. Because, you know, regurgitating the far right's extra chunky propaganda jenkem is le epix bantz lol.

>>34870815
It wasnt a MBT. In Sweden we dont make the distinction between a tank and a MBT, they are all just tanks.

But I guess you dont think tanks existed in WW1 either then if they must have turrets.

A tank does not need to have a turret to be a tank, its just that most does.

File: STRV-103-S Tank-Swedish-Main Battle Tank2.webm (1MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x480px

Gotta go fast.

>>34870814
Protip, Soviet doctrine didn't change. Swedes are outnumbered and unlike the west, don't have tanks vastly superior to Soviets.

>>34870827
Finland was considered a roadbump at best, a soviet asset at worse.

>>34870827
lel, we sent you like 20 000 volonteers and a literal shitton of supplies. Also evacuated your entire military inteligence center to Sweden.

But we had the nazis on all of our fronts so we kinda wanted to keep our troops if they tried anything funny.

>>34870813
>but you can do it in battleduty elite

99% of all /k/ browsers have never seen a tank outside a museum, let alone actually crewed one/been a part of an armoured unit

if you want even basic concepts of armoured warfare, look elsewhere.

>>34870807
I didn't make the rules or doctrine for the cuck tank

accurate when firing at static targets on a firing range with optimal LOS and positioning

real life wouldn't have been the same with highly mobile Soviet tanks moving in over rolling terrain

S-tank is the worst tank to ever have been put into production

a purely defensive tank that was conceived in the worst possible way to counter a highly mobile, highly numbered threat

The cuck tank was absolutely designed to be a complete failure to the point that Sweden wouldn't have to be involved in the conflict should it happen

File: you.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>34870872

What is this strange trend of threads getting posted on /k/ shitting on the s tank despite it being a good design that did its job well jist this time with le ebin cuck meme?

>>34870770
>that could take out t72 (even then it was lower glacis only)
T-72 lower hull is 80mm RHA at 64 degrees at can be penetrated by anything. Soviet 100mm BM-8 goes through it. Also sides.

>which even the Centurion could do.
Only on paper.

>THE RUSSIANS WILL SEND THOUSANDS OF T72'S TO SWEDEN

have none of you ever looked at a map?

this isn't physically possible. the russians would either have to go across the baltic sea or all the way through finland and through most of sweden before they got to anything even remotely worth fighting over

>>34870859
>Soviet union
>Are

Nope.cfg

Also, yes we were outnumbered. But we still had almost a million troops (with about a million more in Finland they had to go thru) and to be fair we didnt expect their most modern forces to face us, but rather be concentrated in the central parts of europe.

And our infantry brigades had literally thousands of anti tank weapons (every swedish conscript was trained on one, and there was more AT weapons then people in most units.

>>34870872
>S-tank is the worst tank to ever have been put into production
No this would be Challenger. S-tank was better than another britbong abomination, Centurion.

File: delet cyka.jpg (121KB, 750x745px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 750x745px

>>34870923
Actually might have worked for the Swedes and Finns as all the scary, better trained and equipped units would have B-lined straight for West Germany.

>>34870931
>britbong abomination, Centurion.
delet this

File: ForsenE.jpg (47KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x960px

>>34870849
>It even does little turds
>mfw

File: 82-1086284756-322ccdca79a425ad55431782ce03b8b2.jpg (15KB, 425x246px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 425x246px

>>34870911
>Only on paper.
Nope, Fire on the moves scoring hits were recorded in Korea, Suez, Vietnam and all the Israeli conflicts.

>>34870931
> Tank used by almost everyone is bad
> tank that survived a nuclear detonation
> Tank that set the standard for MBTs
So much butthurt

The CR2 isn't bad, just because its engine and gearbox is governed to extend life cycles just like L2. In fact L2 is pretty slow when governed but they don't make big thing out of it. CR2 has an emergency rip chord that ungoverns engine & gearbox.

CR2 actually won out over M1A2 and leopard 2 in competition when the british army was looking to buy.

>>34871007
>CR2 actually won out over M1A2 and leopard 2 in competition when the british army was looking to buy.
>this is your mind on HESH

>>34870815
>"turretless is useless le keke"
>directly implying the STUG wasn't the most successful tank of the second world war

exterminate self

>>34871040
yeah ATDU 1991 trials it did.

The greek trials with the monkey model E outperformed L2 and Abrams in some key areas too, but due to complications with out of date L8 desertised performed poorly in gunnery due to fowling.

I would take HESH, but i'm afraid my skull will spall, spin around and turn my brain to mush. I'll stick to my ketamine.

>>34871007
>Nope, Fire on the moves scoring hits were recorded in Korea, Suez, Vietnam and all the Israeli conflicts.
Nope. Soviets tests of captured Israeli Centurions found that not only it couldn't accurately fire on the move also constant movement of the sight's LOS prevented pre-aiming on move. S-tank commanders-gunners sight on the other hand was able to execute accurate crosshairs laying on target during move. After stop S-tank was automatically steered into crosshairs.

>So much britbong butthurt
Fixed. Challenger is worst modern tank ever. FACT.

>>34870919

Notice how everyone is completely ignoring this point. Lol

Faggots arguing about turrets when they don't even realize the tank battle will never even happen to begin with.

>>34871094
>The greek trials with the monkey model E outperformed L2 and Abrams in some key areas too
>Challenger fired only from stop during greek trials
>outperformed L2 and Abrams
Centurions ghost still haunts bongs tank designers lol

>>34871077

1) it wasn't

2) saying that the only piece of shit that germany could afford to build was the most-used tank is a meaningless concept

3) the germans lost that war btw, I don't know if you heard about that. it was a while ago

>>34870614
>there is no way to use the S-tank offensively

StuG's (literally translates to Assault Gun) were used offensively during the second world war to great effect. Also an offensive isn't dependent on just tanks, but rather the combined strength of all participating forces. The Swedes possessed a good air force that could operate even with most of its facilities damaged or destroyed and they also had some fairly impressive artillery forces.

Also, how do you get a horde of T-72's to Sweden ad why would they be so far from the Fulda gap and the important front line in Western Europe?

>>34871077
The StuG at least had a casemate. S-Tank's gun does not traverse.

>>34870578
Got link to the cuck manual? I need to read all of it so I can laugh.

>>34871097
>Soviets tests of captured Israeli Centurions found that not only it couldn't accurately fire on the move also constant movement of the sight's LOS prevented pre-aiming on move
False, in a centurion you cannot fire on the move whilst with the pedal to the floor, it works at speeds less than 23MPH, but works best at about 18,

> Fixed. Challenger is worst modern tank ever. FACT.
Lack of Information and speculation based on deliberate misinformation is not an excuse for poorly based opinions. If anything its got to be leopard 2 or T90.

>>34871128
The firing on the move trial was not completed with the last 4 shots not being able to be taken due to the guns safety override. The ammo used (being out of date) left unburned charge down the rifling, making it unsafe to fire further rounds.

The 2E outperformed the M1 and l2 in terms of mobility surprisingly , but thats because its not using chobham which weighs wuite a bit.

Depends when during it's lifetime of service the war broke out. Rigorous tests show it was in a pretty good spot for quite a while.

Off topic but anyone knows if there is any literature on the performance of the Leclerc? They Saudis at least should have some.

>>34871097
>modern tank ever. FACT.
>not the T "turret throwing competition, second place winner" 90
The chally has a meme gun, two piece ammo and no blow out panels. But god damn its still a western tank, therefor superior.

>>34871185
>False,
Truth. It was found that working stabilizers angles of elevation were too small so gun movement constantly dragged gunners sights LOS off, and sights LOS didn't returned into stabilized LOS automatically after this.

>The firing on the move trial was not completed
Nobody cares about bongs excuses their tanks could not fire on move in greece.

Challenger is worst modern tank ever. FACT.

>>34871217
>Off topic but anyone knows if there is any literature on the performance of the Leclerc?
French are very secretive nation. Fun fact: their pre-WWII small arms trials and researches are still classified.

>>34871217
>Off topic but anyone knows if there is any literature on the performance of the Leclerc? They Saudis at least should have some.

Um, not for public consumption, no. Armies don't tend to talk about their tank's shortcomings while they're in the middle of a war.

>>34871147
Pretty sure that T-55's and T-62's would be the main enemy for the stridsvagn 103 since the soviet naval infantry dont use T-72's due to size problems with their smaller landing ships. But larger landing ships could come later on bringing T-72's to the picture but those would be under the soviet army's command.

>>34871271
>>34871287
Shame. Its a comfy tank.

>>34871185
>The firing on the move trial was not completed with the last 4 shots not being able to be taken due to the guns safety override. The ammo used (being out of date) left unburned charge down the rifling, making it unsafe to fire further rounds.
Addendum to this, gearbox crashed and locked. German gearbox.

>>34871217
>The chally has a meme gun, two piece ammo and no blow out panels. But god damn its still a western tank, therefor superior.
L30A1E4 firing L27A1 CHARM3 only has marginally less penetration (20mm on either source) than L55 firing dm53 due to the use of DU rounds.

But that doesn't account for different testing methods. US/ German Tests only have to achieve 50% chance of penetrating said RHAe in order to be granted the mm, Russians 80mm RHAe and the UK 100% because a guarantee is better than "should at least half the time"

CR2 Does not have blow out panels but does have blow out vents (where the charges are stored) that lead from the turret basket to the sides of the hull.

>>34871242
>Challenger is worst modern tank ever. But my opinion sucks. Because i base it on assumptions and monkey models.
FTFY

File: aXvjjg6_700b.jpg (103KB, 700x1039px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 700x1039px

>>34871290
>swedens face when Soviet Union Blimp drops "hordes of T-72's"

>>34871330
>L30A1E4 firing L27A1 CHARM3 only has marginally less penetration (20mm on either source) than L55 firing dm53 due to the use of DU rounds.
>this is what bongs desperetalytry to believe
CHARM3 has 450-500mm of RHA penetration at best. Can't cheat physics.
>but all over muh internet it rated with 700mm+ can't be!
Deal with it.

>>34871330
>L30A1E4 firing L27A1 CHARM3 only has marginally less penetration (20mm on either source
No substantial claims can be made as all the true figures are classified. Everything based off of civilian calculations that aren't given all accurate figures, or speculations.

Bongs wanted to move away from the L30. It was found out to be too expensive as they would have to modify the storage compartment greatly. I assume this was probably for NATO standardization and not performance.

The rounds themselves don't have vents or panels iirc. The HE and HESH will go up if hit.

File: 9dC7Idt.png (485KB, 680x617px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 680x617px

>>34871385

>>34871402
>No substantial claims can be made
Willi Odermatt is pretty substantial claim by himself.

>>34871418
Again, not given the exact figures you would need to punch into an internet calculator. All classified for good reason.

File: polish chart 1.png (162KB, 888x584px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 888x584px

>>34871401
please stop using fucking estimations, people keep using damn pictures of L23 and L26s.

The L27 is 600 + mm And with L14A1 creates a shell over 1.2m long.

>>34871402
>Bongs wanted to move away from the L30. It was found out to be too expensive as they would have to modify the storage compartment greatly. I assume this was probably for NATO standardization and not performance.
Initially yes, but testing at ATDU using L30, L55 and the hybrid CHORD gun meant that marginally better results (and under certain circumstances worse - During arcing fire and accuracy for Example) were not worth the money for upgrading or money saving.

Not the rounds but the round storage bins at the bottom of turret basket do.

>>34871418
Yeah using estimated lengths, i've even seen claims that MV as low as 1250 m/s

>>34871443
>All classified for good reason.
they're not classified, but they are "not for publication"

File: Polish chart.png (174KB, 866x536px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 866x536px

>>34871461
2nd part of chart

>>34871461
>>34871468
Addendum to chart, Barrel used for DM53 was L44 NOT L55

>>34871461
>>34871468
Are you planning on posting a source for this chart yet? You've been called out numerous times and never show it. Please, give us a link to the site you got this from.

>>34870859
Naw, man. Finns are a bunch of crazy niggers. You may invade easily, but any kind of occupation is going to be like a cross between Viet Nam and the fucking Wicker Man. Seriously, if you ever go to Finland stay in the cities. Those people ain't right.

>>34871490
>You've been called out numerous times and never show it.

its from a 1994 russian issued ID book

>>34870668

>Move to engage target
>Target is off to the side
>Have to expose entire side of tank to the enemy just to shoot

No.

>L30's EFC barrel life is only 500

Absolutely disgusting

>>34870492
Sweden had an in depth anti-tank defense system w/some very well thought-out weapon systems. This vehicle is not a tank, it is a tank destroyer built to function in an ambush role in Sweden along the Soviet invasion routes. In that role it exceled

>>34871461
>>34871468
>please stop using fucking estimations
>to prove his words posts estimation that doesn't have any information about CHARM3 dimensions, MV and weight
Oh, the irony. This why bongs should not be taken serous when they talk about tanks.

>>34871506
>Move to engage target
>Target is off to the side
>decides to expose entire side of tank to the target

>>34870524
Fuck that, those twats can be meatshields/bait. Let the Ruskie tanks come out to pop the dumbass blondies so competent militarys can then clean up.

>>34870509
Impying the jews didn't already destroy Sweeden.

File: c14cdcdcd100baa1ccee4d004410b912c9fc2e3f.jpg (49KB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 580x433px

>>34871509
this has been disproved multiple times, its 1500. The previous figure was based on figures obtained from L11A3 firing JERICHO ammo (which was very stressful).

ESR steel and

>>34871535
MV has already been established as 1670m/s
See image, work out width and set as 120, then work our height, Penetrator goes through to base cap.

15mm * 600mm = 424285.7142857139mm ^3
or 424.28571428571399338 CM ^3
DU = 19.1g/ cm ^3
19.1 * 424.28 = 8103g
or about 8KG, facting in nose cap, and fins i'd say 6KG is pretty reasonable

nothing wrong with estimates, but estimates based on an "L27" that was in fact not one are all wrong.

>>34871523
That's literally false. It was designed as and used as a main battle tank.

In tests alongside Leopard 1s and Cheiftans it showed 90% parity in almost every field.

>>34871007
What's going on in this picture, why are his pants down?

File: Stridsvagn 103B(1).jpg (481KB, 1920x1241px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1920x1241px

>>34870492
>How the hell is this thing supposed to deal with Soviet armored doctrine if you can't engage multiple targets rapidly?

This is objectively false, and I have no idea where you're getting this idea from.

The Strv-103 was designed as an MBT in an era when the idea of an MBT was still quite new; the US, UK and USSR were still fielding heavy tanks at this point. It was novel, and while all of Sweden's armored forces wouldn't be able to hold up to any serious Soviet attack, they certainly would not have suffered as badly as, say, the Italians or any given East Asian militaries. It's armor wouldn't hold up to most soviet 125mm rounds, but really neither would most other tanks' in the 1960s. Much like Germany and France, they went for a tank that relied more on not being hit than surviving hits. Unlike those two nations, however, the Swedes had to work with a substantially smaller manufacturing industry and a tank development program that hadn't been active since before World War II. The result, for what they had to work with, was a unique and reliable tank that could more than likely inflict grievous damage on advancing soviet forces; perhaps not beat them back, but certainly make them bleed.

Also keep in mind the terrain and climate of Sweden; Unlike the Fulda Gap, Sweden isn't just all open fields and scattered forests. The USSR would never have been able to make the same kind of armored assault on Scandinavia as they would have done through central Europe.

>tl;dr- You're an idiot who has no idea what you're talking about and fell for the "hurr-durr strv-103's just a dumb tank destroyer" meme

>>34871789
Because having soft hands in the cavalry is a rare trait of a lazy arrse person, so you've got to put them to use.

>>34870614
>yo just made that entire shit up
>now allow me to post an entirely hypothetical and poorly thought out scenario of my own

>>34871130
>1) it wasn't

Most tank kills per vehicle, yes it was

>2) saying that the only piece of shit that germany could afford to build was the most-used tank is a meaningless concept

Yeah, it is, because it wasn't the most used tank, the T-34 was. And the T-34 was fucking trash compared to the Stug.

>3) the Germans lost that war btw, I don't know if you heard about that. it was a while ago

Getting spitroasted by the three principle powers of the world will do that to you, no matter your fighting.

File: StuG III Ausf. F-8.jpg (373KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1024x768px

>>34871130
Let's be fair here; Calling the StuG in any form "the most successful tank of the second world war" is hyperbolic at best, and more accurately just wrong, mostly because it just wasn't a tank to begin with, and never was meant to be.

That being said, calling it "the only piece of shit Germany could afford to build" is also broadly incorrect. For what it was, the StuG III was one of the best AFVs in the war, easily out-performing competitive soviet assault guns right up to 1944, and remained useful through the end of the war.

>>34870910
There's this one guy who really doesn't like the S-Tank. He's probably a WoT player that can't get the hang of the line.

>>34870724
I think when he said Sweden was a SJW institution he meant the country as a whole. Good luck fighting a war when your entire home country is against you.

>>34870814
Holy fuck you're autistic.

He's saying that if the Yanks, Bongs, and Frogs are all worried about how their actual massed MBT forces can hold up against the Soviets, than Sweden's resistance would be about the same as butter receiving a hot knife

>>34871705
>penetrator

That's what ur mum calls me.

>>34870847
Not that anon but the turret-less WWI tanks were all tanks because that's when they first appeared and it was too early in the game to have types. But by the time of the Cold War, when there exist a plethora of tank types, it's the fault of your country for just having "tank" where the rest of the world sees a tank destroyer (obsolete after WWII) or a comparatively ineffectual assault gun.

>>34872225
It isnt anywhere close as bad as the /pol/-memes make it look like. Hell, the largest party right now is the nationalistic throw all the immigrants out-party

>>34872255
>Missing the point

The thing is, that even in the late 80's a large part of the USSRs tanks was T-55s. And sure, in the Fulda gap there would be tons of high tech new tanks and units, but up in the north there was mainly second line formations, with older and way less equpment.

And as stated, once they hade passed the 1 million angry finns they had one million angry Swedes each and everyone with an AT-weapon.

>>34872310

Its still a tank tho. Even American and British documents from the time calls it a tank. The tests they did also states that it has no significant drawbacks compared to their tanks.

Sure its useless now (and turretless tanks is a dead end today) but in the late 50s/early 60s when it was new, it made sense, especially if you are on a budget.

>>34871789
This is what happens when you let fags in the military, they gang rape "fellow soldiers".

File: arl44-tank-france-cold-war-basitlle-day-parade-1951.jpg (41KB, 650x426px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 650x426px

>>34870872
>S-tank is the worst tank to ever have been put into production
Have you met the ARL 44?

File: War Never Changes.jpg (105KB, 960x311px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x311px

>>34871789
War.

>>34871547

>Hurr durr all war is 1 v 1 like muh Cowadooty

>>34870733
hello Pierre
why so angry?
did the chef overcooked your snails?

>>34870733
did he shaged ur mum again

Even today, accurate fire at long range while moving is a myth

Turrets are a meme that won't die

>>34871130
>haha this equipment is shit
>why
>cos they lost war
Pls remove urself

>oh look it's this bait thread again
>oh look retard keep replying as usual
kys faggots

>>34870492

If enemy has to attack mostly along forest roads, engaging them rapidly is relatively easy, even on open S-tank could engage targets fast, L7 with autoloader fires pretty fast. Usually it was faster and more accurate than Centurion. When it was designed there weren't effective all axis stabilizers and modern fire control computers didn't exist, firing on move wasn't a thing until 70's.

>>34870509
>Sweden had a fairly capable military in the cold war

Then it was destroyed on purpose and turned into marketing department for Saab and Bofors in late 90's and early 2000's.

>>34870813
>firing on the move is a meme

In early cold war it was a meme.

>>34870931
>britbong abomination, Centurion.

Probably the best tank of its era. Kill yourself.

>>34870919
The expected conflict was airborne and amphibious assaults, so some Soviet armor but not thousands of T-72s. This is why Swedes had a bigass airforce despite their neutral politics and defensive posture.

>>34871385
>Coldsteel the Hedgeheg
Nice

>>34871807
>Also keep in mind the terrain and climate of Sweden
Right as it can be. If you ever have been to sweden you will soon notice how roads often go in serpentines and similar stuff to handle larger height differences, good luck passing those when the enemy knows the terrain and is already waiting somewhere, the frontal russian armor would have been useless in this situation, causing heavy losses, that additionally would blockade the way.

>>34870614
you, well you just made that shit up.

>>34872013
The m18 had the best ratios.....

File: hmmm.png (105KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 400x300px

>>34870733
alt right snow flake?

>>34870733
This is good advice.

>>34874494
awful

>never heard of the concept of a tank destroyer

can't wait for summer to be over

>>34870509
Where do you suppose the tens of thousands of Jews escaping Denmark ended up? fucking idiot.

>>34874438
I thought the Ferdinand managed to get best ratios at ~10:1.

Though the Sturers technically beat that with at least a 15.5:1, though there were only two of them so I guess it doesn't count.

>>34870872
>I have no idea what I'm talking about; The post.
>>34870931
>I have no idea what I'm talking about 2; faggot boogaloo.

>>34870578
Northern Sweden is hell for any sort of motor vehicles.
That doctrine makes complete sense as most of the fighting would be on mountain roads and along logging/mining passes.

>>34872311
>1 million angry finns
Finland had a small underdeveloped army during the cold war. Finlandization is a thing you should look up.

The whole "muh finland is bulwark against subhuman hordes" is a post-cold war thing.

>>34877064
Finland is like the Wall. Small underfunded defense force and a horde of drunken psychopaths and rapists in animal skins.