'S' tank v Chieftain etc

Started by Big Insect, 17 June 2022, 11:31:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Quote from: Big Insect on 22 June 2022, 12:32:32 PMNB: if you were looking at published 'official' stats - ignoring tactical doctrine etc. - you'd probably be looking at the basic T62 being AP:6/100 | AT:4/100 by my reckoning, but that is by no means 'scientific' and doesn't help your 'S'tanks at all. 

There is an interesting argument that you could apply 'training' factors to armoured vehicles - a bit like we do with the Infantry (e.g. Conscript - Regular - Elite) and that that should have an effect on MBT gunnery - which I am sure it did in real life. I might consider that as a future optional rule - although it is likely to have an impact on the ability of certain units to hit the target more readily.

There are so many variable factors to take into account - if you look at reports from the Gulf War - there is the longest distance acknowledged official tank 'kill'- which is recorded as follows:

On 26 February 1991, a UK Challenger MBT achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (L26A1 APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 4100 m by callsign 11B, the CO of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards tank. Impressive.

I don't know the full circumstances around this, but you'd have to guess that it was across a lot of very flat desert and in optimal temperature and weather, and with the Challenger stationary and able to lock onto the target, which must have thought it was well out of range, so was probably not taking any evasive action!

They were on the move at the time. Of course Chally 1 has poor fire control !!
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

sultanbev

Quote from: Kiwidave on 22 June 2022, 12:30:31 PMComing into this thread with little knowledge of either tank in the OP, but isn't the S tank more of a tank-destroyer than an MBT? So more shoot-and-scoot than go toe-to-toe with the enemy?

This is a non-Swedish perspective, the Swedes treat it as an MBT. If you search Youtube you'll find videos of it doing 170* hand-break turns quicker than most tanks can traverse their turrets.
In their TOE it is in armoured companies just like Centurions, and the units are trained to attack just like any other tank unit (as well as defend), and the close terrain of Scandinavian forests/lakes shouldn't hinder any more than other tanks, as they are trained to fight in it. Attacking with turretless tanks seems weird to our western perspective, but the Swedes, like the Russians, don't have a problem with it.

Also, having an auto-loader means it shoots at 15rpm, about 50% higher than other 105mm armed tanks, so it can get more shells off in a short burst quicker than NATO tanks, and certainly more so than Soviet tanks. In those British tests in 1973 they found it could do 95% of everything a tank does which sums it up pretty well.

Big Insect

Quote from: sultanbev on 22 June 2022, 12:58:26 PMAlso, having an auto-loader means it shoots at 15rpm, about 50% higher than other 105mm armed tanks, so it can get more shells off in a short burst quicker than NATO tanks, and certainly more so than Soviet tanks. In those British tests in 1973 they found it could do 95% of everything a tank does which sums it up pretty well.

The auto-loader is an interesting factor for consideration
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

HogansHeroes

As other have said, it is a myth that the S-Tank was a tank destroyer. There is a good article on it here: http://tanks.mod16.org/2016/08/19/stridsvagn-103-was-not-a-tank-destroyer/

The S-Tank was intended to be used offensively by leap frogging (same tactic as for infantry). One or two tanks would fire while the other(s) advanced. When the S-Tank was designed firing on the move was very inaccurate so this was a valid tactic. 

Big Insect

A good summary in that article - and to quote part of the last paragraph:

'The strv 103 proved to be an evolutionary dead end, however. Stabilization technology improved rapidly during the 1970's, especially with the introduction of gun-follows-sight technology, and the next generation of Western MBT's that appeared around 1980 were only slightly less accurate on the move than they were at a standstill. The strv 103's heavily sloped but not all that thick front armor which offered good protection against 1960's armor-piercing rounds was also completely insufficient against newer 1970's "long rod" penetrators.'

So it was a good, innovative design - for its time - but quickly became out dated.
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

HogansHeroes

Exactly, so after reading that article, my gut feeling is the S-Tank should be competitive against early T-62s and T-55s (but outclassed by the T-72 etc.).

I tried a bigger game last night. Two companies of S-Tanks and a Pbv 302 mech company vs two companies of T-62s and a BMP-1 mech company. Things went better for the Swedes this time (mostly because I was smarter in deploying the S-Tanks). That said, it was still very tough when the T-62s got in range. Their 4 save means they can shrug off lots of hits with some good dice rolls. I am still leaning towards the S-Tank should have a 4 save, but I will play test more.

Also from 1984, the S-Tanks apparently got laser rangefinders and FSAPDS ammo. Should their be a post 1984 version on the list with increased range (and/or firepower)?

Big Insect

Quote from: HogansHeroes on 23 June 2022, 09:57:23 PMAlso from 1984, the S-Tanks apparently got laser rangefinders and FSAPDS ammo. Should their be a post 1984 version on the list with increased range (and/or firepower)?

A possibility - their accuracy was pretty good pre the upgrade due to training - but yes, worth looking at.
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.