13 replies to this topic

[i love tanks]

There were a few people that were saying that the STRV 103 B was a tank destroyer...and they was wrong...that doesn't mean if it doesn't have a turret it's a tank destroyer..infact its a MBT as writed here

[Drestdave]

Let me guess, Greenoak is the "few people"?

[i love tanks]

No even more.. not just him

[Iluvtanks]

The STRV 103b is refered to as a Main Battle Tank solely for the reason that it performs the same roles as other Main Battle Tanks; this doesn't mean as effectively. If it weren't for the Swedish doctrine, it would be refered to as a Self-Propelled Tank Destroyer because of a variety of reasons.

Firstly, it's turretless design, with the gun mounted in the hull is a common factor of design for any given Tank Destroyer; there are an array of turreted Tank Destroyers, but, most are usually restricted in their traverse or have other factors that influence the fact that they are Tank Destroyers. Secondly, Main Battle Tanks or MBT's are tasked with performing on the front-line, usually fully exposed, in 1 verses 1 combat; whereas Tank Destroyers are second-line supporters, known for their high-powered or high-velocity, high-penetration guns; their concealment; and their lack of armor or over-abundance of armor, such that they're impractical for constant moving. The STRV shares all these traits, it equips with the 90mm,105mm, or 120mm smooth bore guns, it's low-sillouette makes it easy to camouflage in rolling hills (much like that of Sweden) and it lacks armor, making it less than adequate for close-quarters tank on tank combat; not to mention it's lack of a turret makes it less than useless in close-proximity fighting, as it is easily flankable. Conclusively, you can argue that the STRV 103b is a Main Battle Tank because of how they're used by their crew in combat, but, I believe they're almost less than adequate enough for the MBT status, as, it's obsolete to any other turreted MBT out there in today's world. Hence Sweden now uses the Leopard 2, which they imported from Germany in 1977 and upgraded to the Stridsvagn 122. Thank you for listening.

Humble regards;
Iluvtanks (TECREAT Management)

[blitzkrieg101]

And yet, all that reasoning for nothing. It's a swedish tank, and they classified it, how they classified it. As an MBT. Not that I know anything, but I have like 10 tabs open on this thing. And tho a lot of talk about how it should be classified, they also say how it is. And I guess definites are better..

[Iluvtanks]

And yet, all that reasoning for nothing. It's a swedish tank, and they classified it, how they classified it. As an MBT. Not that I know anything, but I have like 10 tabs open on this thing. And tho a lot of talk about how it should be classified, they also say how it is. And I guess definites are better..

People can call it an MBT all they want, for whatever reasons they have, but, everything about it still strongly indicates it's a Self-Propelled Tank Destroyer. It's only classified as an MBT because the Swedish designated it that role; and, I'm telling you, the Swedish Doctrine was wrong. 

[blitzkrieg101]

People can call it an MBT all they want, for whatever reasons they have, but, everything about it still strongly indicates it's a Self-Propelled Tank Destroyer. It's only classified as an MBT because the Swedish designated it that role; and, I'm telling you, the Swedish Doctrine was wrong. 

And yet?

[Iluvtanks]

And yet?

I don't see your point?

[TinkerTanker44432]

(I briefly read the replies so forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been said)

 

Alright, well from the years I've spent studying tanks I can see why people would mistake the STRV 103 B as a tank destroyer, but not as an MBT. Here is a small list as to why(according to my own opinion(which is based on articles I've read))

1. When (some)people think "Main Battle Tank"  the first tank that will pop into their head will most likely be the U.S. M1 Abrams, the British Challenger 2, French AMX5-56 Lelect, and the German Leo 2, or some other "modern" tank that is equipped with a turret.

2. It fills the role of the TD very well. The Swedish high command knew that they were more likely to be attacked, then attack so they designed their new MBT to fill a defensive/ambush role. small size, good gun, and well protected. The STRV 103 B filled that role perfectly.

3. It's simply not that well known. It lives in the shadow of it's larger cousins from other nation, hell it was replaced by (I think) the Leo 1, and later Leo 2 which both have turrets.

 

That is simply my opinion and I could be 100% wrong.

[CaptainPrice]

(I briefly read the replies so forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been said)
 
Alright, well from the years I've spent studying tanks I can see why people would mistake the STRV 103 B as a tank destroyer, but not as an MBT. Here is a small list as to why(according to my own opinion(which is based on articles I've read))
1. When (some)people think "Main Battle Tank"  the first tank that will pop into their head will most likely be the U.S. M1 Abrams, the British Challenger 2, French AMX5-56 Lelect, and the German Leo 2, or some other "modern" tank that is equipped with a turret.
2. It fills the role of the TD very well. The Swedish high command knew that they were more likely to be attacked, then attack so they designed their new MBT to fill a defensive/ambush role. small size, good gun, and well protected. The STRV 103 B filled that role perfectly.
3. It's simply not that well known. It lives in the shadow of it's larger cousins from other nation, hell it was replaced by (I think) the Leo 1, and later Leo 2 which both have turrets.
 
That is simply my opinion and I could be 100% wrong.

It was replaced by the Leopard 2 then the Stridsvagen 122

[FieldMarshal]

Because Swedish designers have been making MBT.

Edited by FieldMarshal, 06 November 2017 - 11:56 AM.

[ManofSteel2018]

1. its an MBT

2.it used the best gun mounted on a MBT at the time being (early cold war era)

3.why would they build a TD that has a worse gun and more armor than there current TD

the gun used on the strv 103 was also used on prototype chieftains, centurions, leopards, Patton series tanks and on the early abrams. the gun used was the Briish Royal Ordnance L7a1 rifled cannon

and in some countries, the Strv 103 (S-Tank) is still being used in service today

[OcGuy]

Strv103 is an MBT I already said few years ago but... Some players think ima wrong...

#Strv103isMBT!

[EquablezMonsterz]

1. its an MBT
2.it used the best gun mounted on a MBT at the time being (early cold war era)
3.why would they build a TD that has a worse gun and more armor than there current TD
the gun used on the strv 103 was also used on prototype chieftains, centurions, leopards, Patton series tanks and on the early abrams. the gun used was the Briish Royal Ordnance L7a1 rifled cannonand in some countries, the Strv 103 (S-Tank) is still being used in service today

the strv has been only used by swedan and gradually replaced with leopard 2s