Seeing the StuH in the "Can of Worms" M113 thread got me thinking about the ol' S-Tank a bit; was there any front where these saw serious or considerable use during the Twilight War
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Swedish S-Tank (Striedsvagn) in T2k?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by raketenjagdpanzer View PostSeeing the StuH in the "Can of Worms" M113 thread got me thinking about the ol' S-Tank a bit; was there any front where these saw serious or considerable use during the Twilight War
The year the cold war ended, and Sweden's politicals were looking for a solution to their armed forces. The Gulf War, the fall of the Berlin Wall… Sweden had a conscript army, and the lessons learned by many sides from the Gulf War was, that a highly technological army could cripple a numerous army. Both Swedens High Command Headquarters and politicians started to look for a "Expert-armed-force", the journalists took a standing point against the doctrin of a conscript army, but when the Gallups
True "canon" says nothing about Sweden in V1. Later in Twilight V2 and 2.2 only information is that there were no nuclear strikes to Sweden.
-
Not to blow my own horn, but I have it statted out on my site...I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
There's a fully operational one sitting in the Armour museum at Punkapunyal here in Australia (on loan from the Swedes).
What's the bet that wouldn't see service against the Indonesians and possibly spread some very interesting rumours about how the Scandanavians have allied with Australia to take over south east Asia.
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudorem
Comment
-
I remember the first time I heard of an S-Tank...I was about 10 years old and an older friend had just bought a model kit of one. Everyone said, "What a cool tank!"I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
The S103 also shows up in "Tractics III: Modern and Special Weapons" by Gary Gygax and Dave Megarry (old old tabletop wargame that came out around the same time the original three-pamphlet D&D set did - stuff like the Sheridan, S-Tank, TOW missiles etc. were under the "future weapons" section (tho the TOW had been around since the mid-early 60's! Also, amusingly, the rules list that the Sheridan can fire a nuclear artillery shell!)THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Panther Al View PostIndeed, A very very cool tank. Your page doesn't show the stats for the long barreled 105 that it sports, but, other than that, it's a tank I really like in a TW2K game.I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
Limited use
Originally posted by raketenjagdpanzer View PostSeeing the StuH in the "Can of Worms" M113 thread got me thinking about the ol' S-Tank a bit; was there any front where these saw serious or considerable use during the Twilight War
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Langham View PostI would suggest limited use against lost Soviet units on the border.
..meanwhile in Sweden
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Langham View PostI would suggest limited use against lost Soviet units on the border.I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Comment
-
I would agree the S-Tank is a cool concept...but in practice, I (and just personal opinion here) still think it's a bit limited in use overall being a turretless vehicle. I would assume this vehicle was primarily intended for use as something similiar to a modern day version of a tank destroyer like the ones seen in WWII. In that function, plus perhaps as an assault gun supporting infantry, it could probably do the job fairly well. Attempting to fight from a hull down position, or trying to shoot on the move in any sort of fast paced attack, or being used in an urban scenario where moving the tank around in close build up areas may not be so favorable (though granted urban settings aren't too ideal for tanks, or any vehicle to begin with)...well, that's all another story.
Of course, this is all speculation as there hasn't been any official real-world incidents/engagements where this vehicle actually saw use, so it really comes to personal discretion."The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David Drake
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trooper View Post
Gonna go look for brain cleanser now."The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David Drake
Comment
-
Originally posted by Schone23666 View PostI would agree the S-Tank is a cool concept...but in practice, I (and just personal opinion here) still think it's a bit limited in use overall being a turretless vehicle. I would assume this vehicle was primarily intended for use as something similiar to a modern day version of a tank destroyer like the ones seen in WWII. In that function, plus perhaps as an assault gun supporting infantry, it could probably do the job fairly well. Attempting to fight from a hull down position, or trying to shoot on the move in any sort of fast paced attack, or being used in an urban scenario where moving the tank around in close build up areas may not be so favorable (though granted urban settings aren't too ideal for tanks, or any vehicle to begin with)...well, that's all another story.
Of course, this is all speculation as there hasn't been any official real-world incidents/engagements where this vehicle actually saw use, so it really comes to personal discretion.
Since they were faced by a superior number of Soviet AFVs, and it was presumed that the Soviets would be the aggressors and that NATO would be fighting a largely defensive war (at least innitially), I'm kind of surprised that NATO abandoned the concept of the dedicated gun-armed tank destroyer so quickly. I guess when ATGM technology advanced far enough, they figured missiles would be more effective than guns.Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Comment
-
As a defensive weapon the S-Tank could probably work pretty well against large quantities of enemy armor, but really, ATGM's have come far enough now that they can be used to do more. Also worth noting that with all the weight and space taken by an antitank gun, or one mounted in the S-Tank, you can have something as simple as a Humvee carrying a TOW ATGM set up for an ambush, fire off, then quickly get the hell out of Dodge a lot faster (though granted the S-Tank would have more of a chance of survival if it did get spotted and lit up) but again, pros and cons to every approach.
That's where I think is the S-Tank's strengths and weaknesses as described....it feels more like a niche weapon than a vehicle that can take on different roles."The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David Drake
Comment
Comment