Best Tank? Lets figure!

[Keysersoze]

It would be good if Pak can get the Ak2 in a Position to out class the Arjun. Even better if they can do it before the Arjun enters service

 

[niaz]

It would be good if Pak can get the Ak2 in a Position to out class the Arjun. Even better if they can do it before the Arjun enters service

Kersersoze,

I remember reading a few years back that Swedes were developing a very low profile tank where sight and the gun turret can be raised ( Similar to a persicope in a Sub). This would allow tank to fire quickly and the then hide again in the depression. This is a novel idea for giving some 'stealth feature' to the armour and only poeple like Swedes could think of it.

Have you ever heard of such a tank or came across it. ??

 

[Keysersoze]

Kersersoze,

I remember reading a few years back that Swedes were developing a very low profile tank where sight and the gun turret can be raised ( Similar to a persicope in a Sub). This would allow tank to fire quickly and the then hide again in the depression. This is a novel idea for giving some 'stealth feature' to the armour and only poeple like Swedes could think of it.

Have you ever heard of such a tank or came across it. ??

Yes it was called the S-tank (Stridsvagn Strv-103)and it created a stir in the armored world. It had no turret and had a auto-loader as well as a hydro-pneumatic suspension. The gun was traversed by slewing the tank. The tank was leased by British for protracted field trials and whilst very innovative. It was not as successful because of a few faults with the design (E.G. the tank was not accurate on the move and would have to expose a greater cross section when firing from a hull down postion.

 

[Manticore]

great thread -- just found it today

 

[Arsalan]

Yes it was called the S-tank (Stridsvagn Strv-103)and it created a stir in the armored world. It had no turret and had a auto-loader as well as a hydro-pneumatic suspension. The gun was traversed by slewing the tank. The tank was leased by British for protracted field trials and whilst very innovative. It was not as successful because of a few faults with the design (E.G. the tank was not accurate on the move and would have to expose a greater cross section when firing from a hull down position.

Just to add, the S-Tank, no matter how much revolutionary it looked on paper was a fail in field.
The main problem, being the same as the main attribute of the tank, the turret less design.

The tank main armament, the 105mm gun was pivoted on a truly unique hydraulic suspension system which unfortunately proved to be too sensitive which in turn was responsible for many delays and breakdowns. the tank was not able to achieve the required accuracy while on the move.

The gun moved vertically on this suspension but to move and engage horizontally, the tank needed to be moved on its track that mean presenting a slow and large target to enemy fire.

Despite all these draw back, the Swedish Army surprisingly did use the Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank) from the early 1960's until 2001. Eventually it was taken out of service and replaced by the Leopard Main Battle Tank.

Here is a short documentary on the tank:

 

[Penguin]

You know how Merkava tanks were knocked out by Soviet era anti-tank missiles?

NO tank is invulnerable, so yes even Merkava's can be knocked out ... so what?

Interesting is not that the Merkava is design to be invulnerable but rather to give the crew the best chances of surviving a hit (the trained crew being a scarce asset, particularly for a small nation such a Israel, and an expensive component of the tank as a system). That is a fundamentally different design approach than e.g. the T-series.

 

[Penguin]

Maybe it doesnt has 125 mm gun as opposed to 120 mm and cant fire DU rounds? thats the drawback?
Or can it fire em?

But he said the 120 mm is very very very powerful.

THe key difference between 120mm and 125mm is that the former uses a one piece round and the latter a 2 piece round. Which for one means the former round has a longer (=heavier = better) penetrator in APFSDS munitions. WOuldn't surprise me if the overal loading of the round with propellant is also better as a result (= higher velocity of the round).

 

[Penguin]

Yes it was called the S-tank (Stridsvagn Strv-103)and it created a stir in the armored world. It had no turret and had a auto-loader as well as a hydro-pneumatic suspension. The gun was traversed by slewing the tank. The tank was leased by British for protracted field trials and whilst very innovative. It was not as successful because of a few faults with the design (E.G. the tank was not accurate on the move and would have to expose a greater cross section when firing from a hull down postion.

In other words, a modern day StuG III/IV (STURMGESCHUTZ > ASSAULT GUN). Well suited for defensive armor battle and offensive infantry support (exactly what the Germans use StuG III/IV for, to great effect). Without a turret, in many ways simpler and cheaper than a turreted tank. Firing on the move: impossible. However, In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain tank. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." Room was available for an extra crew member, the rear driver/radio operator, who faced the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven backwards at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal armour pointed at the enemy. The S-tank was powered by two engines, a 240 hp Rolls-Royce K60 opposed-piston diesel for cruising and manoeuvring the tank in aiming, and a 300 hp Boeing 502 turbine for dashing at high speed. This was the first use of a turbine engine in a production tank. Another interesting feature was its ability to swim: The 42 ton Strv 103 was fully amphibious! A flotation screen could be erected around the upper hull in about 20 minutes, and the tracks would drive the tank at about 6 kilometres per hour (3.7 mph) in water. Very usefull in water rich Sweden (lakes). After the fall of the USSR, test conducted showed its armor to be no match for T-72s 125mm though.

Really interesting and innovative was the (experimental) articulated UDES-XX-20 prototype

http://strv102r.tripod.com/strv_2000.htm

 

[Penguin]

Well this goes for most US hardware. It gives you the biggest bang for your buck that is why most countries (including Pakistan) like it, however even the Abrams is not cheap by any means.

On a sidebar, the Pakistan Army likes the Leopard a lot. They would jump on the opportunity to acquire it if it were not that expensive.

There are plenty of phased-out LeoII A4/A5 available. Recently, Germany sold some to Indonesia, after the Dutch dithered on a similar sale. These should not be too expensive, relative to new builds or A6-upgrades. The A5 is no kitten

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Now that is an interesting design, articulated boggies!!!

 

[Penguin]

Now that is an interesting design, articulated boggies!!!

Volvo Bv-202, Hagglunds Bandvagn 206 (BV-206), BAE Systems BvS 10, Sisu Nasu, Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier and Russian Vityaz DT10/DT-25/DT-30 logistic vehicles aside, see also Lockheed (X)M808 Twister

Twister