Talk:Stridsvagn 103

message: I think the text "though a third man was added for psychological reasons" (removed 07:16, 30 April 2009) should be put back. Not sure where I read it but it was probably in Grenander's book Arméns eldkraft.85.30.133.221 (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The third crew member, sitting with his face to the rear, was both radio operator and rearward driver, with controls that allowed him to drive the tank at full speed in reverse. Though with less control than the forward driver (steering with a steering wheel that wasn't a full circle but only a circle segment, like a pizza piece; which meant that he couldn't control the elevation of the tank/gun, something that was done by rotating the handles on the steering bar either forward or to the rear). So he wasn't there just for psychological reasons. All three crew members could drive the tank BTW, because both the driver and the tank commander had full controls (with steering bar) and the radio operator/rearward driver (a job that was usually referred to as "bakåtförare", that is rearward driver) had limited controls. All three of them were also trained as drivers, in addition to their other jobs, i e being commander, gunner and radio operator. Thomas.W (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the rear driver did have some control over elevation, in that his taking control did level the tank and adjust the ride height, ready for driving. What he couldn't do was to lay the gun, but then he didn't have a sight anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third crew member 

message: The 90-100 mm figure is unsourced and as far as I can tell it's completely wrong. Armor layout drawing dated 1962. Source: Swedish national military archives (Krigsarkivet). 83.250.155.91 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The layout specifies the armour angles (for the frontal armour relative the gunline which in turn is +1° compared to the horizontal line), but I can't make out the thickness nor in which unit it's stated. 78.70.77.71 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor thickness 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stridsvagn 103. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://come.to/swedisharmor
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930181824/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-27474.html to http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-27474.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Now that these AFVs are out of service, where does one go to see one?
Basesurge (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Bovington has one. I expect that the Swedes have a few, in whatever they have as tank museums. I doubt there's one on display in the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: As the meaning of Panzerkampfwagen can be explained in the articles, so can the meaning of the Swedish word. The "stridsvagn" (which literality means "battle-wagon) is used for both horse-pulled chariots and for tanks. BP OMowe (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "stridsvagn" 

message: It is correct that both stridsvagn 121 and stridsvagn 122 replaced the strv 103 (and the various Centurions) in Swedish service.
As the strv 121 essentially was a Leopard 2 A4, only given minor modifications (lamps and reflectors in accordance to Swedish vehicle regulations, Swedish radios and painting), it isn't listed as a separate variant in the Leopard 2 article but it is indeed mentioned with source under Operators : Sweden. For more details, I recommend the excellent article by the foremost Swedish expert in tank history,  Rickard O. Lindström. Those who do not read Swedish very well can still get a lot of information by running the link through translate.google.com or some similar service. BP OMowe (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor to Stridsvagn 103 

message: The earliest version of this article used the term "armoured brigades".  I think that is evidence that this article was originally written in European English and not American English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is advocating anything but? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European vs American English 

message: When reverting without giving a reason in an edit-comment or on the talk-/ discussion-page, it is simply impossible to make improvements to get the edits approved as I have no idea what you object to. Would you mind telling me what needs to be fixed? BP OMowe (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem to cite Swedish sources (people can use Google Translate or an equivalent). 
* 1. The wording "the Swedish army requested" seems incorrect since no order was placed. I would rather write "the Swedish army considered scrapping all the tanks..." 
* 2. I found a source that stated that the Strv 2000 program began in 1984. Is it 1980 or 1984?
* 3. The nature of the Strv 2000 tank should be described.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Right, this might be a bit lengthy, but please bear with me, ok? Be aware that I' not using the exact translations
* 1. Riksdagen (Swedish parliament) forms counsel's offices (utskott) for the various areas of governing, be it defence, social benefits, health care, monetary and finance and so forth. The defence counsel's office in turn appoints Försvarsberedningen (defence committee) with most political parties represented. Their task is to form a consensus around the evaluation the world situation, how it affects the Swedish security (both political and military aspects) and both what measures needs to be taken and what investments should be done. The results are then returned to försvarsutskottet who will make a draft of budget proposals. These drafts are sent to the effected governmental authorities and organs for input regarding the specific consequences for each proposal should that one be accepted. Here the armed forces also can point out areas that will need special attention. The reply in done by Överbefälhavaren, who under him had the Chiefs and the semi-independent Generalinspectors of respective branch (army, air force and marine). Försvarsberedningen weighs in the replies, and then make the recommendations to the government, who in turn writes the final proposal to be voted about in the riksdag. The accepted proposal (Försvarsbeslut) then becomes the plan for the development of the armed forces over the coming four to six years. It also, for the duration of the försvarsbeslut, governs the annual budgets and regulation letters which tells what the armed forces are to achieve, and how they may spend the allocated budget among other things. The army can not independently decide to close down some regiments to free money to make purchases so in 1980 the army requested (through the chain of events described above) to have the tanks replaced, and in 1982 the parliament said the army had to drive their old tanks since the money was needed elsewhere.
* 2. In 1980, the army concluded the current tank-fleet was unsuitable for service for the duration of 1980 to 2000, and thus an (unspecified) replacement was needed. This unspecified tank was called Stridsvagn 2000 as it is easier to refer to such a name in materiel plans than saying "the tank that will need replace the current ones for service past the year 2000". In 1984, the defence budget allocated funds to have Försvarets materielverk start the project to actually find the replacement, and the project was named Stridsvagn 2000. The project considered a number of alternatives, both foreign and domestic. The latter was developed by the joint venture between Bofors and Hägglunds, and the project picked out the best suited domestic concepts to be compared with what could be bought from abroad.
* 3. It should, but do not know how to sum up all the above in three sentences or less.
Where did you find the quote "Strv 2000 was a project proposed in 1984 and rejected in 1987/1990" btw?
Also, perhaps we should copy this discussion to the strv 103 page and continue there? It might be useful for other editors since it begin to contain lots of information, and perhaps we'd get some more input in how to rewrite the problematic parts.
BP OMowe (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the discussion.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  I would write "The Swedish army drafted a proposal requesting that all the tanks be scrapped...". The source I found for 1984: . For 1987 and 1990, this less reliable source (they have an editorial board but sometimes their authors write inaccurate statements): .--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  Could the 1980 Strv 2000 project be referred to as a "to be designed tank"?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  To explain the timeline in full, in 1980 the Swedish army raised the demand for a new tank (stridsvagn) to be used in the year 2000 and beyond, to replace the current tanks (Centurions and Strv S) soonest possible. In discussions and correspondence, the "new tank (stridsvagn) to be used in the year 2000 and beyond" was referred to as Stridsvagn 2000. In 1984, Försvarets Materielverk (FMV; Swedish Defence Materiel Administration) begun studies to set the criteria the new tanks should meet (offer firepower and protection to deal with Threat-tank VI (T-80 standards), being easy to handle and maintained by conscripts etc etc) and evaluate foreign and domestic alternatives towards those criteria. The domestic alternatives were in turn developed by HB Utveckling AB - the jointly owned company between AB Bofors and AB Hägglunds & Söner - under the project name Stridsvagn 2000. After going through loads of design concepts, including those that emerged from the UDES-studies, four main contenders emerged: L140 , T120B, T140 - T140/40 and O140/40. The Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces sent in his recommendation to the government of the T-concept as basis for final development the 25th of November 1988. In 89/90, we had the opportunity to try both the T-72 and the contending M1A1 and Leo2 A4. This lead to some devastating revelations: not only were the Swedish tanks inferior, especially when it came to protection, but the old truth that heavy tanks would have very low tactical mobility in snow and mires in the north of Sweden was utterly confuted. This meant a replacement had to be acquired without delay, but as such forced development of a Swedish tank would cause the costs to skyrocket and hence the foreign tanks remained the only viable option for the emergency procurement project now called Stridsvagn Ny (Tank New). Only the M1 and Leo 2 were deemed to possible be delivered within the time frame, and the final selection was a modified Leo 2 Improved, by large developed and license built domestically. Rickard O. Lindström, Swedens foremost expert on armour in Swedish service, has a webpage where he expanded on the material published in the book Svenskt pansar : [90 år av svensk stridsfordonsutveckling] (ISBN 9789185789375). I know SP15 dug up a bunch of the documentation from the archives regarding the trials, should those be of interest. BP OMowe (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of additions 

message: The text says 
   "Since the Strv 103 orients the entire tank to depress and elevate the barrel, in a hull down position it has very little apparent height and subsequent visual profile to the enemy. It could also lower the hull a further 13 centimetres (5.1 in) by adjusting the suspension. "
This is totally contrary to what I have read on the subject. What I read is that one of the major failures of the 103 is that it couldn't fire from a hull down position. Yes, the lack of a turret makes it easy to conceal "hull down", but to fire the main gun at an enemy, it needs to raise a large part of the hull over the berm to uncover the gun muzzle. This exposes the entire top of the hull to enemy fire, and presents a generally larger target to the enemy than a conventional tank, which only needs to move forwards far enough to expose the upper half of the turret, which isn't much higher than the profile of a minimally-exposed S-tank, and significantly narrower. In any case, by definition an S-tank cannot take a "hull down firing position" the same way a regular tank can. It can conceal itself more easily while waiting, but to move into a firing position it inherently needs to come into a position exposing at least some of the hull, since there is no turret. I make no claims at to what is true, only that the this is what the books I have read said. Not that they were many or extensive. It would seem to me that a more accurate description of this would say that the S-tank is more easy to conceal in a hull down position, well protected, until it needs to fire, when it is obliged to expose itself more than perhaps a conventional tank would. At the very least, it cannot fire while showing less hull, which is what the text seems to imply. And while a conventional tank can indeed dig in with just the top of the turret showing from behind cover, an S-tank cannot. It must move forwards to fire, an back again to cover. A conventional tank can use this tactic, but it is not limited to it. An S-tank in a ready-to-fire "hull down" position is really only "half hull down".
Idumea47b (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not see this until now. If I recall correctly, the exposed part of a fully hull down 103 in firing position (just clearing the muzzle over the cover) is a rectangle around half a square metre in size. While technically correct that a tank with the gun in a hull down position per definition can not fire hull down, In practice, the effect is the same as hull down. The caveat I seen is that is was difficult to determine exactly when the muzzle had cleared the cover as the sights were mounted above it, and there was n provisions to check that directly from the inside.  If you have the books, they can be listed as a source for criticisms to be included in the article. BP OMowe (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull down positions