Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 1 Grp 3 - T-62 (Soviet Union/Russia) vs Strv 103 'S' Tank (Sweden)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm basically agreeing with most people here. The T-62 is more significant given that it's been used by more people and as such also has a higher production number. The S Tank doesn't seem to have influenced any further design. The smoothbore on the T-62 is more influential methinks. T-62 for me.
    "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

    --Hávamál

    Comment


    • #17
      'S Tank' -

      Fascinating design, very interesting concept and no doubt a highly effective AFV for its country's needs - at least for a time.

      T-62 - Considerably more significant and influential in the World context.

      T-62 wins.
      Last edited by panther3485; 08 Jul 14, 04:44.
      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

      Comment


      • #18
        Ditto...ain't a tank. Limited thusly.
        John

        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

        Comment


        • #19
          I've commented on the T62. The STRV 103 while having no clear influence outside Sweden as a total design did have influence beyond that country in certain technology.
          One is the hydropneumatic suspension systems that evolved from Bofor's work. Bofors also developed some of the most reliable and advanced autoloaders that were copied elsewhere.
          Another is the "fly by wire" control system the 103 has. While it really isn't wire but hydraulic, it was an idea that was copied elsewhere again.

          Comment


          • #20
            I voted for the Strv 103 or Stridsvagn S as it was normally referred to in Sweden.
            Although it had a fixed cannon it was not designed as only a TD. The gun could be moved real fast both vertically & horizontally which I had the opportunity to see IRL during my military service in the Swedish army.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Karaya Eins View Post
              I voted for the Strv 103 or Stridsvagn S as it was normally referred to in Sweden.
              Although it had a fixed cannon it was not designed as only a TD. The gun could be moved real fast both vertically & horizontally which I had the opportunity to see IRL during my military service in the Swedish army.
              First of all, Karaya, please allow me to offer you a warm welcome to ACG.

              Also, thank you for your insight and contribution to this campaign.
              "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
              Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                First of all, Karaya, please allow me to offer you a warm welcome to ACG.

                Also, thank you for your insight and contribution to this campaign.
                Thanks, although I suspect that in this very knowledgeable forum it will be difficult to add a lot of new insights, probably I will mostly learn which is not bad either

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Karaya Eins View Post
                  Thanks, although I suspect that in this very knowledgeable forum it will be difficult to add a lot of new insights, probably I will mostly learn which is not bad either
                  Hey, I've been mostly learning stuff here, I'm not an expert at all, so join the club!

                  Welcome to ACG!
                  "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

                  --Hávamál

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Lots of people have read different books on the various subjects we talk about. I learn or am reminded of stuff all the time.

                    Pruitt
                    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I would put my money on the T-62 against the S tank. The T-62 has it's gun in a turret were as the S tank is in a nutshell self propelled bunker all the T-62 has to do is call in some air support and blow the S tank to pieces. Any not taken out in the air strike the T-62 has to get in behind the S tank and take it out with its main gun. What ever is left of the S tank unit can be defeated by any infantry supporting the T-62 with RPGs. Plus the S tank never fired a shot in anger and the fact that the T-62 has seen considerable service around the globe is why I voted for the T-62 even though I'm not a fan of Russian tanks.
                      Last edited by Merkava188; 09 Jul 14, 16:42.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Merkava188 View Post
                        I would put my money on the T-62 against the S tank. The T-62 has it's gun in a turret were as the S tank is in a nutshell self propelled bunker all the T-62 has to do is call in some air support and blow the S tank to pieces. Any not taken out in the air strike the T-62 has to get in behind the S tank and take it out with its main gun. What ever is left of the S tank unit can be defeated by any infantry supporting the T-62 with RPGs. Plus the S tank never fired a shot in anger and the fact that the T-62 has seen considerable service around the globe is why I voted for the T-62 even though I'm not a fan of Russian tanks.
                        I voted for the T-62 as well; but I must admit you've got me slightly confused already. Could the S 103 commander also not call in an air strike to blow the T-62's to pieces?
                        Besides, this campaign is not really so much about how one type would go up against the other. It's more about how significant or influential each type was, or is.

                        Regardless, welcome to the campaign Merkava188. I hope you enjoy it.
                        Last edited by panther3485; 09 Jul 14, 17:20.
                        "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                        Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Gotta be the Strv 103.

                          The Swedish tank was a total head-turner when it arrived on the scene in the 1960ies and no one designing tanks at the time could avoid taking it into account.
                          It was a truly revolutionary design, particularily because it was not just a prototyp but was produced in numbers (some 300 IIRC) and used for many years in the Swedish Army.
                          It didn't catch on, but the non-turreted tank concept was seriously discussed and tried out, not at least by the Germans in the 1970ies.
                          The Strv 103 opened a gate and showed a path - into a dead end, it turned out, but none the less a significant development in the history of the tank.

                          The T-62.... yet another turtleturreted commie tin box in a long line of T-somethings

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            T-62 (Soviet Union/Russia)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Voted for T - 62,

                              S-Tank very interesting,

                              Two engine, diesel and Gas turbine,

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I would add to that T-62 contributed to T-72 development.

                                In the late 1950s, Soviets believed T-55 firing regular AP ammo could only defeat lower front hull of M48, and even that only at 1200m. HEAT was not yet reliable enough, so several new gun designs were developed, including rifled 100mm similar to L7 in performance. However, it was opted for smooth bore 115mm which was supposed to be installed in new T-64. The Soviet Army had hoped to standardize on the T-64A as its new MBT, however series of drawbacks forced them to adopt a interim design.

                                While Morozov was trying to eliminate the problems with the T-64, Kartsev's Uralvagonzavod bureau had stretched the T-55 hull to accommodate a modernized turret from cancelled Obj. 140, having a 115mm gun like that on the early T-64. The resulting T-62, while not offering the armored protection or sophistication of the T-64, was much more economical to build and much more dependable. As a result of the continuing tribulations of the T-64, the simpler and less expensive T-62 became the more widely manufactured tank of the 1960s.
                                Morozov continued to work on solving the problems with the T-64's power-plant as well as improving its combat performance by incorporating a more powerful 125mm gun, resulting in T-64. However, while reliability had improved on T-64, the average engine lifetime between failures was still only about 300 hours.

                                In the meantime, Kartsev at Uralvagon had continued to plan the evolution of the T-62. The team investigated using a new type of suspension with smaller road wheels and return rollers, and also began work on an new auto-loader for either a 115mm or 125mm gun. These features along with other design innovations were incorporated into the Object 166 and Object 167 tanks.

                                However on August 15, 1967, the Uralvagon plant was informed that it would transition from the manufacture of the T-62 tank to the T-64A tank in 1970. Two variants were envisioned: the basic T-64A with the troubled 5TDF diesel engine, and a "mobilization" version using a normal diesel engine from the T-62, which was intended as a low-cost alternative in the event
                                of war.
                                Kartsev hoped to develop a rival to the troubled T-64A, but was firmly rebuffed by Moscow. The political chief of the defense industry, Dmitriy Ustinov, continued to support the elegant and futuristic T-64A. In spite of Ustinov's continued preference for the Morozov option, the Minister of Defense Industry, S. A. Zverev, had been impressed by a demonstration of the Uralvagonzavod new auto-loader and instructed Kartsev's bureau to continue working on a mobilization version of the T-64A tank with the bureau's own auto-loader and the improved V-45 diesel engine derived from T-62 engine. T-64A hull and turret were reconfigured to adopt those, which resulted in Object 172.

                                After a long political and industrial discussion, On May 12, 1970, a state decree on standardizing the T-64A gave Uralvagonzavod permission to further develop the Obiekt 172 which took it even further away from the T-64A configuration by permitting incorporation of the new suspension from the Obiekt 167 (which was improved T-62). This version was designated Obiekt 172M, which will later be accepted as T-72.
                                It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

                                Косово је Србија!
                                Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

                                Armored Brigade

                                Armored Brigade Facebook page

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • asterix
                                  New York AG to sue the NRA
                                  by asterix
                                  New York Attorney General Letitia James launches lawsuit against the National Rifle Association alleging financial discrepancies:

                                  https...
                                  Today, 05:46
                                • casanova
                                  Emanuel Macron
                                  by casanova
                                  The French president Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut, Libanon. He watched the devastation in the city, caused by the Amoniumnitrat explosion....
                                  Today, 01:27
                                • casanova
                                  Beirut
                                  by casanova
                                  A awful, dedoerate situation for the population in Beirut, Libanon. A Amoniumnitrat-explosion was the cause of the catastrophe....
                                  Yesterday, 23:35
                                Working...
                                X