Jump to content


Photo

Waddaya Know, The Swedes Had A Tank

and an interesting one

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#41 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 March 2013 - 1027 AM

Here is the other vehicle I was referring to above, (Leo 1 chassis?)
Posted Image


IIRC this is one of the 5 105mm dummy gun vehicles made in the 1970ies as component and tactical test vehicles for the VT 1-1 and 1-2. They were called GVT 01 to GVT 05.
  • 0

#42 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 March 2013 - 1051 AM

I think the multigun concept was to enable when the vehicle was on the move (or static) to have a gun on target quickly by swerving. When engaging with one gun, the other would be topped up by the loader. Having 2 guns would mean you would have one on target quicker due to requiring less angle of turn to get a gun on the target. At least thats my understanding from the secret projects website and limited stuff ive trawled up elsewhere. Im not sure it was to kill targets quicker, in fact if you think about it the limitation of the system was only being able to engage with one gun at a time. If they could engage with 2 guns at once at 2 different targets I could see the point. But at that point you would probably end up with something like a Char B. :)


All, the sources I've seen, including publications from the WTS and Panzermuseum Munster states that the purpose of these vehicles were as I stated before.

I dont know why you keep mentioning loaders as the VT 1-2 didn't have any. :) Both guns were intended to have auto-loaders in the production versions.

Stephan, who used to post here, made some good posts about these vehicles, including this description of the Wedelfahrt:

One of the ideas behind this concept was to convert what you understand as a weakness into an advantage. Imagine this tank advancing at, oh, lets say 30km/h. Upon contact, the driver switches to "Wedelfahrt", while gunner and TC acquire targets, while advancing on this "waving" course, as soon a gun passes an acquired target, it fires. While driving like this, the tank is extremely difficult to hit - I don't really would want to be in a Leopard 2 or in any other conventional tank, if this beast was advancing on me. Even from a standing position, the concept would work reasonably well, the high engine power would make turning the tank really easy (Have you ever seen a Leopard 2 tank turning around its vertical axis? This already is quite fast, now imagine this concept vehicle would have had about 50% more power while weighting about 25% less!), remember, that unlike on the Strv 103 or any other tank with a (semi-)fixed gun, it would not have been necessary to really aim the whole tank at the target, rather the driver had just to turn the vehicle in such a way that the guns line of sight passes the target. Also, the high firepower (on average, it could fire one gun every three seconds, it could also fire both guns at once) and good protection would have still been a major advantage.

I dont get the point about dumping one big gun in the middle of the vehicle or two for that matter as pr. the GVTs. Particularily not, if you split the crew positions to both sides of the gun. Seems like a much better idea to have the crew in the center, well protected, and the guns on either side, adding even more space between the outside and the crew.
  • 0

#43 Peter3110

Peter3110

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:AFV equipment & doctrine / computers / history

Posted 03 March 2013 - 1151 AM

I remember reading a report at the time, that the tests on the German vehicles showed that firing the alternate guns so far off centre, caused stress fractures in the chassis armour.
Does anyone else know anything about this?

Edited by Peter3110, 03 March 2013 - 1151 AM.

  • 0

#44 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skåne,Sweden

Posted 03 March 2013 - 1606 PM


...An equally interesting question is how well the s-tank armor would stand up to T55/T62. Can anybody help me out?


Vs T-54/55 it would be quite safe, BK-5M fused reliably up the 65deg, after that it was a lottery, at 68deg I would dare to say it would not fuse barring soe (un)lucky hits. For early APDS/APFSDS 78deg slope is too much of obstacle for reliable penetration.


Thank you, bojan! :)
  • 0

#45 commander

commander

    Challenger supporter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,376 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Interests:Tanks, building large scale models of tanks, writing AFV books

Posted 03 March 2013 - 1645 PM

JagdChieftain modified transmission to allow laying of gun, and according to Col John Gillman it worked well, come to think of it never heard of a Chiefy throwing a track doin neutrals either
  • 0

#46 jmcmtank

jmcmtank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 1829 PM

I never heard of a Chieftain doing neutrals off road funnily enough; you'd have been hung drawn and quartered!
  • 0

#47 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2013 - 1332 PM

Perhaps im biased...


You think....... :D
  • 0

#48 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 07 March 2013 - 0733 AM

We've been here before. Pictures of the articulated UDES-XX-20 (think Bvs-206 with 120mm gun in unmanned turret) test vehicle were posted, but not, I think, the more conventional Strv-2000 mockup, with its 140mm gun & co-axial 40mm.
  • 0

#49 Dave Clark

Dave Clark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 07 March 2013 - 1630 PM

We've been here before. Pictures of the articulated UDES-XX-20 (think Bvs-206 with 120mm gun in unmanned turret) test vehicle were posted, but not, I think, the more conventional Strv-2000 mockup, with its 140mm gun & co-axial 40mm.


I give you Strv-2000!

Posted Image
  • 0

#50 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 07 March 2013 - 1648 PM


We've been here before. Pictures of the articulated UDES-XX-20 (think Bvs-206 with 120mm gun in unmanned turret) test vehicle were posted, but not, I think, the more conventional Strv-2000 mockup, with its 140mm gun & co-axial 40mm.


I give you Strv-2000!

Posted Image


Yes, the T140/40, or Strv 141 as it would have been designated in service:

http://208.84.116.22...59
http://strv102r.trip...m/strv_2000.htm
  • 0

#51 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 1659 PM

It's not a coax 40mm, as I understand it. As you can see in the picture, it has independent elevation.

Of up to 90 degrees so it can kill helicopters.

Oh yeah.
  • 0

#52 Dave Clark

Dave Clark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 07 March 2013 - 1706 PM

Thanks, Olof, I seem to have missed that thread first time round!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users