Modern STUG Swedish "S" Light Tank Best for 21st Century War

ANYTHING that is TRACKED and ARMORED is a TANK.

U.S. Army STUDY: We need TURRETLESS TANKS NOW!

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR...
http://www.combatreform.org/turretlesstanksmajormoore1990cgsc.pdf

Turretless STUG Tanks Rule!
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929BCD

The Germans call all their armored, tracked tanks, "Panzers". Since they co-invented tank warfare with the British THEIR DEFINITION IS WHAT COUNTS not American whoppertanktards who want only turreted heavy turreted tracks to be known as tanks; a M113 Gavin in German Combat Engineer use is called a "Minenwerferpanzer 64"

Contrary to popular mythology, the most successful tank of WW2, was a LIGHT one, and without a turret--the German Sturmgeschutz or "STUG" was built all through the war and remained extremely lethal and effective killing over 20-30, 000 allied tanks.

http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw_pnYypYwo

Most of the world's army's tankers have not only got their WW2 history all wrong, they persist in huge turrets on top that are going to continue to cause them to get incinerated--slapping heavier and heavier armor is not going to salvage the bad tank design mess they have created--today's heavy 70 ton tanks are still vulnerable and ever more immobile after all this work-around-the-huge-turret antics are done--when the solution is LESS IS MORE--get rid of turret! Don't get hit in the first place! The Germans understood this, and one smart group of technotacticians, the practical Swedes acted on it with their amazing Strv 103 "S" light-medium tank described in detail in this video. The "S" tank empty actually a LIGHT 20-ton tank but combat loaded goes into the "MEDIUM" category, that's how space/weight efficient it is as a heavy tank killer and infantry fire support provider! American whoppertanktards don't get it! In CLOSED TERRAIN ONLY light tanks can move. Do we want tank shock action in closed terrains, yes or no?

The "S" is a turretless LIGHT tank.

The M1 Abrams is a turreted HEAVY tank.

The "S" light tank can be flown faster into battle (2 per C-17) and operate in CLOSED TERRAINS where the Abrams heavy tank cannot.

"S" light tank in closed terrain: WINNER

Abrams heavy tank not in closed terrain: LOSER-BY DEFAULT because its AWOL.

"S" light tank vs. Abrams heavy tank in a duel: "S" tank gets to battlefield FIRST, is in hull-down ambush position FIRST. This can be from CLOSED TERRAIN Abrams cannot move in.

Along comes Abrams heavy tank in predictable, OPEN TERRAIN.

"S" tank sees the Abrams and fires FIRST, if its gun overmatches it, its knocked out/destroyed etc. ("Icing" you apply not "cake" chassis issue)

Mounted warfare is more than open terrain clusterfucks of tanks slamming into each-other in Kursk-style meeting engagements.

The "future combat system" lay-out that we need--already exists--look at the "S' tank and imagine how with today's technologies we can make the main gun stabilized and able to track moving objects by computer assisted gunnery steering to shoot-on-the-move and eliminate the last excuse by the bad WW2 re-enactors large turret suicide lusters to not embrace what is best for the mission, the men and themselves.

1. We can't fly and parachute drop Leopard or any other heavy tanks...too heavy

2. We cannot maneuver heavy tanks through closed terrains

3. We CAN however, have a well-armored, LIGHT tank that can be air-transportable en masse and maneuver through closed terrains especially if we conserve weight by not having a turret. Learn from the STUG.

Legendary British General Percy Hobart came to this same conclusion, that future tanks must be LIGHT:

http://www.combatreform.com/sappertanks.htm

Notice the "S" tanks can swim with screens like Hobart's DD Sherman tanks--the entire force doesn't need bridges and can avoid Arnhem-like disasters. The U.S. Army's current FCS vehicles CANNOT swim, only our M113 Gavins can swim today.

The point of "S"/STUG tanks is we can have great protection in a light weight that is closed terrain cross-country and air transport mobile for 3D maneuver. If we keep persisting on turrets we are going to be too heavy to maneuver or light and not protected enough.

The U.S. Army should buy a battalion's worth of "S" tanks and see for themselves what a future tank should be.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• sturmgeschutz
• STUG
• tank
• hobart
• DD
• amphibious
• air-mech-strike

[Sarkelk]

Is it a better tank than T-80 or M1 Abrams? No its not. But It was tailor made to fill a specific role in the swedish defence, and in that role it was and still is the best tank in the world.

And comparing it to the M1 Abrams is kinda irrelevant because its a much more modern tank. You should compare it to the M60 Patton or the Chieftain tank.

[dynmicpara]

@Sarkelk NO, the S-Tank as a LIGHT TANK is a better tank for Airborne/SOF/Cavalry /Infantry Fire support missions than a T-80 medium or a M1 Abrams heavy tank THAT CANNOT GET TO THE FIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. You are making the common mistake of looking at everything like a technological gadget contest via the false yardstick of man's numbering of time instead of first by FUNCTION. Newer isn't better if its idiots making crap recently--look at wheeled LAV/Strykers trucks for example.

[filipgrimhage]

it is a gun on wheels !

[dynmicpara]

@filipgrimhage gun on TRACKS...

[spongya77]

You can haggle over the definitions, but a turret does have a very valid function. The S tank is good for ambush; not very good in offensive (as were the StuGs and other turretless German designs).

And the T-34 was the most successful tank design of the war. It left a very lasting impression in post-war designs, and was actually used until the '90s.

[dynmicpara]

@spongya77 when idiots in the U.S. Army do not understand what a TANK is, and that they can be light, medium or heavy it's not mere "haggling". Go to our M113 Gavin web page and you'll see a STUG with a super-elevating gun that would be great for hilly/mountainous Afghanistan.

[SaLTLiFe4TL]

Wow thats actually a beutiful tank, as an American i cannot say if it is better than a M1, and personally dont give a shit bc America and Sweden will never be at war with eachother. This tank def has some advantages over any other tank as well as disdvantages, as long as it gets the job done. nice vid though, thank you

[PHILLE564]

@spongya77 The S tank was made for Swedih forests, since it has no turret, it can go between the trees without any problem

[dar260]

WHAT THE F!? A LIGHT TANK!!! I TOUGHT IT WAS A MEDIUM TANK!!! wen i saw this tank the first tank i tought it was a tank destroyer but it wasent!! its a tank!!!!

[asusp3v4x]

so they simply removed the lower part of the tank and re-designed the turret to be the ENTIRE tank. Genius... Sounds a bit awkward must say, but sounds like a nice piece of equipment

[Suomipanzerdiv13]

Dear santa...

[instantjizz]

damn thats pretty baddass tank 

[rabies79]

was it 16 years since this was taken out of service?

[MrDrakir]

@SaLTLiFe4TL

Finaly someone who don't se war where ever they look and i agree Sweden and Amerika will never go to war with eachother.

The coolnes of our two countries would destroy the world as we know it