And now.....

[Bubba883XL]

5 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Was it doctrinal?

In Finland it was and still is doctrinal and done.

in alot places I wouldn't have thought it was doctrine but it still happened, tbh I don't think it will happen thinking of it, especially in cold war, it was a new way of war and the bmp was designed to be fast, mobile and amphibious and was also able to let troops shoot from inside the vehicle compartment. but still. would be kinda cool..

[The_MonkeyKing]

In Finnish army in certain situations mechanized infantry will dismount the IFVs and ride on top of the tanks. This happens when there is very high likelihood of enemy contact and need for immediate infantry cover for the tanks. (for example very thickly forested area with a small road, expected enemy too much to handle for IFVs, for example hostile MBTs with infantry cover)

But the threat is still not enough for on foot approach. Or the company has lost too many IFVs so temporary transport.

Edited February 18, 2021 by The_MonkeyKing

[Glubokii Boy]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:33 AM, mjkerner said:

I like that this is basically a sandbox. And what a sandbox! Assuming NATO forces and Warsaw Pact forces eventually are added in modules, the sky is the limit. Stuff I do now in miniatures, like Iran-Iraq War, India-Pakistan, African Bush Wars, Vietnam, the Falklands,  Ronnie and Maggie’s joint Invasion of Cuba (hey, it could have happened) are just waiting to be modded.  Great times ahead!

 

To help with these smaler wars  and varios conflicts...I wounder if it would be useful to try and squize in the uncons from SF2 in the starting lineup...or are these guys armed with to modern weapons to fit the timeline perhaps ?

[mjkerner]

RepsolCBR, I’m hoping we can swap model skeletons between SF2 and CW for that very reason. Won’t know until we get our grubby little hands on CW. But 37mm and his H&E mod crew can probably figure that out or come up with a genius workaround. The uniform, face, and weapon models are all separate, so the the SF2 modern weaponry won’t be a problem.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think we need to chill for a bit and see what Bil & Co. have planned.....There's a risk we could dive into doing something that will be made entirely redundant by a future 'official' module.

Also, while our modded efforts can look superficially convincing and feel even more so once you are actually playing them, they are only that.....Any serious examination of our TOE would find all manner of issues.

Things will be a LOT better if @37mm remakes H&E using CM:CW (and like I said, once you are actually playing the current CM:H&E, it already feels pretty convincing), but it will never be as perfect as an official module (but nor does it require quite the same workload). 

PS - And if we're talking northern front then we just gotta have these:

Edited February 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Glubokii Boy]

38 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - And if we're talking northern front then we just gotta have these:

Yes, sir ! 

 

Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Strv 103C part 1 - YouTube

One of the pros of a northern/scandinavian/swedish module would be more 'swedish' stuff...Things not seen in other theatres...

As for the S-tank...it would be intresting to see how it would hold up aginst the ruskies...

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

PS - And if we're talking northern front then we just gotta have these:

I had the distinct privilege of sitting in the driver's seat of one of these beautiful chunks of metal.  Typical Swedish design... way too comfortable!  I could have easily fallen asleep when in the reclined position.

Steve

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I had the distinct privilege of sitting in the driver's seat of one of these beautiful chunks of metal.  Typical Swedish design... way too comfortable!  I could have easily fallen asleep when in the reclined position.

Steve

I'm hoping that might bode well for future releases. 

Fascinating vehicle, I've got the Trumpeter 1/72 kit of it and am hoping to model it in one of it's rather unique hull-down configurations.....Would CM be able to model that?

Edited February 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Great news!

Comrades prepare to fight!

[Battlefront.com]

37 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm hoping that might bode well for future releases. 

Heh, well, there's lots of vehicles I love that have never got into CM.  M-79 Otter... yum!

37 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fascinating vehicle, I've got the Trumpeter 1/72 kit of it and am hoping to model it in one of it's rather unique hull-down configurations.....Would CM be able to model that?

We would have to do custom coding as there's nothing else like that in the game.  Which, sadly, is a strike against it ever coming into being.

Steve

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

We would have to do custom coding as there's nothing else like that in the game.  Which, sadly, is a strike against it ever coming into being.

Had a feeling you might make both of those points.....TBH, on balance, I'd probably rather have them with the gun pointing in odd directions than not have them at all (but the purist in me kind of agrees with you too). 

[Sequoia]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Heh, well, there's lots of vehicles I love that have never got into CM.  M-79 Otter... yum!

We would have to do custom coding as there's nothing else like that in the game.  Which, sadly, is a strike against it ever coming into being.

Steve

Would you care to briefly elaborate what makes it different then say a SU-85 code wise?

[Battlefront.com]

Well, there are two things that come to mind (and no, I haven't really thought about it until now!):

1.  There is a deployable side armor that theoretically reduced its vulnerability to missile hits from the side.

2.  The gun is fixed in place.  Traversing the tank (side to side) for aiming isn't new to CM, but raising the suspension for aiming and/or hull down posture is totally unique to this vehicle.

That's just from memory.  I only sat in the thing, I didn't get to drive it around

Steve

[atshii]

2 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Would you care to briefly elaborate what makes it different then say a SU-85 code wise?

The barrel in Stridsvagn is fixed to the hull, it always points directly forward. So if you would like it to work as in real life, the hull would need to make minor turns sideways and up/down as the gunner is aiming and moving the barrel. The hull moving up/down is done with suspension, so pretty different than anything in the game currently.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

4 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Would you care to briefly elaborate what makes it different then say a SU-85 code wise?

I believe Steve is referring to the S Tank being able to do things like this:

[Probus]

How tall isthat thing?  Swedish?

[Sequoia]

Wow, that's wild. I see what you guys mean as unique.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

1.  There is a deployable side armor that theoretically reduced its vulnerability to missile hits from the side.

It's actually at the front (I suspect you may be thinking of the jerry-cans used to protect the sides on the C variant).....Believe it or not, this is it:

And it was Top Secret at the time. 

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That's just from memory.  I only sat in the thing, I didn't get to drive it around

It has a dozer-blade so can dig its own fighting scrapes and it can can swim too, the flotation screen is built in:

BTW - This thing could deploy it's gun to the flanks almost as quickly as a turreted tank, its maneuverability is quite remarkable because of its short track footprint:

Be honest.....Did you ever see a tank do a J-Turn before?  

Here's the Tank Museum's David Willey on the S-Tank:

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Freyberg]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - And if we're talking northern front then we just gotta have these:

I may be mistaken, but I think I recall seeing one of these at the Puckapunyal Tank Museum in Victoria.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

If that's the "RAAC tank museum" then yes, you did:

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured Vehicles/swedesattheraacrankmuseumph_1.htm

Edited February 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Freyberg]

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

If that's the "RAAC tank museum" then yes, you did:

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured Vehicles/swedesattheraacrankmuseumph_1.htm

That was a truly memorable day.

It was the day of a regimental reunion, if I recall correctly, so many of the staff were having a quiet beer or two, and the usual rule about not climbing on or in the vehicles was somewhat 'relaxed' - my buddy and I had a super time (I particularly remember peering through the optics of the Centurion) while the wives and kids sat in the sun and ate snacks...

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It's actually at the front (I suspect you may be thinking of the jerry-cans used to protect the sides on the C variant).....Believe it or not, this is it:

Nope, the front thing is just slat armor and it's fixed, not deployable.

The side armor is seen right in the promo frame of this video you linked to:

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

 

If IIRC the armor could be fanned out, which could radically affect shots coming in from the frontal/sides.  I have no idea how effective it was, but in theory it could have had a significant benefit against HEAT rounds.  Especially something like an RPG round.  I don't have time to dig into the details to remind myself if I've got that right.  Someone else will have to do that

BTW, the tank could surely turn very quickly to realign its gun.  Unless there were trees, buildings, sides of hills, or anything other immovable obstacle on one or the other sides.  Same problem with non-turreted gun platforms of WW2.  Which is why nobody created new non-turreted gun platforms after WW2 with ONE exception

Steve

[Sgt.Squarehead]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The side armor is seen right in the promo frame of this video you linked to:

That's the flotation screen. 

Check out David Willey's video at 14:58 & 18:41.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[General Jack Ripper]

Chieftain did a three part series on S tank as well, really gets into the guts of the machine, and even has a drive around in one during part three.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Here's a better picture showing the screen folded and deployed:

You can see how the front section folded forward to fit over the gun support which acted as a seal (mentioned in The Cheiftain's video IIRC).

Good online guide to the type here:

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/02/the-amazing-strv-103.html

Which points out the probable source of confusion:

"The Swedes began testing another improvement with these tanks. Work on anti-HEAT shields began in 1966 during the search for additional protection. Initially, the idea was to install them on the sides, but began changing later. The Strv 103 received screens on its sides, as well as a two part screen in front. Later, it evolved into an unusual system of pins inserted into the front of the hull. This system could effectively defeat HEAT shells."

My emphasis added.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead