S-tank can only be used for ambush

Do you even know what emissivity is? Turbine exhaust is mostly hot air and air is transparent in thermal sights.

you entire post is uneducated and shows lack of knowledge. tanks do not produce plumes of smoke unless they are diesels using piston engines. Additionally turbine engines do not produce IR visibility ,air doesn't give off IR and because turbine burns so much better than diesel no particulate is produced unlike in deisel.

>>S-tank can only be used for ambush
Not correct
>>S-tank needs turbine engine running inorder to aim gun
Also a lie
>>S-tank turbine spits out a giant plume of black smoke when running giving away ambush position
Sometimes, but this is rare
>what did they mean by this?
That its a great fucking tank

Try talking to someone who has actually driven one next time

The soviet Motor rifle divisions that was to take Sweden didnt even have it until the 80's, so Its even more irrelevant

>Additionally turbine engines do not produce IR visibility
Interesting, considering crew of the 103s used to cook their rations and sandwiches on the GT exhaust...
Anything that´s hotter then the surrounding ambient temperature is going to show hot.

I know this may be hard because of your retardation but that is metal producing IR light. Air is transparent to IR and doesn't emit IR light but the particulate is not and neither is the tank itself which will. Diesels will always be more visible due to how dirty they burn. Sorry not sorry for shattering your false world view eurogayboi :^)

>mostly hot air and air is transparent in thermal sights.
Explain thermal camera farts

The main failure of the 103 (Like most Swedish weapons and equipment) was bureaucracy and political meddling.

>There was a DU penetrator developed for it in the 60s that was never adopted for political reasons to keep the anti-radiation hippies happy
>It took too long for it from being accepted in trials (1958) to it being put in service (First deliveries in 1967), by that time it was already starting to become obsolete since gun stabilization technology advanced rapidly.
>It was kept in service far longer then it should have been since politicians stuck their head in the sand until the army got their hands on a T-72 in the 90s and showed that even without DU ammunition it could shoot straight through the whole 103 from front to back.

>There was a DU penetrator developed for it in the 60s that was never adopted for political reasons to keep the anti-radiation hippies happy
Whats wrong with tungsten? I though US only started using DU because they don't have a domestic natural supply of tungsten

youtube.com/watch?v=AzyH0M4C8TY

you are literally unequivocally and unironically retarded

The US used DU because it was far cheaper than tungsten, which itself has industrial use.

>video of afterburners

Speaking of being retarded.

The main reason would have been domestic production.
But DU has it's own set of advantages, self sharpening while penetrating armor as well as pyrophoric after effects on penetration.

Turbines run on kerosene or diesel oil is not as clean as for example natural gas turbines.

A turbine run on diesel fuel is far cleaner than a diesel piston.

Of course, I'm just saying like with all things it depends on the variables in a specific situation.

>He thinks hot CO2 doesn’t emit photons on the infrared spectrum

DUURN DURR DUURRRRR DIRRRRRRRRR

>it's a deathtrap guys!
>literally posts the video that shows the tank protecting it's crew against all sorts of AT weaponry

I guess you don't understand what they're saying, so let me help you out:
- 2.50: 105mm AP projectile fired at the front. No penetration, damage to antenna. New one can be installed in 20 minutes
- 3.18: 105mm AP projectile fired at the rear fuel tank. Fuel tank is penetrated, but armour inside is not. The fuel slows the projectile significantly.
- 5.43: Shaped charged grenade fired at lower front. Penetrates the first layer of armour. Is stopped by the engine compartent (pierced some other fuel compartment close to the engine, but the tank would be able to drive for another 5mins before running out of fuel)
- 6.16: 90mm AT grenade fired at the side. Jet pierced the armour, and damaged radio components. No overpressure or fire at crew seat locations. The fire was left to burn, but the tank was stil operational.
- 7.15: Same story but another angle. Penetrate side armour but no fire inside, and no damage to were crew are sitting.
7.46: Same grenade again, but this time aimed directly at the drivers position. It does not penetrate all the way through.

(more shots at wheels and then autocannons.. I don't bother to translate anymore)

So no, the conclusion is that the tank was in fact very resilient for its time and protected it's crew very well. You just made up a bunch of stuff and added that "the soviets knew that as well"

Fucking kill yourself you half brained retard

flir.com/products/gf343/

Dumb derp doesn’t know the difference between exhaust concentrated in a desiel tail pipe vs. a giant turbine exhaust diffusion duct. Did they paint the diesel exhaust black and the turbine exhaust duct white mr. emissivity?

Attached: 1449077384643.png (500x501, 80K)

kys aspie

>1960s
Yeah every Soviet conscript and vehicle at the time had IR optics.

Very nice arguments!
You sure showed him!

you made none :p cry about it nerd

Neither did you.

>n-no you
pathetic. sounds like I win

>gunner sight
>CO2 optimized thermal camera

I will give you credit and assume you intentionally ignored the part where it was stated that turbine exhaust is mostly hot air, not that turbine exhaust has no particulate at all, rather than it being simply a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

I like how you almost understand what is going on but are too stubborn to think it through.

Attached: citv_m1a2.jpg (3264x1836, 930K)

Is my understanding that a "tank" with a completely fixed gun which is aimed by turning/tilting the hull, No longer offers any significant advantages over a convention design which can fire on move?
Also if one were to design a modern s-tank would it still have a highly slopped front or would current armor principles require a thick slab at the front similar to the T28/T95?

Attached: T-28 Super Heavy 014.jpg (1024x459, 88K)

Stop talking out your ass. That training video demonstrates the 103 taking damage effectively. The occupants would have survived every incident in that video. If the Soviets knew it as a "Bjorn Cooker" then they knew it from baseless propaganda rather than actual experience. The 103 was an excellent tank for a defensively-oriented military of the late Cold War. The Swedish military was pretty hardcore about defensive tactics. It's why they adopted the 103, and why the highways were laid so as to be possibly used as airstrips for jets concealed in roadside bunkers. The 103 was excellent for its role. Next will you tell me that it is foolish for Switzerland not to have desert camouflage uniforms at the ready for invasion use, or that the Afghan military should sell off its MRAPs because it needs a MBT capable of being effectively used against the tanks of a world power?

You are correct, and nobody would design a new Strv 103, it was a technological deadend once stabilizors came.

calm down aspie. why are bjorns so pathetic and wrong. lmao

Well, the major advantage was, and still is, that it offered a very low profile, which is still true of a hypothetical modern casemate design. It's just that in modern times, urban combat is a much more common concern, and in that environment, the disadvantages of such a design go from manageable to crippling.

I'd rather be a bjorn than a vatnik.

Also, bjorn is right, whereas the vatniks are just as wrong as they are retarded.

you don't see plumes with IR, only surfaces

I know the more retarded segments of Jow Forums likes to rip on the S-tank and I'd like to ask then what they would have chosen instead of the 103.
Remember that you'd need to choose from the available export tanks in the late 50s, maybe early 60s if you managed to stall the procurement.
You'd have the Centurion, a tank which Sweden operated alongside the S-tank, the Leo I and the Patton.
Not exactly a lineup of the hottest stuff.

nice sperg out. lmao

cool your autism, retarded swedecuck

Advantage number two is you can put a fuckhuge gun with a fast and reliable autoloader in a a turretless tank. You might still see this for exotic hypervelocity cannon carriers in the future

>emissivity

Lol. Learn to English FFS

Are S-tank threads the new autism bait and shitposting threads?
Sure feels like it.