S-Tank Report

My attention has been drawn to this report on British trials of the S-Tank, though in parts it's more of a report on the Brits trialling the S-Tank...

 

Idler

I read this in some amazement that any British Tank crew had forgotten all they had been trained to do in the daily maintenance of their Tank - that is the last thing they would do as Tanks

needs constant upkeep to keep it in fighting fit order and recall with great pride that many battles were fought with NO sign of a lack of maintenance - but then unlike the Swedish Tank Corps -

we did have many battles to their nil - sour grapes perhaps...

Cheers

 

I suspect that as tanks have got bigger and more complex, there's a lot less the crew can actually do (look at what's happened with cars). Even in the 70s, it was a powerpack mentality - if something doesn't work, change the entire engine and gearbox.

 

Very interesting report which casts an interesting light on BAOR professionalism at that time.

The comments about defensive widths is especially interesting when you combine it with the stated lack of ammunition and crew to target response time.

 

So based on that report the Russians hot knife through butter

 

Whilest I read the Swedish Report with some amazement -I am now reading the comments by BRITISH posters with even more astonishment as they appear to be

agreeing with the Swedes that British Tank crews are a bunch of losers - reminding myself that I appear to be the only one of them to have actually been trained to

be a Tank crew member and survived quite a few battles- without the whole of the Swedish army……without any packeged engine et al those bogies still have

to be greased…and crews encouraged…not disparaged

cheers

 

The Swedes aren't saying that the British crews are losers, they are saying that we hadn't been trained to win. There's enough detail in the criticisms to understand their reasons, and it is often down to different doctrine. Second World War vintage doctrine and tactics are still being argued about today, so it's not surprising there continue to be disputes over contemporary tactics. Forty years on and the basis of the argument was still 'that's not how the Germans do it'!

In one respect, the Swedes may have had more in common with British WW2 tankies than those of the 70s. BAOR were training for a war that might have gone tactical-nuclear at an early stage so concentration of forces was frowned upon. The Swedes may have decided the Soviets weren't going to waste much instant sunshine on them, so they could afford to fight conventionally with higher force densities. The 800m spacings criticised in the report are straight out of the British 1970 Armoured Regiment manual. It actually states that intervals between individual tanks may be 50m-800m; immense scope for interpretation but 800m wasn't 'wrong'.

 

Idler

AS I recall - we had a different doctrine of Armoured warfare in the period 1942 - 45 when Alanbrooke and Monty shook it all up as we had been losing the war

to that point - under Churchill / Eden's strategy even the US didn't have a reasonable strategy at that time and - the Germans were wiped out at Cap Bon /Tunis

so it's fair to assume that we knew what we were doing - an that tended to hang about...

Cheers

 

I cannot understand the consideration of this type of AFV in comparison to UK Tanks at the time.

As I see it, the S-tank is not a Tank as we know it due to the fixed Forward gun which was elevated by the Suspension and targeting was by using the tracks, which is usual with assault guns.

If this AFV gets a hit on the tracks/Suspension it is out of the game!

Regards
Tom

 

What are the tractors up to in pictures 210 and 211? Some type of protest?

John Deere in 210. I can't tell the ones in 211. Maybe a Massey Ferguson and a New Holland or Ford