Swedish Tanks Extra: The S-Tank in World of Tanks

Posted on September 7, 2014 by Silentstalker

Author: sp15 (US server)

The list of previous parts is at the bottom of the article.

Recently, I covered the development of the S-tank as a part of the Swedish tank series here on FTR and today, I’m going to explain how I think the S-tank could work in WoT. First of all, I’d like to start by saying that despite Wargaming’s stance towards the S-tank in the past, there has definitely been an interest in it and I think there might be a higher chance to see the vehicle in the game than you might expect. Anyhow, lets get started.

Technical problems

Due to the unique nature of the fixed gun, a couple of issues would need to be addressed to make the tank work properly in WoT.

1) hull depression/elevation: in the game, we currently have hulls, that react with their suspension on acceleration, breaking or obstacles, so I don’t see why this couldn’t be taken further for the S-tank. Specifically, when the tank is stationary (or possibly moving at slow speed as well), it would be able to move its hull up and down and have its suspension move with the hull like it already does when you are driving. However, while on the move, controlling the hull elevation wouldn’t be possible (unless you are just turning on the spot) and the hull would go to a default position – this is actually pretty much how it worked on the real thing and is one of the main reasons the tank couldn’t fire on the move.

2) aiming with the fixed gun: I don’t think that aiming to the side with a fixed gun would be a big problem in terms of the game mechanics, the aiming would be controlled like a turret but with the whole hull moving instead of just a turret. Of course, the WASD controls would override the turning of the hull to the mouse pointer position, but other than that, it would work like a turret in first and third person. There are already mechanics that move the hull of vehicles with limited gun traverse towards where you are pointing, if it’s outside of your field of traverse, so I don’t think this should be a big problem.

3) Spotting mechanics: This is perhaps the biggest issue, but it should hopefully not pose too much of a problem. For those of you, who don’t know, the WoT spotting system and a lot of the equipment you can mount on the tank detect if your tank is moving or not and based on that, a number of things can happen. In the case of the spotting system, you lose 50% of your camo rating and are therefore easier to spot. Due to the fact the S-tank has to move its hull every time it aims its gun, this poses a problem. My personal suggestion is to go the easy way and simply give the tank a very good camouflage on the move rating and simply not make equipment (like camo nets and binoculars) that makes use of the tank standing still available. Some of this can be compensated by an already historically good camo rating (in real life, it had smaller silhouette than all other MB’Ts of the time) and view range (it outperformed the Leopard 1 and Chieftain in various tests).

Strv 103 preproduction model compared to a Centurion

Strv 103B at maximum depression (-10dg)

Balance

I mentioned this issue a bit already with the the camo rating and view range above, but now I will move on to the rest of the tank.

Mobility: mobility is one of the biggest issues I have with the S-tank – or rather with its first production version, the Strv 103A. Historically, the Strv 103A was equipped with two engines – one diesel and one gas turbine, that combined to give the 37 ton tank 540 horsepower and a power to weight ratio of about 14,6hp/t. It was however found several years before production started that a more powerful engine was needed and several engine combinations were considered and tested. One of these was to simply replace the gas turbine with a more powerful one, which resulted in a combined 730hp. This engine configuration was refitted to the Strv 103A as a part of its refit to the Strv 103B standard in 1970, three years after the original entered service. With this engine upgrade as a researchable module, the tank could get some much needed mobility (19hp/t) without the need for a soft stat compensation.

Firepower: This is a tricky topic to cover, since WoT does not really represent any modern autoloaders like the S-tank. You see, in the S-tank, the autoloader is fed by a combination of three magazines – one 25 round, one 20 round and with final 5 rounds for smoke. This means that the total of 50 rounds of ammo can be carried and in WoT terms (which usually halves the real life value of the clip), the smallest practical magazine would be 10 rounds. I think that this can work and can be balanced, but I don’t really think it fully represents the S-tank, since there will be a long reload time for the magazine, which was something that wasn’t necessary on the S-tank, since all the 50 rounds were carried together and the loader could simply press a button to switch magazines.

With this in mind, the second alternative would be to give the tank what would be treated as a regular gun but with massive DPM. This would mean no long magazine reloads, but would also mean the lack of the autoloader burst damage. With the autoloader burst damage, we would get 3900 damage (390 average x10) to dish out with a 3 sec reload between every shot and a minute long magazine reload. The other option with DPM would be to give the tank something like 8 rounds per minute rate of fire, which would give it 3120 damage per minute (think tier 10 E25). I want you to keep in mind that these numbers are just speculation and the tank could might as well be balanced with a lower rate of fire or a smaller magazine. In any case, the main armament of the Strv 103A was a modified version of the British L7 gun with a lengthened barrel, in Swedish service it was called 10,5cm Kan Strv 103. In the game, it should have the same 390 average damage as the L7, but with greater penetration, equal to other tier 10 TDs due to the longer barrel and greater muzzle velocity.

Armor: this was actually covered before in part 17 of the Swedish tanks series, concerning the Strv 103, but I can cover it again. Basically the armor of the S-tank is rather strange, the upper sides and parts of the front are spaced armor with the actual hull armor underneath. I made this picture to demonstrate the armor.

As you can see, there is quite a bit of spaced armor – most on the sides, but there are also strips of spaced armor in the front. The spaced armor on the upper glacis is actually one of the reasons I delayed making this part, since I wanted to research how they could work in WoT, specifically whether they could stop shells, which would otherwise overmatch the regular armor. In the end, I couldn’t reach a conclusion. The “ribbed” armor on the upper plate was 30mm thick and 40mm high and was used on the engine access hatches. This armor was found to be superior to a 50mm plate in tests, when it came to weight and protection. According to an American report on this type of armor from Hunnicutt’s Abrams:

“Ballistics tests indicated that greater protection could be achieved at the same weight or equivalent protection was possible at a lighter weight by using armor with this configuration.”

The front armor of the Strv 103A was 40mm thick and was placed at such an angle that any shell that didn’t overmatch the armor would simply ricochet. The side armor was made of an inner 30mm plate and an additional outer one above the tracks, the rear was 30mm as well and the roof was only 18mm thick.

Strv 103A

Conclusion

In World of Tanks, the Strv 103A would be a very different tier 10, that would blur the line between TD and a medium, with the mobility and armor of a fast medium tank but with the lack of a turret. The S-tank would need to rely on stealth, mobility and sniping to offset its disadvantages in armor protection. If we see the S-tank in the game, it is likely going to be as a tier 10 TD in either the European or possibly a Swedish tech tree. These were my thoughts on the S-tank and how it could work in World of Tanks, keep in mind that everything here is subject to change as we gather more info on the tank and that my proposed characteristics are just guidelines. I hope you enjoyed this article and please comment and post your ideas and thoughts on the S-tank.

Strv 103A
Combat weight: 37 t
Length: 6,9m (excluding gun)
Length: 8.8m (including gun)
Width: 3,3m
Height: 2.15m
Ammo: 50 rounds
Crew: (commander, gunner/driver, rear driver/radio operator)
Armour (front upper): 40mm at 78°
Armour (front lower): 40mm at 72°
Armour (side upper): 30mm + 10mm
Armour (side lower): 30mm + 20mm
Armour (rear): 30mm
Elevation/depression: +12/-10
Speed: 55kph
Engine: Rolls Royce K60 & Boeing 502-10MA (540hp), Engine: Rolls Royce K60 & Boeing 502-10MA (540hp), Rolls Royce K60 & Caterpillar 553 (730hp)
Suspension: Strv 103A – Production
Radio: Ra 420
Main armament: 10,5cm L74 (10,5cm Kan Strv 103)

If you want to read more about the S-tank you can check out my articles on its History and development
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/13/swed … 1956-1961/
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/21/swed … -strv-103/

Also special thanks to CaptianNemo for the excerpt from Hunnicutt’s Abrams

25 thoughts on “Swedish Tanks Extra: The S-Tank in World of Tanks”

Peejay22CZ on September 7, 2014 at 9:24 am said:

Maybe u guys would like to see how did they test it ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw
- Silentstalker on September 7, 2014 at 9:49 am said:
  
  Renhaxue (the uploader of the video) is the guy who digs up all those wonderful archive data and works with sp15 on that, so believe me, we know ;)
  - Peejay22CZ on September 7, 2014 at 9:56 am said:
    
    I didnt mean u SS but nevermind. I seen this vid quite some time ago and now when I read all this info u found I had it back in my mind. Just thought would be good addition to your article.
  - soy_yo_soy_yo on September 7, 2014 at 10:08 am said:
    
    SS, sometimes i can’t believe WG doesn’t pay you for all you do…
- nixxxie on September 7, 2014 at 11:49 am said:
  
  PETA would have something to say about this video… Those air stafes. And 12:30 especially.
Deathskyz on September 7, 2014 at 9:38 am said:

Although that front hull will be overmatched by all tier 10 heavies and TDs.
- TwixOps on September 7, 2014 at 10:01 am said:
  
  Frontally, every gun below 120mm (107, 105, etc) would autobounce… every gun 120 mm and above would autopen.
- red_warning on September 7, 2014 at 10:23 am said:
  
  Doesn’t spaced armour have any impact on the overmatch mechanic at all? Either way, the toughness of the S-tank depends highly on how WG interpret the ribbed armour layer on top of the hull armour. They could simply add +10 > mm extra armour to make it simulate its real life effects.
  - Foxton on September 8, 2014 at 1:13 pm said:
    
    From what I’ve seen, a shell penetrating spaced armour can’t overmatch armour underneath. I can’t say 100% as there is no clear client-side penetration marks, but it looks as though (e.g.) a KV1S 122mm shell can pass through a Pz4H’s skirts, then bounce off the rear armour (~30mm).
    
    This could all change with the new ricochet mechanic though. Not sure if A) a shell passing through spaced armour can hit a second tank and B) if a ricocheted shot can overmatch armour (which would be good for bouncing a shot off the lower mantlet into a driver’s hatch)
    
    In the case of the S-tank, I really hope for it’s sake that the spaced armour does prevent overmatch, otherwise the tank’s only gimmick is rendered moot.
CyberMaroon on September 7, 2014 at 9:39 am said:

Personally, I would somehow program the tank to have the entire hull be considered a turret in the style of the turrets of the French and US autoloaders, which have a fixed gun and instead move the whole turret up and down. This turret would then simply have a traverse of 0. Then you’d have a ‘hull’ that moves up and down to move the gun, but will have to turn the vehicle on it’s tracks to aim sideways.

Of course, I’m not a developer for WG, but this seems like a simple way to implement it using the existing mechanics of fixed guns in turrets and turrets with limited traverse, in addition to the automatic hull turning that is mentioned by the author already.

Making it not be able to fire while moving is silly, since a lot of tanks can’t actually do that in reality.
- E.T. on September 7, 2014 at 10:14 am said:
  
  Making it not be able to fire while moving is silly, since a lot of tanks can’t actually do that in reality.
  
  You could fire, but you can’t aim.
  - CyberMaroon on September 7, 2014 at 11:06 am said:
    
    Most Tank Destroyers can’t really aim when firing on the move either due to limited traverse and dispersion. The extreme lack of traverse on this tank isn’t much different from some TDs that have only a few degrees.
    
    Besides, it would be a handicap, and that adds to skill requirement.
- LiquidInferno on September 7, 2014 at 10:25 am said:
  
  That style of turret is known as an oscillating turret.
  - CyberMaroon on September 7, 2014 at 11:04 am said:
    
    I don’t do fancy words within an hour of waking up.
- Assire on September 7, 2014 at 10:48 am said:
  
  In game it works in different way. For example, in BC-25t only the turret ring is “turret” for game. Rest of the turret is “gun”. To make it elevate, whole tank should be treated as a “gun”.
  The problem is, hull traverse isn’t fluent, smallest move I have ever done with tank was like 3-4 degrees to the side.
  - CyberMaroon on September 7, 2014 at 11:08 am said:
    
    Like I said, I’m not a developer. I actually know jack shit. However, I think you’re wrong at least partially since you can shoot the BatChat’s turret and deal damage. If it was considered gun, how would you ever deal HP damage to a BatChat?
    - red_warning on September 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm said:
      
      You’d split it up in sections, one that reduces hit points when being shot and one that functions as a module (the actual gun).
Dsotm44 on September 7, 2014 at 9:45 am said:

Unfortunately while I think this would be a great addition to the game, the current trend by WG to nerf TD’s, remove sniping positions, cover, and implement corridors indicates that they no longer want TD’s in the game, and are actively taking measure to dissuade people from buying them.
Sturmi on September 7, 2014 at 10:03 am said:

I’d love to believe in the WG WoT people to be able to program and implement the special gun mechanics. but seeing them being uncapable of doing a multiple turrets mechanism makes me worry and doubt their abilites to create anything that’s actually new and useful.

btw, Warships do not seem to have any problems controlling multiple turrets, torpedos, smoke screens and scout aircraft all on one ship…
- Mladen Kljajic on September 7, 2014 at 10:50 am said:
  
  You do realize that the multiple turret system would only affect a couple of tanks at best
LiquidInferno on September 7, 2014 at 10:28 am said:

Very interesting tank indeed. Though one thing I was considering is that if you got tracked in this thing you not only would not be able to traverse your gun from left to right but you wouldn’t be able to depress or elevate the gun either. The unique turret less design may present it’s own set of benefits but it definitely has it’s drawbacks as well (without even considering development and implementation).
nixxxie on September 7, 2014 at 11:03 am said:

1. I don’t like the idea of it being a TD. We already have one non-turreted non-TD tank ingame (ELC), so changing class to a medium is not an issue (or, a light, if you want same camo on move as stationary).

2. You could give it a “virtual” autoloader, so reload time doesn’t depend on crew skills and no rammer possible – with fixed value for every shell and full capacity magazine. The only code modification would be mixing ammo types and no crosshair clip for this tank.

3. WG can model armor thickness on hitbox to any unhistorical value to compensate for real life protection capabilities – i see no problem with that. There is no armor “quality” stat ingame anyway, so some kind of ersatz is needed.

4. I was also thinking on alternate aiming mode with fixing “deploying” the hull in order to shoot – with current hull brake button already in game. This is another interesting idea on balacing other classes, like arty or even TDs (so they can’t shoot while not hull-locked and it takes like half a second to engage) – something to talk about in general when we get out of options.
fat2 on September 7, 2014 at 11:38 am said:

1) hull depression/elevation:
they could just make an invisible hull with no visible or damage model, and mark the entire “hull” of the tank like a french turret. those already have the mehcanics modelled already.
- comstedt on September 7, 2014 at 12:36 pm said:
  
  That would be simple enough. But would that not just create a new problem? For instance if you depress this invisible “hull” and fire, i would look kinda awkward since the “real” visible model would still pointing straight ahead and the shot going downwards in an unrealistic manner.
  
  Not sure if you understand what im trying to say :p imagine it the same way as a turret gun, visible model just points its straight ahead, and the worlong invisible gun shooting down at something,
FlavioB on September 7, 2014 at 10:24 pm said:

So, basically, Tier X Rhoomba. With more mobility. And armor that is likely to stop HE.
That will totally be good, balanced, and nobody will complain about. In fact, I’d throw in some Milan’s there to seal the deal.
[/Sarcasm].