Gamescon: STRV 103B Preview Footage

61

Hello,

this is the first official footage of the upcoming STRV 103B, tier 10 Swedish Tank Destroyer:

You know what came to my mind? I actually have my own footage of this tank (IRL), been twice in it. Would you guys like pictures/video of its inside?

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!

61 comments on “Gamescon: STRV 103B Preview Footage

  1. Vojislav says:

    That is modern tank, his place isnt in wot..




    0



    0
  2. OF COURSE WE WANT!!
    GIEF NAOW! <3




    0



    0
  3. CounterMAN says:

    just asking, but that “cage” in front can hold against HEAT shell ? I mean in-game (not irl), it count as space armor right ?




    0



    0
  4. metalrodent says:

    Kinda a shame they made it a TD, think of peoples confusion at a completely hull locked medium lol




    0



    0
  5. sp15 says:

    “Swedish Tank Destroyer”
    Still really unhappy they had to pretend it is something that it was not irl. I die a little inside everytime i hear somebody calling it a TD. Guess that means i will be a empty husk before i get to play this thing. At least the model looks good.




    0



    0
    • deadarashi says:

      It’s more for the sake of game balancing and does in a way fit into the roll of a TD in how it will play since it has no turret…. Or gun traverse at all… And there isn’t exactly a “MBT” line so they need to put it towards brances where it fits.

      Besides, last I checked there is plenty more unhistorical tanks then just calling a MBT a TD




      0



      0
    • Anonymous says:

      I bet the wanted it to be a med but if you think about people who dont know it IRL would think “why is a TD a med?”




      0



      0
    • Synvy (Tea) says:

      There are more problems to than the TD tag.
      0 Gun arc ? Have fun aiming when 100+ ping…
      Hydraulic suspension no ? Oh the depression…
      40mm UFP at Tier X ? Yeah… 😀




      0



      0
      • deadarashi says:

        @SYNVY (TEA) I belive they are working on hydrolic suspension for it, or at least they said they are working on an interesting firing mode for it. And if that is hydrolic suspension than this thing will have -11/+16 gun elevation




        0



        0
    • Anonymous says:

      They did the same thing with the AMX CDC. It was supposed to be a TD but it fit better into the role of a medium so they made it a medium.




      0



      0
  6. Xx1Tommy1xX says:

    All cool and all I’m happy for it BUT why a TD…..is a MT/MBT.




    0



    0
    • sp15 says:

      Because WG balance team said players wouldnt understand a turretless medium. Which i frankly think is utter BS.




      0



      0
      • Chris L. says:

        Yeah don’t they have several tanks which are hull locked MTs? Like the M3 Lee and Grant? And even though they kind of have turrets the Obj. 416 and Obj. 430 v.2?




        0



        0
    • deadarashi says:

      And yet no one complains that the T30 HT is classed as a TD? That the T28, T28 Proto and T110E4 arent even paper designs, just WG fakes? Look, at this stage no one cares about an MBT being called a TD, as long as it suits WG needs




      0



      0
  7. sir_novicius says:

    Wonder what reverse speed they gave it…




    0



    0
  8. Anonymous says:

    the tank design looks a bit like the hover tank from battlefield 4 4th dlc if i am correct. only this one has tracks




    0



    0
  9. dmminion says:

    Rita. it’s the S-Tank, I need that tank in my life. Yes, more of it. pretty please




    0



    0
  10. Do we know it, if it features the hydraulic suspension?




    0



    0
  11. FluffySeaTurtle says:

    Long time lurker and was wondering if you could post the pictures you took IRL.

    Seeing pictures taken unofficially (as in lacking a professional background in photography) sometimes being something to the table missing from the professionals.




    0



    0
  12. […] Stridsvagn 103, Stridsvagn 74 (on conputer screen) & Stridsvagn M/42 57 Pictures Gamescon: STRV 103B Preview Footage Swedish Consumable Gamescom: 100 Years of Tanks Game […]




    0



    0
  13. pipo says:

    No thanks Rita, please no pics inside of you..




    0



    0
  14. loserdestiny says:

    Note how some screenshots show a vehicle with sideskirts and some without, while all pictures read “Strv 103B”.
    Quite strange.




    0



    0
  15. pixywing says:

    Too bad it won’t get ERA. Also crazy how this thing was in service until 19 years ago.




    0



    0
  16. Gallandwolf says:

    Looks quite good, but a bit mordern to my eyes? Maybe in the future we see more 70s/80s tanks?




    0



    0
    • sp15 says:

      You already had the STB-1 since years ago and that was from 1969. That is two years after the first production version of the strv 103 entered service.




      0



      0
      • Renarde Martel says:

        WG allows tanks based on the level of technology they have, not their age. Smoothbore guns are a big no-no, for example. Aside from the hydraulic suspension that they both possess, neither STB-1 nor Strv 103 is very technologically advanced, AFAIK.




        0



        0
  17. MeGaNuRa says:

    So that MBT is considered as Tank Destroyeur, but th efrench CDC (CDC means TD in french) is a medium tank? Well play wargaming.




    0



    0
  18. Anonymous says:

    The STB-1 was the Type 74 prototype, the type 74 itself was used from 1975 to 1988. And received multiple refits and upgrades during that time.

    The Stridsvagn 103B was used in that configuration from at least 1971 until 1986 after which it was upgraded.

    Also, nobody seems to mention the limited turret on the ELC-AMX.




    0



    0
  19. The tank looks amazing 😮
    The gun doesnt look like it cant traverse at all. Gonna be hard to play I guess




    0



    0
  20. Lelle says:

    I wonder if Wargaming taken into account the “front bars”?
    Right from the beginning there was the idea to use a bars to increase the level of protection. This type of protection was tested in the late 50s and was shown to have very good efficacy against warheads with directed explosive effect of different types of anti-tank weapons. The bars attached frontally on the S-carriage made warheads fired so early that they lost much of its power when the shaped charge jet hit the main armor. Even effect from subkaliber- and arrow projectiles could be reduced considerably if they hit the bars. This protection solution, which was kept secret until the armored troops 50th anniversary in 1992, made Strv 103 for more than 20 years was the frontally best protected tank in the world. It further contributed to fordonetss good survivability was side-armor design with fuel as extra protection outside the main armor, the vehicle’s low profile, the minimal target surface and sharply sloped front armor.




    0



    0
  21. jim says:

    Nice gun depression.




    0



    0
  22. Ramon says:

    Give us Pics + Vids of the Inside plz!




    0



    0
  23. Lelle says:

    I wonder if Wargaming taken into account the “front bars”?
    Right from the beginning there was the idea to use a bars to increase the level of protection. This type of protection was tested in the late 50s and was shown to have very good efficacy against warheads with directed explosive effect of different types of anti-tank weapons. The bars attached frontally on the S-carriage made warheads fired so early that they lost much of its power when the shaped charge jet hit the main armor. Even effect from sub-caliber- and arrow projectiles could be reduced considerably if they hit the bars. This protection solution, which was kept secret until the armored troops 50th anniversary in 1992, made Strv 103 for more than 20 years was the frontally best protected tank in the world. It further contributed to the tanks good survivability was side-armor design with fuel as extra protection outside the main armor, the vehicle’s low profile, the minimal target surface and sharply sloped front armor.




    0



    0
  24. Silvio I says:

    What are they going to do about the suspension? It wouldn’t raise and lower right?




    0



    0
  25. SMGJohn says:

    I seen this beast in Sweden many times, too bad I never had the camera.
    If I see it again I will definitely film it




    0



    0
  26. Matthias Olander says:

    Guys, it’s a tank destroyer because how it was meant to be used by the Swedish Army just isn’t available in WoT. STRV 103 was designed to fight in thick forests where a turret would have been useless, so we never fitted one to it. Besides it is/was a main battle tank by name only, functionally it’s a TD no matter what the designers and generals claimed.




    0



    0
  27. zombietropa says:

    A very important question, possibly the most important question this blog has ever had…

    Does this tenk poops shell casings after firing?




    0



    0

Leave a Reply