Gamescon: STRV 103B Preview Footage

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!
Gamescon: STRV 103B Preview Footage

61 thoughts on “Gamescon: STRV 103B Preview Footage

      1. Vojislav says:

        All of them are older, only amx 30b is same age, but this is tier 6 td, is it he same age with crowell, m4, vk3002m. nashorn, hellcat…. ?

      2. Roland says:

        Do you realize that in-game tanks are not even close to the real tanks, right? “They still don’t decide” if they want an historically accurate game or just a fixed one, so they did a hybrid, (aka bullshit everywhere), only models and “paper” numbers are like IRL. You have Tiger 1s fighting post war tanks, a tank designed to rape T.-34s /but here they are 1 tier lower, because, you know, shame? Maybe?), so… Why are you so shocked about this?

      3. jetpowerfie says:

        The S-Tank design work actually started before the Leopard 1 and AMX-30’s it seems. (According to Wikipedia)

  1. 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.

    1. 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

    2. 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?”

    3. 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… 😀

      1. @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

    4. 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.

      1. 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?

    1. 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

  2. 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

      1. Very likely, since 103 has only 40 mm of front armor. It is very weak despite even good sloping. 3 calibres rule still works in WoT. 120mm and more guns will never ricoshette from S-tank

      2. @OBERONIUM but keep in mind that because of its low stature it will most likely have an insane came value as well as aim time and RoF thanks to small calibre gun

      3. Anonymous says:

        @DEADARASHI oh God please no, we do not need another e25 at tier 10. Those things are already cancerous enough at tier 5-8.

  3. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. zombietropa says:

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

    Does this tenk poops shell casings after firing?

Leave a Reply