Swedish Q&A #2 answers part 1

Answers by SP15

“Are there plans for medium tank line? If implemented, what would be their special feature?”

“Is it possible to make a unique tier X medium Swedish tank that stands out from it’s competition and doesn’t’t feel like just another Leopard 1 or STB-1 type tank? What kind of special characteristics would it feature if so?”

“Having one premium MT in game and another premium MT in testing, when would the MT line introduced in-game? Soon or not?”

At this point Wargaming has absolutely no plans for a Swedish medium branch as far as I know, however personally I see two options for how a Swedish medium line could look.

The first option would be to extend the current medium line with tanks that would continue the theme of moderate armor, good mobility and firepower introduced with the Leo at tier 7. Such a line has the advantage of complete historical accuracy and being able to connect to a potential light tank line. The tier 8 position would be occupied by a uparmored lansen version followed by the UDES 15 and UDES 15/16 MBT projects.

Lansen m/51, UDES 15 and UDES 15/16.

As for their “special feature” the two top tiers would be able to use a version of “siege mode” for improved gun depression to the front and rear, this coupled with their low profile (being barely any taller than the Strv 103) and great turret armor would make them stand out from other medium tanks.

Option two would be a more traditional medium tank line based on several developmental stages of the 30 ton medium tank project from the mid-late 40’s, followed by the Strv K and Strv A proposals from 1958-59. This line would be researchable from the Strv m/42 and would offer a better armored but more sluggish alternative to the UDES line.

Pricken m/44, LS-46, Pricken m/48, Strv K and Strv A.

The problem with this line is that most of the vehicles that comprise it never left the concept stage. at best they are based on real technical information and concept drawings, however since no detailed drawing’s exist a lot of “reconstruction” would be needed. For these reasons I think this line should only be used as a last resort in case the UDES 15/16 line is unable to be added.

“Do you think that the console will do anything different than the PC has with the Swedish lines?”

While Wot console has been taking the game in a slightly different direction than the pc version I don’t expect any major changes when Sweden is added.

 “Would Kranvagn’s proposed 150 mm gun be too powerful for the game, even if it was balanced to be single-shot gun?”

 This gun, or rather a later rifled version of it with a 14,5cm caliber was actually modeled and tested as can be seen in the early screenshot of the Kranvagn as well as some later artistic renders. I can only speculate as to why it was removed but it was probably impossible to balance such a large caliber autoloading gun (remember the WTE-100).


“Are there any known original designs for heavy tanks with conventional turrets that could fit into top tier without much needing to be changed?”

Not that we know of, the Strv K (centurion Mk.10 turret on Kranvagn hull) is the closest you will get. There is a listing for a 40 ton tank armed with a bofors 105mm gun from 1950 in the landsverk drawing archive index that could fit the bill but we know nothing about it.

“With the Swedish HTs (Emil series), can we ever expect to see the armor nerfed and mobility buffed to their historical values?”

That is something you would have to ask wargaming’s balance team, but considering how we keep seeing unhistorical armor buffs to tanks like the maus I seriously doubt they would ever even consider fixing the Swedish heavy tanks. Its a real shame but I don’t think there is anything we can do about it.

For those of you unfamiliar with the fake stats of the Swedish heavy tanks I wrote an article on the subject a while ago. 

“Are you planning to do anything with all the stuff you and Ren have found in the archives?”

We have discussed the possibility of writing a book or creating a video series but at this stage there are really no solid plans to do anything with the archive information.

“With the introduction of the STR 81 do you think wargaming is close to implementing the light/med line? Also do you think the tanks in the light/med you proposed may change? I really want the UDES 14A”

To answer the first part of your question please look at the answers I have given above.

As for the Light/medium line proposal I think it would be better to split the lines to allow for both tier X light tanks and medium tanks.

“1. How likely or unlikely do you think the restructuring of the Swedish tank destroyer line will occur”

Very unlikely given that these kinds of changes have only happened once or twice before with the restructuring of the American heavy line for example. I think there would have to be a big demand from players for them to bother and I don’t see that happening.

“2. What are your thoughts on the Strv 81? Was it historically implemented, are there any other alternatives?”

“Do you think the Strv 81 should be a regular tier 8 leading into the Strv 101 and then into the Strv K?”

I don’t think the Strv 81 has any place as a researchable vehicle in the Swedish tree, there are more interesting options out there which I covered in a earlier question.

Actual data sheet for Strv 81 (Centurion Mk.3)

The Strv 81 as implemented by WG is a unhistorical mess which is about what I would expect from them. The faked stats include: frontal turret armor, top speed and engine output etc.

“Could it be possible to build two separate HT and MT branches?”

There are no candidates for an additional Heavy tank branch. Two separate medium lines would theoretically be possible but as I have mentioned above I don’t think this would be a good idea since some of the tanks required for this to become reality never made it past the early concept stage.

“Also, are there any SPGs that could build a branch up to tier 10?”

There are plenty of SPG projects that could be used for a Swedish SPG line. Similarly to the French SPG’s they carry smaller caliber guns than their counterparts but have good arcs of traverse and some of the higher tiers even have autoloaders.

The Bkan 1A which would likely take the tier 10 spot makes use of a 155 mm autoloading gun which IRL was capable of firing its entire 14 round magazine in under 45 seconds, to put this into perspective that is one round every three seconds. Obviously this would have to be nerfed to work in game but it should give you an idea what Swedish artillery is capable of.


“can the light tank line be extended to tier 10? Also what are your thoughts on turreted TDs?”

I think that the vehicles I proposed for the turreted TD line would be better used elsewhere, in particular IM referring to the UDES 14D and Ikv 91 both of which are necessary for the completion of the Swedish light tank line.

With these tanks in the turreted TD line its likely that WG would simply label the UDES MBT’s as light tanks instead thus destroying the chance for a proper medium tank line.

“Swedish tanks are most common to see boosting on some high position, it creates a very unpleasant match where someone is shooting you and you cannot see it or deal with it. It is unfair. Are there any plans how to deal with this?”

While this is something you really would have to ask wargaming and not me IM going to give you an answer. Im going to assume you are mostly referring to the tanks with the “siege mode” mechanic. Keep in mind that the heavies all have fake turret armor though so they shouldn’t be nearly as reliant upon hull down if they had their historical armor.

As far as IM concerned the Strv 103 should have been balanced with a automatic switch between siege mode and hull locked mode in mind. By basically giving the tank its full mobility in “siege mode” (which would remove the 2 second period where you have to stand still) the tank could have been balanced around a much more aggressive playstyle, which would have allowed it to fit its historical role of medium tank. I was pushing hard for a system like this long before the tanks implementation, and trough a contact I know that WG did successfully test a version of siege mode with automatic switching.

WG deliberately added the switching time to make the Strv 103 fit the the role they had in mind for them, that is to say the role of long range dedicated bush camper, which can’t defend itself up close. I can only imagine that this idea that the Strv 103’s have to be campers came from the S-tank = TD myth that WG seems so fond of.

Frankly I find it absolutely disgusting how WG took the most iconic and well known Swedish tank and then not only Labeled it as a tank destroyer, but also went out of their way to reinforce this myth trough how they balanced the tank. Even though I couldn’t have predicted this outcome from the start, in a way I feel personally responsible for enabling WG to get away with this, and I see it as one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made.

Renhanxue wrote a excellent article on the Strv 103 = tank destroyer myth that I would highly recommend if you have any interest in the subject.


“What gun is the 20mm gun (stock gun) on the Pvlvv and Strv m/38 in WoT? Is it an Oerlikon gun?”


The 20mm Pvlvkan m/40 gun is a original design which was made by the Bofors company and used by the Swedish military as a dual purpose anti tank and anti aircraft cannon during WW.

“Also, do you think the Strv L-10 M/31 and/or the Strv M/41 would be put in at some point? I really like the looks of those little guys”

I think we will see the Strv m/31 eventually as part of some kind of light tank branch but since the Strv m/41 is just a slightly different Lt.vz 38 I don’t think we will see it directly but rather a modification of it, possibly in the light tank line.

“Considering how WG is okay with fudging the historical classifications of tanks (FCM 50t, AMX CDC, Strv 103s, etc.), would a full light line to tier X ending with the UDES 14A (tier IX) and the UDES 15/16 (tier X) be feasible? And do the 105mm guns on these tanks have penetration values equivalent to the UDES 03’s current top 105 (288mm standard APCR)?

 If the above UDES tanks were added in the light tank line, would it ruin the possibility of another line of mediums or maybe turreted TDs?”

To be honest with you I think that that is exactly what WG is planning. To put it mildly Im not a big fan of the idea though as it means that a full Swedish medium tank branch would become impossible without resorting to practically inventing tanks (this is something I would like to avoid at all costs).


The 105mm L45 gun you find on practically all the UDES tanks including the UDES 03, UDES 14A and UDES 15/16 was in real life a substantial improvement in terms of muzzle energy, velocity and penetration when compared to the 105mm L/62 on the Strv 103. This was thanks to a larger chamber which allowed for a bigger powder charge and the use of a more modern APFSDS projectile. If implemented with realistic penetration numbers we would be talking 300mm+ penetration for this gun.

“What kind of weapon did the Lansen 25t have? I’ve seen different claims of either a 105mm similar to the L7, or some kind of 90-something mm. What kind of characteristics did the gun have and was it meant to use an auto loader/in-game would it get a magazine?

 I read there was an idea to change the Lansen 25t’s armor values to 100/12/12, thickening the front whilst thinning the sides and rear. Do you think this could potentially be represented in-game or would it be overpowered considering how WG went and nerfed the T-100 LT’s armor from 120 to 90 for balance purposes?”

Thanks to research done by Mizutayio in the Swiss archives and Renhanxue in the Swedish archives we now have a much better understanding of this tank. This Lansen variation was developed for Switzerland in 1951 and would be armed with a gun of 84-90mm caliber, what you see on the mock-up is likely a 84mm L/65. The performance of this gun was to be roughly similar to the 20pdr found on British tanks as it has nearly identical muzzle velocity and barrel length. I should say however that we have found a listing for a Lansen with a 105mm L/50 gun in the Landsverk drawing index so a lansen with a 105mm gun is not out of the question.

The design was originally drawn up with a weight of 23 tons and armor up to 38-50mm in the front. The Swiss military discussed several armor options for the tank with the heaviest being protected by 76-100mm in the front and with a weight of 28,3 tons (this is the version I would like to use as a tier 8 medium).

“With the alterations to light tanks implemented, what tiers do you think would best fit the Lansen light tanks nowadays?”

Currently there are well over a dozen different Lansen variations known that could fit tiers 6-10, but I think they would be best used at tier 7-8 in the light tank branch with a medium tank version also at tier 8. The problem with relying on lansen variations for the upper tiers of the light tank branch is that they are visually rather similar and that is seen as a problem by WG, at least from what I was told a year ago.

Extended medium tank line and full light tank line.


That is all for now, ill try to get part 2 out before the end of next week.

Liked it? Take a second to support Mizutayio on Patreon!
Swedish Q&A #2 answers part 1

7 thoughts on “Swedish Q&A #2 answers part 1

  1. leggasiini says:

    Interesting stuff, i suspected that the 145 mm / 150 mm gun was actually tested. I just wonder why they didnt try to implement a single-shot version of it, as 145 mm would have been very unique caliber and i dont see that being impossible to balance.

    1. sp15 says:

      It was more a backup option in case the S-tank development didnt pan out and a foreign design (chieftain) couldnt be aquired.

  2. Yellow Submachine Gun says:

    Regarding “historical/unhistorical armor”:

    I don’t want to tell others what to think, but the notion of “historical armour” is all but meaningless in World of Tanks. This as the pen model for this game is best described as a unfortunate mix of armchair engineering and complete bullocks. (Pardon my french!)

    The archaic 1/cos model used gives errors up to 30-50% in effective armour thickness due to slope for very much relevant cases, such as eg 7,5cm or 8,8cm AP(-CBC) vs T-34 front plate. Add to this a backwards “normalisation” mechanic erroneously reducing armour protection further. (ref WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery)
    IMO, a few ±10% in nominal thickness for the odd tank is not the tree that should be barked up at.

    Wargaming say they want to “raise the role of armor” – Well, just fixing the damn pen model should be at least half-way to do that!


Leave a Reply to sp15Cancel reply