SEP-vehicles. no not stealth!

They could have taken Denmark which would have been easy foot the nazi's and then Sweden I mean how much water is there between Denmark and Sweden like 2 feet of water.


[edit on 15-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They could have taken Denmark which would have been easy foot the nazi's and then Sweden mean how much water is there between Denmark and Sweden like 2 feet of water.

huh? who would have taken denmark? Germany or Russia? Germany did and Russia wouldn't have bothered to go via Denmark.. They can go via the north of Finland and use RoRo ships over the Baltic..
During the cold war the swedish armed forces, although we said we were "neutral", trained with CCCP as the prime enemy. We didn't expect to be able to stop an invasion. We trained to delay them long enough for NATO to rescue us.. So we trained to think guerilla tactics, disperse our airforce and use roads as landingstrips. Hit and run.. And although we were neutral on paper we had an quite intensive intelligence exchange with NATO and everything was prepares for them to use our airfields..

refering to a person from sweden as swiss is very uneducated
it's like refering to people living in england as being spanish
some people really need to think before they comment

people also need to remember that sweden is in a tactical good location and is surrounded by friendly countries, several local countries would come to their aid if they were ever attacked, and vise versa, you would also need to go though alot of europe if you want a large scale invasion

are we ever going to return to the orginal topic: modular military designs

The original topic...ah yes well you know how these threads tend to drift from the original topic but props for Sweden modular designs do come in handy sometimes.

modular weapons and veichles are going to be the future, it's getting to expensive to design and build a new type of veichles for each situation

found some cool modular machines






Modular Site

I'm with UK wizard.

The effectiveness of any tech is a function of its application on both strategic and tactical levels.

I recall a Finnish tracked vehicle with no turret at all and the gun fixed to the chassis. They were built in the 70's and 80's and were a serious factor in any soviet plans involving combat against the Finns. Since the gun was fixed, it was only suitable for defense; the lack of a turret gave it an extremely low profile when dug into a position in a barrow ditch next to a forested roadside. the end of the barrel was practically the only thing an oncoming ground vehicle would see.

The weapon was not an aggressive threat, but definitely sent a message that the Finns were committed to exacting heavy casualties from any Soviet force.

Wish I could find a picture of it.

Anyhoo, only a world presence like America has the unenviable task of producing tech that is literally ready for anything. Hmmm. With the appropriate strategic planning, maybe the US would not need to be so tactically versatile.

This one?

Originally posted by Clownface
You're kidding me right? I wrote I'm swedish not swiss. Meaning I am from the country marked "Sweden" top of the map. Switzerland never supplied any large amounts of steel to germany. We did. And note that between the word "Sweden" and "Germany" is a blue streak.. The Baltic sea. And our mines lies at the very top of the map above the polar circle.

My mistake in my first post talking about the neutral country I was talking about switzerland not sweden . They supplied large amounts of coal to the Nazis and also took large amounts of their gold. I thought you were talking about the swiss. Its switzerland actions I was not happy with during the war not that of sweden. Sorry for the misunderstanding

I think it's even the same photo!

ShadowXIX: No problem.. I'm not really happy about the things we did as swedes either. But it gave us a really good economy after the war.. Well that was then..

The picture shows as you can see the "S-tank", an old swedish design.
The cool thing about it that it was hydraulic dampened ( if I remember correctly) and could climb hills tilted like this:

the tilt climbing gave it a incredicly low profile. Just the cannon and nothing else would be visible..
The crappy part about the S was that it was a defensive weapon. No shooting during driving..

mpeg of it



[edit on 16-7-2004 by Clownface]

Found a climbing tilted pic..

whay was it called the "S" tank it looks like a triangle to me or does it have something to do by how it moves? And how fast was that tank?

General Characteristics
Length: 7.04 m
Width: 3.63 m
Height: 2.43 m
Weight: 39.7 t
Speed: 50 km/h (road)
6 km/h (water)
Range: 390 km
Primary armament: 105 mm rifled Gun
Secondary armament: two 7.62 mm MG
one Anti-aircraft 7.62 mm MG
Power plant: one 490 Hp gas turbine and
one 240 Hp diesel engine
Crew: 3 (Commander, gunner/driver, radio operator)

[I know this is off-topic, but I think it's relevant to the discussion. The following is directed at some of the posters in this thread representing themselves as Americans.]

I am proud to be an American, but some of the posts in this thread are making it much harder to be proud to be an American than it need be.

For the love of God, countrymen, read the friggin' posts, gain awareness of something besides your own friggin' navels and buy a friggin' vowel. This is not rocket science, yet some contributors to this thread seem incapable of grasping what the bloody hell is going on here.

Some of the posts above are inexcusably lame beyond reason, and possibly some of the most searing indictments of the U.S. public education system I have ever witnessed. We need education reform, badly. I see that now.

Like I said, I'm proud to be an American, but there is a world outside the U.S., and believe it or not, there are some amazingly cool things out there. There are, in fact, people in this world who are capable of doing things better than Americans, have greater skills than Americans and better ideas than Americans. Honest to God, we're not the best at every damn thing on the planet. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true. Really. Look into it.

Perhaps you should educate yourselves about them, instead of reinforcing negative stereotypes about our nation and making us look like a bunch of cross-eyed neanderthals. Ignorance and narcissism are greater threats to America than an innovative Swedish weapons system. So let's get our priorities straight, okay?

Being an American does not require being oblivious to the world around you.

All I ask is this: If you are going to openly represent yourselves as Americans, would you please be so considerate as to not be total lame-asses about it? If you must act like idiots, kindly expunge any references to my country from your signatures and represent yourselves as being citizens of somewhere else, perhaps a fictional nation like Elbonia, or better yet, France.

Yes, the U.S. possesses a great deal of wealth and power, but absent intelligence or the barest clue, they are useless.

Please, my fellow Americans, show a little class, okay? Don't make it look so hard.

If you are proud to be an American, please behave as if being an American is something to be proud of.

[Now, regarding the topic]

In light of its political, cultural and economic environment, Sweden has managed to produce some surprisingly innovative and, occasionally, revolutionary weapons systems. Many world-class ideas have originated in Sweden.

What the SEP project has accomplished may not be readily apparent to the casual observer, but it is significant. While armored platform modularity is not a new concept, it looks to me like Alvis H�gglunds AB has managed to achieve this objective in extensive new ways. Whether or not it has done so to a revolutionary degree remains to be seen, but the results look promising so far. Certainly, one of the measures of the success of a modular weapons system is the extent to which it is adopted, applied and deployed.

As for AMOS, a modular, rapid-firing mortar seems ideally suited to the kinds of engagements Swedish forces are most likely to encounter. The high-arc firing capability of the mortar allows for indirect fire in mountainous terrain and a much greater effective engagement range in forested areas where line-of-sight weapons are limited.

All in all, looking very good. It will be interesting to see who picks up on this system.

Amen, Majic!

I console myself with the rationalization that the "uh-murkin" posters are all junior high twerps who know too much minutiae about tank parts but not enough about table manners.

There is no reason for anyone to carry on in such a juvenile fashion, unless you are in fact --- juveniles.

Y'all don't seem to get the point that Sweden and Finland are not defending the United States; that job is already spoken for. They are not trying to prepare for a lightning assault across miles of sand-dunes. That doesn't fit with their foreign policy.

The S-tank doesn't need speed. It doesn't need heavy side armor or a rotating turret. It DOES need to be inexpensive (not having a turret, heavy armor, or mobile-fire system are great moves in that direction.) It DOES need to be incredibly acccurate (hence the inertial damping w/ hydraulics), and it DOES need to be a deterrent, while not seeming to threaten a much more powerful neighbor.

The S-tank does each of THOSE things better than an Abrams would for Finland. That is why they built their own machines instead of blindly purchasing America's "McTank"

The "uh-murkin" posters remind me of Don Quixote; they are the last knights, and are desperately looking for someone to joust with. There won't be any more tank battles like Tobruk or Sedan; those days are gone forever. And so has the need for that kind of tank, I think.

You guys talking about me?no but for real was only asking the questions for the S tank to compare it to other light armored tanks not to bash or say it sucks. PS. who on this thread is in junior high?


[edit on 16-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You guys talking about me?

no but for real was only asking the questions for the S tank to compare it to other light armored tanks to bash or say it sucks. PS. who on this thread is in junior high?


[edit on 16-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

You? At least you spell like one.

dr_strangecraft and all here: just to make sure.. The S-tank is not in use anymore. Today we use the Leopard. Although higher it's far better in all aspects of the old "s".

While on the subject of the swedish Army:
Back in the year 1993 (I think) we realised a need to mechanise a larger part of our army. But with the politicians inability to give the army any funds for it was not an easy thing to do (and never is..) The salvation came in the form of the former DDR. We bought leftover MT-LB APC:s from the former German eastblock. And we got them cheap.. I haven't found any numbers but rumours tell of 1000 Euros or something equally as cheap. So we bought 800 of them and spent 10000 Euros on upgrading on each and viola we have us a bargain.. We kept the good solid parts of the vehicle and upgraded what we didn't like/trust. We got a highly mobile extremely reliable and shrapnel protected vehicle for less most armys use on the main armament of a MBT. One of the few times the armed forces did everything right when buying equipment

Update:
The SEP vehicle is being offered to the brits for their FRES (Future Rapid Effect System) program. They need 3700 units for a total worth of roughly 20 billion Euro. The two contestants are BAE owned Hägglunds Land Systems and General Dynamics. The brits have ordered 4 units for evaluation puposes.
Anyone know what the GD is offering?


According to the magazine "ny teknik"(new technology) the system can be configured in 20 diffrent ways and is powered by a diesel/electric hybrid engine. The hybrid recharges the batteries so the vehicle can drive a couple of hours on batteries. This with the new rubber tracks and vibration dampened chassi makes it increadibly silent. Nice for sneak attacks

link in swedish only (sorry)