Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

Recommended Posts

Thanks to renhaxue for running the Swedish Tank Archives, where much of the information in this post came from.



The Strv m/42






The Soviet T-34 and American M4 were the quintessential medium tanks of World War 2, though many more were made. One of the less well known “other” tanks was the Swedish Strv m/42. Though it never entered combat, the Strv m/42 still had an important role in the Swedish Army for many years, and was an important milestone for AFV development in that country.



(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7632/1958/1600/EarlyL60.jpg. Ironically, the L-60 outlasted its descendants in military service, with the last Dominican examples not retiring until 2002).



Sweden’s development of the Strv m/42 was done under very severe constraints. In 1941, Sweden’s armor forces consisted mostly of variants of the L-60 light tank. Weighing less than 10 tons and only armed with a 20mm or 37mm gun, the L-60 was notably inferior to tanks like the T-34 or Panzer III. During the late 1930s, the Landsverk company had developed an improved version of the L-60 called the Lago. It was larger, with improved armor and a 47mm main gun. A variant with a 57mm gun was also considered. Though Landsverk developed the tank for export (specifically to Hungary), it did not get any takers.


However, in May 1941 (link: http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/01/08/minutes-of-meetings-with-the-armor-committee-of-1941/nggallery/image/540), the Swedish Army decided to develop a modern tank to supplement their L-60s and license built Lt vz. 38s. Weight was limited to 20 (later 22 tons); Swedish infrastructure (especially bridges) simply could not support a heavier vehicle. There were also limits on width, to ensure the new tank could be transported easily on the Swedish rail network. Since the tank needed to be ready for production in 1942, there was no time for a completely new design. Landsverk set about modifying their Lago prototype, stretching it and fitting a larger gun, while also improving the armor. This did not go entirely perfectly: the new design experienced problems steering due to its length. It was also quite liable to tip over.




The Strv m/42 was equipped with a torsion bar suspension, like many other tanks of the time. In addition to the main armament (for which multiple alternative were considered), there were also four ksp m/39 (license built M1919) 8mm machine guns. Two coaxial with the main gun, one on top of the turret, and one in the front of the tank. Total crew complement was four soldiers.


Multiple armament options were considered for the Strv m/42. First was a 57mm gun, which is mentioned in the Swedish archives as having good anti-tank performance. I am not sure of the particulars of this gun, but it is probably comparable to the British 6 pdr or Soviet ZiS-2. While it would have been good at the antitank role, the 57mm would have been handicapped by low HE payload. The next option considered was a 105mm howitzer. This gun would have been very effective in the infantry support role, but poor against tanks. Additionally, rate of fire and accuracy would have been poor. The third option was a medium velocity 75mm gun. This option would offer adequate performance against current tanks, while also being good in the infantry support role. As a result, it was chosen.

The specific model of gun chosen was the 75mm m/41 L34 gun. The m/41 was a decent gun, broadly comparable to the 75mm M3 which equipped the American M4. However, it was somewhat handicapped by the Swedish Army’s desire to have the gun use existing artillery rounds; this reduced the Strv m/42s anti-tank capability. Later on in the tank’s life, there were numerous projects to upgun the m/42. The most notable of these was the fitting of a high velocity 75mm gun in a new turret; this project was known as the Strv 74. These tanks would serve until the 1980s. There were other projects which did not enter service, including the fitting of an automatic loading device.


(Strv m/42 armor scheme, originally posted by sp15 on WoT EU forums)


Originally, it was planned to equip the tank with two Scania-Vabis engines, which would produce a total of 320 hp. However, politics intervened. The Strv m/42 was to be produced at the Landsverk and Volvo plants, and Scania was a main competitor to Volvo. Volvo was worried about how it would look to the civilian market (highly important even then) for them to build a tank powered by a competitors engine. As a result, some of the Strv m/42s (the EH variant) were built with a single Volvo engine, producing 380 hp. In all, about 220 tanks were built with Scania engines, and about 60 with Volvo engines.


As Sweden had not built a tank the size of the Strv m/42 before, there was not a domestically produced transmission which could handle the weight of the tank (simply reusing the transmission would have had catastrophic consequences for reliability (see also: Panther)). So the Swedes contacted someone who had a lot of experience building tanks; the Germans. The Germans sold the Swedish military the ZF electromechanical gearbox, an advanced design which was also quite light. Sadly, it was horridly unreliable. By 1944, nearly 2/3 of the ZF equipped tanks in one Swedish regiment were out of service. As a result, the Swedes were forced to make their own gearbox. After study of T-34s captured by Finland, Volvo was able to produce a hydraulic gearbox, which was fitted to Strv m/42s starting in 1944. Initially, it was fitted to new built EH and TV variant tanks, though it was eventually retrofitted to the entire Strv m/42 force.



(A prototype of the Strv 74, via Swedish Tank Archives


The Strv m/42 in its base form served in the Swedish military from 1943 until 1957. At that point, it was replaced by the Strv 81 (Centurion Mk. 3), as well as the Strv 74. Some Strv m/42s were modified into Ikv 73 fire support vehicles, and in that guise they stayed in service until the 1960s. There were many projects to replace the Strv m/42 in the late 1950s and early 1950s, such as the Strv Leo and EMIL programs. However, none of them came to fruition. As far as I know, the Strv m/42 was never exported, or even considered for use by any other country. In the post-World War 2 climate, surplus M4s or T-34s would have been easily available for very cheap.  (I believe the Swedes even tried to obtain surplus M4s at some point, but were unable for some reason). Overall, while the Strv m/42 might not have been a world-beating tank, it was still a quite solid effort, especially for a nation’s first real attempt at building a tank in that weight class.


Further Reading:


http://tanks.mod16.org/tag/strv-m42/- Swedish Tank Archives pages on Strv m/42

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/18/swedish-tanks-part-vii-strv-m42/- Article on Strv m/42 in World of Tanks video game, written by sp15, has useful info



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





Strap twenty 10,5 cm recoilless rifles to the back of a truck in 1944, what do you get? Rocket artillery, without the rockets! Of course, to try to fool spies they called it "spare gun barrel carrier, provisional model 1943" (reserveldrörsvagn fm/43, a vehicle so obscure it is literally ungoogleable, at least until now). Later entered service as 10,5 cm salvkanon m/46, but AFAIK only four vehicles were ever manufactured.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





Oh for fuck's sake, you all are way too polite.  I just realized I posted an entire article on Swiss tanks in a thread on Swedish AFVs and nobody called me out on it.  I am a fucking retard.  


For my next trick, I should probably post an article on the Australian Sentinel tank in a thread on Austrian armor. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for fuck's sake, you all are way too polite.  I just realized I posted an entire article on Swiss tanks in a thread on Swedish AFVs and nobody called me out on it.  I am a fucking retard.  


For my next trick, I should probably post an article on the Australian Sentinel tank in a thread on Austrian armor.

I was like "surely he must be joking"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How effective was this side 'armor'?

I only have one report to go off (in a test rig, not on an actual tank, with the plastic jerry can between 35 and 80 cm from the armor plate) but the results with three different types of 60's vintage HEAT rounds are as follows. Max measurable penetration in this test is 310 mm.

If the can is empty: no measurable effect. Different rounds behave differently depending on fuze type, though: rounds from pskott m/68 (disposable launcher, expected penetration ~310mm RHA) and pvpj 1110 (9 cm recoilless rifle, expected penetration 325mm RHA) detonate when hitting the can, rounds from Carl Gustav (8,4cm recoilless rifle, shape-stabilized round with long probe fuze, expected penetration 350mm RHA) go through the can and detonate only when hitting the armor plate in three cases out of four.

If the can is filled with water: fucks with the fuzing on the Carl Gustav rounds, two out of three rounds fired failed to detonate and the third did something weird (the results table says "chock ignition, point of impact warm" with no further explanation) resulting in no measured penetration. The pskott m/68 and pvpj 1110 rounds detonate normally when hitting the can but penetration is reduced roughly 25-50% from the expected values - there is a lot of variation though, especially in the pvpj 1110 case.

These rounds all have a listed penetration in the 300-350mm RHA range though so even reducing it by 50% isn't nearly enough to prevent a penetration of the actual side armor.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did at least consider putting a 57mm on the m/42; http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/07/19/a-tale-of-swedish-military-procurement-or-how-we-ended-up-with-the-strv-m42/The Swedes also at least considered buying the AMX-13. Whether the 57mm would have ended up in an AMX turret on an m/42 chassis, emot-iiam.gif

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I forced my way through the HEMLIG Swedish documents that article is talking about, no mention of using an AMX turret there. Also, contrary to what anyone would assume about WG's M/42 57 based on the name, that is actually supposed to be a 75mm gun according to previous Rita posts

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a 7,5 cm gun. Strv m/42-57 (tank model 1942, modernized version of 1957) was the internal working name for what would become the strv 74. They needed a new turret to fit a long 7,5 cm gun instead of the stubby peashooter the m/42 had, so four options were investigated:

A.1 was a conventional turret (this option was chosen for the historical strv 74)

A.2 was an oscillating turret, AMX 13 style

A.3 was trying to make an earlier turret design actually work (the "split turret")

B was abandoning the re-turreting idea and rebuilding the chassis to a casemate TD.

So this option was actually kinda-sorta considered for a short time in the early 1950's. It's unclear if they actually intended to just buy or license produce AMX 13 turrets though; personally I believe the intention was to design and produce a domestic turret. Whatever, this is good enough for WoT.

When the m/42 was being developed they did consider a long-ish 57 mm gun for it but it was considered insignificantly better at armor penetration than the short 7,5 cm.

I'm doing research for the Swedish tree on Wargaming's behalf (as a consultant) and while I'm under an NDA, I'll try to answer any questions you might have re: the rationale behind making the choices we did.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I don't know why, but in 1919 someone wrote a book about tanks in Swedish.  It's not in a format that allows me to run it through a translator.  Perhaps our resident Swedish tank expert can help us with this one?
      <iframe width="450" height="700" src="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/wu.89100067776?urlappend=%3Bui=embed"></iframe>
    • By Serge
      Lets start a thread about the CV-90. Past, present, futur. 
      Link to the Linström's page about the initial Stridsfordon-90 project :
      An interesting SH-MM post about evolution of CV-90 :
      And a summary about contenders for the forseen Czech IFV programme :
      From a well known blog.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      I was originally going to post this in the J35 thread (since that's turned into the general Swedish aviation thread), but I felt that it'd get more visibility here.
      SAAB A36

      (via http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/55568/SAAB-A-36)
      During the 1950s, many nations sought to develop nuclear weapons. One of these was Sweden, who hoped that nuclear weapons could help maintain their neutrality during the Cold War. However, when developing nuclear weapons, a delivery system is also needed. For Sweden, that would have been the A 36, a dedicated nuclear strike aircraft and one of the "missing pieces" in the Swedish aircraft sequence (between the 35 and 37).
      Development of the A 36 began in 1952, as part of SAAB's 1300 series of projects (which included numerous other designs). The requirements for a Swedish nuclear strike aircraft were different from those of other major countries. The most likely opponent (the USSR) was less than 500 kilometers away across the Baltic, while American bombers would have to fly more than ten times as far to reach their targets. This was evident in designs such as the B-36 and B-52, which had very large wingspans and fuel capacities, as well as large payloads. Additionally, a Swedish nuclear bomber would have to be capable of operating from dispersed airfields, in accordance with Swedish doctrine. Obviously, the Swedish nuclear bomber would end up looking quite different from its American or Soviet counterparts.
      Numerous SAAB engineers were involved with the A36 development (quite an undertaking, as the company was developing the J35 at the same time while also producing the J32). Among them was Aarne Lakomaa, a transplanted Finn who had gained fame for developing the Morko-Morane fighter during the Continuation War.
      From the start, the Swedish bomber (at this point it had yet to be designated A 36) was designed for high speed. Numerous configurations were studied, with swept wings or delta wings on various designs. Top speed was planned to be around Mach 2, which would have made the A36 almost as fast the J35.

      SAAB 1323 (or 1300-23), an early step in the A36 development.

      SAAB 1371 (1300-71), a proposal which made it as far as wind tunnel testing.
      As can be seen from the previous drawings, many of the designs were planned to have two engines. As with other Swedish aircraft of the time, the A36 was planned to use license built British engines. Among the engines considered were the de Havilland Gyron and smaller Gyron junior. However, at some time early in the development of the program, it was decided that the aircraft would be powered by the Bristol Olympus turbojet, the same engine that powered the British Vulcan bomber. However, for use in a supersonic aircraft, it would have required modification, such as the fitting of an afterburner, and a new intake. (The Olympus was eventually developed for use in supersonic aircraft, such as the TSR-2 and Concorde.) With such a large and powerful engine, it became apparent that only a single engine would be needed in the A36.
      At such high speeds, the A36 would have experienced significant aerodynamic heating. This concerned Swedish engineers, who were afraid that the heat would damage contemporary nuclear weapons (or even lead to them detonating prematurely). As a result, it was decided that the payload would be carried within an internal weapons bay. This would reduce drag, improving performance, but it would also limit payload, while decreasing the internal volume available for fuel, avionics, and other systems. By the time the A36 design had progressed  to the 1376 and 1377 configurations, payload was determined to be a single 800 kilogram nuclear weapon, carried internally. This is roughly comparable in size to the American Mark 7 bomb, deployed tactically around the same time. As far as I know, no provision was ever made for the A36 to have air-to-air capabilities.
      By 1957, the design of the A36 (which had by now received a formal Swedish Air Force designation) was almost finalized.
      (SAAB 1376, with chin intake)


      (Drawing of SAAB 1377 with dorsal intake, similar to YF-107)
      Most documents show the 1376 as the chosen design. 1376 was a moderately sized aircraft, somewhat smaller than the American F-105 (which had a similar role to the A36). The wing was a conventional delta with 62 degree sweep, which would have given good performance in the supersonic regime. I am uncertain whether the A36 would have utilized a variable geometry inlet. A fixed inlet would have had to be optimized for a certain speed; this would mean that the A36 would have been inefficient at low Mach numbers, or been had it speed limited by the inlet design. (Read more about inlet design here).
      Although work on the A36 was progressing well, by 1957 it was apparent that Sweden could not afford to develop the A36, nuclear weapons, and other vital defense programs. As the A36 would have been relatively lacking in conventional capability, it was decided to cancel the program. (Ultimately, the nuclear weapons program would be shut down during the 1960s as well). Some of the money saved was used to develop the A37 Viggen, which proved to be a competent multirole aircraft during the 1970s and beyond. Ultimately, while it would have been interesting from a technological standpoint to see the A36 fly, its cancellation was probably the right choice.
      I have not found any documents showing that the A36 was ever given a name (such as 'Draken' for the J35). Occasionally references can be found to the A36 'Vargen' (Wolf) online, but it appears that these are the inventions of either modeling companies or someone with an overactive imagination.
      A36 (1376 design) specifications (approximate):
      Length: 17m
      Wingspan: 9.6m
      Height: 2.5m
      Wing Area: 54m2
      Empty Weight: 9000 kg
      Max Weight: 15000 kg
      Wing Loading at Max Weight: 280 kg/m2
      Payload: 800 kg
      Max Speed: Mach 2.1
      Ceiling: 18000m
      Combat Radius: 410km (?)
      Crew: 1
      Engine: 1x Bristol Olympus Turbojet
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Numerous countries attempted to develop turbojet engines in the post-WW2 period. There were many failures: the J40, TR-1, and others. One of these unsuccessful engines was the Swedish STAL Dovern.

      Attempts to develop an indigenous jet engine began at STAL (Svenska Turbinfabriks AB) in the late 1940s. The first engine developed by STAL was the Skuten, in 1948. This was a small, axial flow turbojet with 6 combustion chambers producing roughly 6.2 kN of thrust. The Skuten was intended primarily as a ground-run technology demonstrator, I am not aware of any attempts or plans to fit it to an aircraft. In the meantime, the Swedes used British engine designs for their aircraft, such as the De Havilland Ghost on the J29.
      Work on the STAL Dovern began in the late 1940s, and from the start, the engine was intended for operational use. The intended recipient was the SAAB 32 (Lansen) attack aircraft, then under development. This would require a much more powerful engine than the Skuten, and so the Dovern was itself much larger. Like the smaller engine, the Dovern was built as an axial flow turbojet. However, additional combustion chambers were added, bringing the total to nine. This, along with a large increase in the dimensions of the engine, resulted in the Dovern having a design output of over 32 kN. This was significantly more than the De Havilland Ghost powering the J29 at the time.
      The STAL Dovern was first ground tested in February 1950, roughly two years after development began. By this time, the engine had matured into an axial flow design with a nine-stage compressor section, and nine combustion chambers arranged in a circular manner. Pressure ratio was about 5.2, superior to the Ghost, but inferior to the British Avon also under development in the same time period.
      (a picture from 1954 Flight Global magazine comparing the Dovern and Ghost)

      After about 3,000 hours of run time, a Dovern prototype was fitted to a Swedish Avro Lancaster (Tp 80) for further testing.

      Testing of the engine in this manner began in June 1951, and revealed some issues. At certain power settings, the engine would suffer compressor surging, causing a loss of power and potential damage to the engine. Numerous redesigns of the compressor section somewhat alleviated the problem, though did not manage to cure it entirely.
      By 1954, the Dovern had accumulated over 4,000 hours of runtime, including about 300 on the Lancaster testbed. An afterburning variant had also been developed, producing  45 kN. However, the engine was still not fully ready, and by this point the Lansen had already flown with an Avon engine fitted. As a result, it was decided to cancel the Dovern program, and instead use the Avon engine in both the Lansen and upcoming Draken (J35). (Some sources say that the Dovern was cancelled when it caught fire and destroyed the Lancaster test aircraft. However, this actually happened in 1956 while testing the RM-6/Avon, at which point the Dovern was already cancelled.) 16 units had been produced. An advanced version, called the Glan, had been under development for use in the Draken. It was also cancelled.
      From this point, Swedish aircraft designs would use foreign engines. Though the Dovern was not fully developed, it cannot be said to be a failure for the Swedish aerospace industry. Producing world-class jet engines is highly difficult, requiring large amounts of experience and supporting industry. Only a few nations are truly capable of doing so even now (US, UK, France, Russia, and arguably China). For a country as small as Sweden, having an indigenous jet engine industry would be a truly Herculean feat.
  • Create New...