35 thoughts on “Strv 103B (Swedish tier 10 TD) Stats, Armor, Pictures

      1. Perhaps these are placeholder stats, as one other commenter pointed it out.
        Nevertheless, if it’s an L7 that is longer, it should have better stats. Just sayin’. :I

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Longer = greater speed, and thus greater penetration, but also more kinetic energy, so more damage would be expected as well.


            1. But that’s IS-3A style autoloader, not like the French ones. Although because Strv 103 cannon is fixed in place its autoloader is extremely fast while being much simpler in construction than those in turreted tanks. We’re talking about 15+ RPM in real life, which would be simply insane in WoT.

              Keep in mind that the RoF is largely a balance stat in WoT, most tanks don’t have their real RoF.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Ah, right.
                Well, I wouldn’t mind a 4 sec reload with that 390 damage then.
                Bloody IS-3s would finally be

                Heheheh, Daleks. Pretty good metaphor for the IS-3s.


  1. I would’ve expected more of this tank. I mean 6.43 rpm are nearly as worse as the E50M. The STB has 7.5 and that’s a medium.
    Best part of the stats are the 303mm penetration on a licensed version of the L/7 which has around 260-270mm penetration on the other tanks that use this gun.
    I would lower the penetration to that level and give it a better RoF, because that thing had a loading mechanism.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Anyone noticed the “invisibility” stats? Hopefully that is with camo skill on crew, because if not this thing has double the camo of Borsig….
    Also dispersion on movement .4 and rest .1… I guess they want to prevent it from quickly peaking ridgelines.


    1. Seeing as tanks camo stats are based purely on height, I’d say what’s stated is correct.
      This thing is VERY low profile.


      1. More low profile than Borsig, Object 416, Hetzer or Alecto? I sincerely doubt it.

        Assuming I read this right and it really does say 40% camo when standing still, that HAS to be with the crew skill taken into account, otherwise you could get 70% camo with the skill. Which would become nearly 100% with Camo Net and paint, and then possibly even breaking 100% with Vents, BiA and Coffee…


      2. Also, camo values are not based on height. Not entirely. Class also comes into play, and sometimes it gets intentionally ruined for balance purposes.

        Caernarvon has half the camo of a Centurion, despite being basically the same size. Type 61 has awfull camo despite being pretty much the same size as STA-2 and STB-1. Grille 15 and Skorpion have less camo than Panther 1/2 as well.


      3. Still, it’s crazy high.

        I mean, it has no gun traverse so this camo will not be in action too often. But even camo when moving it iss .24 which is better than any tier 8 light tank, by quite a margin actually. That’s insane. And stationary in a bush it can easily be better spotter than any light tank, in a dense bush with camoskill you’d have to be proxyspotted to get lit.

        On one hand WG talks about giving LT a role and on the other they remove more and more bushes and implement TD’s with crazy high camo values (hopefully they’ll be tweaked).

        Basically I don’t like extremes in balancing. It creates tanks that are way too specific and that creates frustration, for both person playing the tank (“OMG CITY MAP AGAIN I’M USELESS”) and person on the receiving end (3 of those in a platoon can almost lock down any open map and make it literally unplayable).


        1. I’m gonna say the data is incorrect/altered by crew skills. When the stats of the premium tank where posted it also seemed to have crazy camo rating, but I saw footage from the test server and it has only 14,3%.


  3. That’s a terrible rate of fire for a tank which has an autoloader. Let’s hope it’s placeholder or something.


  4. I assume that the ROF on the Strv103B will be buffed and that it will play like an E25 on steroids which may or may not be fun on tier 10 – guess we will have to see.

    Anyway the Strv103 series can not be called a main battle tank or medium tank as the lack of turret severely limits its tactical options compared to a real main battle tank/medium tank and if in dug in static positions will not be able to shoot over its side which would have made flanking attacks on it very destructive while its low silhuette would have limited its line of sight and line of fire considerably compared to main battle tanks/medium tanks making it dependent on fighting from elevated positions with firelanes focused on kill zones which forces and funnels enemy vehicles through close terrain where movement off roads and paths is severly restricted if not impossible such as will be the case in dense pine wood typical of the terrain in Sweden where a Soviet invasion force would be expected and expected to move through in order to subdue the swedish army in order to get to Norway which would always have been the real prize for the Soviet forces invading Sweden during a WW3 scenario while Sweden itself was of no particular value other than its baltic coastline which would restrict the movements of the Soviet Navy.

    A good assualt gun for defending the forrests of Sweden no doubt, a deathtrap in open country and rolling undulating terrain.


    1. According to the British, who tested it against a Centurion, in combat the lack of turret had far less of a negative effect than you would think, due to the fact that at the time, doctrine was to stop and then fire.


      1. And when the norwegians tested it against Leo 1 the test showed that when buttoned up the Strv 103 had an edge in spotting targets but that the Leo was better with the hatches open. Also it is hard to comment on those tests as they are nothing more than hearsay and internet anecdotes and the fact that Sweden returned to a true tank in the form of the Leopard 2 instead of developing the concept further indicates that the concept has serious limitations and drawbacks.

        The problem with assualt guns such as the Strv 103 is that when displacing to other positions they have 0 ability to engage targets on their flanks and rear meaning that if they become engaged from the flank while displacing to a new position or become caught in a running battle they will lose every time because they will be flanked and annihilated due to the inability of engaging targets not directly in front of them – real tanks can use their gun over all of the 360 degree available to them and can engage enemies at will and and in none of those situations will it be able to get of the first shot which usually is the one that counts the most as empirical data from tank vs. tank engagement have proven.
        It also suffers from one enormous weakness in the fact that if fuel is scarce/refuling is impossible or if the engine or fuel system breaks down it has no manual backup traverse and elevation rendering it a mission kill where a real tank could still fight on, though with limitations, from the position it is in.

        It is without doubt excellent in defensive combat for which it was built just as any other assualt gun is however on the offensive and in meeting engagement style combat they will be severly limited in capabilities compared to real tanks – every player in WoT should know this already that even a super mobile TD such as the E25 will lose against medium tanks such as the Cromwell if caught while moving and that even super high turning speed will not save it from a fully mobile turreted tanks when doing the ‘merry go round’.

        I do not think this tank will be one for the masses but rather one for those who enjoys the challenge of playing broken tanks built after a min/max concept in this case ultra high camp rating,high penetration/DPM very strong UFP and good mobility but utterly doomed when not in a 1 vs 1 situation or caught in the flank or rear while moving to a new position.


        1. The reason for why we didn’t make a Strv 104 was that gun stabilization had become advanced enough to allow for firing on the move. When the 103 was made the contemporary designs were also unable to fire on the move at any useful range (the Centurion had a max engagement range of 800 meters when firing on the move, the Strv 103’s range was 200 meters. Both are pretty much irrelevant)

          Since none of the other tanks could fire while moving and the time to acquire a target for the Strv 103 was within a second of turreted tanks your “helpless when re positioning” scenario wouldn’t put the Strv 103 at such a large disadvantage as you make it look like.

          However, as stabilization technology improved the Strv 103’s design became obsolete and even with the best technology available today it would never be as good as a turreted tank.


  5. Wait, so their solution of armor not being worth as much anymore is to add a TD with 300 base pen? Even the T30 turret is paper to that.


    1. You should check the armor model of the T30 again. There is the regular turret armor behind the 279mm gun mantlet. You can only penetrate it’s turret, if you hit very close to the gun.

      Btw: There are several other tier 10 TDs with ~300mm penetration. Personaly I would not shoot at the T30 turret (gun mantlet), because it’s a wasted shot for 90%+ chance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s