Jump to content

Stridsvagn 104 L/44, Up-gunned centurion


CaID
 Share

Would you like the strv 104 L/44 to be added to the game?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like the strv 104 L/44 to be added to the game?

    • Yes
      31
    • Yes as event/premium
      13
    • No
      2


hAWBQ9R.jpg

 

i would like to make a suggestion for a interesting Swedish tank, the Stridsvagn 104 L/44

bq1SIRC.jpg

 

The Strv 104 L/44 was  nothing more than a up-gunned Swedish Centurion Strv 104 with a German 120mm L/44 also know in sweden as the Kan Strv 121. this modification was never intended for production or large services. it was created in the early 1990s. at that time, Sweden had acquired the last of the Centurion from Switzerland. 16x Centurion Mk.7 who was in good condition to used to study the protection of the Strv 122. those tanks was mainly stationed in FMV in Karlsborg and they was used to develop the Swedish built strv 122. only the 105mm gun was not enough for the test and so a centurion, now converted to strv 104, was refitted with a German made 120mm L/44. this modification was fully functional but never meant for proper services. it was used as a gun rig and not exactly as an tank by itself.

the last centurion in services in Sweden was in 2009. the Strv 104 L/44 was likely amounts of them.

wnp7Ykx.jpg

Firepower

the 120mm Kan strv 121 or also know as the 120mm L/44 is a German made gun commonly used on the early model of the Leopard 2. this gun been considered effective even today offer a pretty good firepower and is capable to fight the modern tanks found in the game. the ammunition load and elevation angle on this tank is not know but taking for example the Leopard A1A1 who was also refitted the same gun and the 105mm gun, we can estimate the ammunition drop from 48 round to about 35 rounds . which is still more than enough for the game. since it was unchanged on the Leopard A1A1, it is possible the elevation angle remain the same on the Centurion turret with is a pretty decent -10°/+20° . on the top of that, there is no indication that the stabilizer would had been removed . making the tank is likely stabilized. in overall, this tank offer a significantly improved firepower at the cost of some rounds which is a pretty good trade

 

120 mm kan Strv 121 Turret  speed (°/s) Reloading rate (seconds)
Capacity (magazine) Vertical Horizontal Stabilizer Stock Aced Stock Aced
about 35 (1) -10°/+20° ±180° Tow-plane 11.9 20.0 8.19 6.30
Penetration statistics
Ammunition Type of
warhead
Penetration @ 0° Angle of Attack (mm)
10 m 100 m 500 m 1,000 m 1,500 m 2,000 m
slsgr m/95 HE 36 36 36 36 36 36
DM13 APFSDS 393 390 384 376 367 359
DM23 APFSDS 410 408 401 393 384 376
DM33 APFSDS 481 478 470 461 450 440
Shell details
Ammunition Type of
warhead
Velocity
(m/s)
Projectile
Mass (kg)
Fuse delay
(m)
Fuse sensitivity
(mm)
Explosive Mass
(TNT equivalent) (g)
Ricochet
0% 50% 100%
slsgr m/95 HE 736 17.5 0.00 0.1 3,540 78° 80° 81°
DM13 APFSDS 1,650 4.44 N/A N/A N/A 78° 80° 81°
DM23 APFSDS 1,640 4.3 N/A N/A N/A 78° 80° 81°
DM33 APFSDS 1,640 4.3 N/A N/A N/A 78° 80° 81°

Mobility

let's face it, about all centurion have for the best, a pretty average mobility when it's not mediocre. the Strv 104 L/44 is no exception. powered by the same Teledyne Continental AVDS 1790 2DC V12 engine providing 750 hp , the strv 104 would have a mobility a bit bellow average amounts of the MBT of his rank. but it would not feel so painfully slow. the tank still have a top speed of 48 km/h on road which is acceptable without been noticeable. the weight would be a bit heavier than the normal strv 104. taking example on the difference of the Leopard A1A1s the weight is likely to be increased by a maximum of 600 kg which at this scale is not that noticeable. since there is no era armour on the front of the turret, i would expect the increase to be more around 500 kg . that lead to a weight estimated to 54.5 tonnes which give a power/weight of  13.76 hp/ton . the weight is not that much different than a regular strv 104

Game Mode Max Speed (km/h) Weight (tons) Engine power (horsepower) Power-to-weight ratio (hp/ton)
Forward Reverse
Realistic 48 13 54.5 750 13.76

Protection

the picture do not show it well, but the Strv 104 L/44 is probably still having ERA armour on the front of the hull . this assumption is supported by the triangular piece on the top of the hull near the driver's hatch. that is a piece of ERA which is a good indicator that the hull is probably having the regular ERA package of the Strv 104. the turret however is without ERA and striped of his smoke grenade . the tank was after-all more of a elaborate gun rig than a tank intended for services. this mean the turret have the normal armour value and no smoke are available to give the tank some cover. but the Centurion turret is by himself pretty thick. it would still be capable to effectively protect from heavy auto-cannon up to 57mm as long they do not hit the side. the crew of 4 men is pretty decent and is unchanged over the regular srrv 104

Armour Front (Slope angle) Sides Rear Roof
Hull 51 + 76.2 mm (57°) Upper front plate
76.2 mm (45°) Lower front plate
50.8 mm (12°) 32 mm (7°) Upper
19 mm (62°) Lower
7 - 29 mm
Turret 50 - 152 mm
152 mm Mantlet
89 mm 89 mm 29 - 50.8 mm
Cupola 152 mm 90 - 152 mm 90 mm 29 mm
ERA 260 mm chemical energy - hull n/a n/a n/a

 

Specifications
Mass est. 54.5
Length Hull: 25 ft (7.6 m)
Overall: 32 ft (9.8 m) with 20pdr
Width 11 ft 1 in (3.38 m) with side plates
Height 9 ft 10.5 in (3.01 m)
Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

Armour 51–152 mm (2.0–6.0 in)
Main
armament
120mm L/44
Secondary
armament
7.62 mm Ksp
Engine teledyne continental AVDS 1790 2DC
750 hp
Power/weight 13.76 hp/t
Transmission 5-speed Merrit-Brown Z51R Mk. F gearbox
Suspension Modified Horstmann
Ground clearance 1 ft 8 in (0.51 m)
Operational
range
32.5 mi (52.3 km) cross country, 62.5 mi (100.6 km) on road (Marks 3, 5, and 6) [3]
Maximum speed 48 km/h

VfDQsLe.jpg

Source

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/strv-81.htm

https://vk.com/wall-50943531_1087731?lang=en

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/9i2qq5/you_may_not_like_it_but_this_is_what_peak/

https://tanknutdave.com/the-swedish-centurion-series-aka-strv/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank)

https://wiki.warthunder.com/Strv_104

 

Edited by CaID
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • CaID changed the title to Stridsvagn 104 L/44, Up-gunned centurion
  • Senior Suggestion Moderator

Open for discussion. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1, Sweden needs all the help they can get and this would be a fantastic addition.  :salute:

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rambolf said:

Wasnt this just used to transport the gun?

under no circumstance they would mount a gun on a turret just to transport it, they would transport a gun in crate.

 

what they did was to mount the gun on a tank to study the ballistic protection of the Strv 122. likely they was shooting at armour plate with the 120mm and see how the armour was good against the 120mm rounds. we have no details on the test itself, only the purpose of those test was revealed.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator

Not a fully functional vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blockhaj said:

Not a fully functional vehicle.

Neither was the Radpanzer 90 which never had a turret mounted, and the turret that is currently mounted on display doesn't have any optics/electronics and certainly not a working traverse mechanism, yet the thing is still in-game. This should be fine as well (or better yet not add this and rightfully remove the Radpanzer from the game entirely).

  • Upvote 9
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What BR would fit for it? It's a Centurion, so the mobility is nonexistent, 8.7 with a L/44 seems weird? Tho at 9.0 you have the Leopard L/44 itself. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator

As for some history @CaID. The turret was purchased from Switzerland, which is why it lacks camo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

As for some history @CaID. The turret was purchased from Switzerland, which is why it lacks camo.

that is good to no and kind of making sense, but is there any source?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
6 hours ago, SaabGripen said:

Was the Centurion Mk.7 purchased in Switzerland modified to the Strv 104 standard?
If not, I think it should have been named Centurion L/44 rather than Strv 104 L/44.

They purchased a scrap swiss turret so they didnt have to permantely modifiy a 104 turret, and fitted it to an existing 104 hull.

 

18 hours ago, CaID said:

that is good to no and kind of making sense, but is there any source?

Not at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2022 at 17:44, EL337GH0ST said:

Neither was the Radpanzer 90 which never had a turret mounted, and the turret that is currently mounted on display doesn't have any optics/electronics and certainly not a working traverse mechanism, yet the thing is still in-game. This should be fine as well (or better yet not add this and rightfully remove the Radpanzer from the game entirely).

 

So? One incorrect vehicle does not justify another.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
37 minutes ago, Zev_Winters said:

 

So? One incorrect vehicle does not justify another.

Point is. This was never intended as a combat vehicle. Its simply a rig. The Radpanzer 90 was at least planned as a combat vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blockhaj said:

Point is. This was never intended as a combat vehicle. Its simply a rig.

Same goes for the VT1-2, I'm pretty sure, so there's already a precedent for test rigs in War Thunder. If it can move and fire its gun as well as drive under its own power, it can be added. If it can't, that sucks and we'll have to forget about it.

Edited by DMYEugen
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
6 minutes ago, DMYEugen said:

Same goes for the VT1-2, I'm pretty sure, so there's already a precedent for test rigs in War Thunder. If it can move and fire its gun as well as drive under its own power, it can be added. If it can't, that sucks and we'll have to forget about it.

VT1-2 was at least combat capable.

Note that this thing has no commanders cupola. It might not even have a roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

VT1-2 was at least combat capable.

Note that this thing has no commanders cupola. It might not even have a roof.

I wouldn't call something made entirely of structural steel and not inteded for combat "combat capable", but I see where you're coming from. Again though, the capability to elevate, depress, and fire the gun are what matter when it comes to War Thunder, not the lack of a turret roof or cupola.

 

That being said, I see why many would oppose this vehicle's addition. At the end of the day, it's simply differences in opinions on what's suitable for the game.

Edited by DMYEugen
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
4 minutes ago, DMYEugen said:

I wouldn't call something made entirely of structural steel and not inteded for combat "combat capable", but I see where you're coming from. Again though, the capability to elevate, depress, and fire the gun are what matter when it comes to War Thunder, not the lack of a turret roof or cupola.

 

That being said, I see why many would oppose this vehicle's addition. At the end of the day, it's simply differences in opinions on what's suitable for the game.

Main problem is the lack of commanders optics and ammunition storage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...