Landsverk L-60 Swedish Tank (1934)

[MonsterZero]

I just started reading about this Swedish tank.

I think this is an amazing looking tank by 1934 standards. In the early 1930s, a lot of countries were struggling trying to figure out what a battle tank should look like. Many strange designs were developed, like the multi-turreted tanks in England and USSR that were completely wrong ideas.

L-60 looks to be in the same class as Pz III, if not more advanced. The suspension looks so cool, it's probably good enough to be on a modern tank or armored carrier in 21st century.

Sweden built several hundred of these in 1930s and 1940s.

[ShAA]

Hmm, I think it's just the looks, and they can be quite deceptive. BT-7, which appeared the same year, had slightly stronger armour, much better gun, much more powerful engine, and much greater speed. In fact, it's rather in the T-26 category, and despite a few minor advantages, its gun is still a puny 20mm peashooter compared to the Soviet 45mm tank gun. At the range greater than 1km it would have no chances in an tank vs tank encounter.

[PNorberg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwRU3UAy0Jc

[String]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Hmm, I think it's just the looks, and they can be quite deceptive. BT-7, which appeared the same year, had slightly stronger armour, much better gun, much more powerful engine, and much greater speed. In fact, it's rather in the T-26 category, and despite a few minor advantages, its gun is still a puny 20mm peashooter compared to the Soviet 45mm tank gun. At the range greater than 1km it would have no chances in an tank vs tank encounter.

Did the BT-7/T-26 have optics good enough to even fire effectively much beyond 1km? IIRC most tank combat in the early days of WW2 took place at around 1km or less?

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by String

Did the BT-7/T-26 have optics good enough to even fire effectively much beyond 1km? IIRC most tank combat in the early days of WW2 took place at around 1km or less?

If I remember correctly, German and Italian tanks were instructed not to approach Soviet-made T-26 and BT-5/7 to the distance closer than 1km. Probably the shots weren't precise, but the enemy either had to travel another several hundred meters to score a penetration hit or retreat/take cover.

[Stryker 19K30]

Pretty sure I remember this tank being in an engagement with Marine M-48s in the Dominican Republic during Operation Powerpack.

[Johan Banér]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Hmm, I think it's just the looks, and they can be quite deceptive. BT-7, which appeared the same year, had slightly stronger armour, much better gun, much more powerful engine, and much greater speed. In fact, it's rather in the T-26 category, and despite a few minor advantages, its gun is still a puny 20mm peashooter compared to the Soviet 45mm tank gun. At the range greater than 1km it would have no chances in an tank vs tank encounter.

Certainly looks can be deceptive. So can designations. I'm not really sure how or why the OP latched on to the L-60 designation? It's not an official Swedish army designation. There were at least 4 types of varialy upgraded L-60s produced by Landsverk over several years, with variable specs (A to D versions).

What PNorberg posted is an m/42, i.e. it's the type designation for the 1942 version, but that's essentially a new and much beefed up design. But it really does seem to be the very machine in the OP's picture...

Anyway, the military designation of the L-60 is m/38 or m/39, with the 39 having a slightly different MG configuration apparently, and that's it.

Main armament was a 37 mm gun. It was light compared to a BT-7 for instance, a little over half the weight. The BT-7 also had a much more powerful engine, and was faster. The m/38-39 seems to have had armour roughly similar to the BT-7 however, especially the later versions, that got their frontal armour upgraded to 50 mm.

The L-60 design also wen't to Czechslovakia where it had a life as the M38 Toldi, and as such got to invade France as part of the Whermacht, who apparently thought it a pretty decent piece of kit for 1940, more reliable and providing better firepower than the pz-I and II at least iirc.

Now, the m/42 otoh had a 75 mm gun, outweighed the BT-7 1,5 times (thicker hide), but was a bit slower, being a much heavier tank. It's problem of course wouldn't be anything like a BT-7, but rather having to duke it out with Panthers or T-34s and their like...

Really, no one should make themselves any illusions about the potency of the Swedish armour during WWII. Sweden built just around 700 tanks, of all types, in total. All through 1940 the sum total of Swedish tanks able to engage in tank-on-tank action was 16 m/38s, the ones with 37 mm guns. All other tanks operated by Sweden before 1941 were armed with MGs only.

Sweden also built no new tank types after the m/42, opting for various kinds of assault guns for the remainder of the war.

The one saving grace for Sweden would be that it's generally bad tank country, limiting their usefulness.

[Stryker 19K30]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

The L-60 design also wen't to Czechslovakia where it had a life as the M38 Toldi, and as such got to invade France as part of the Whermacht, who apparently thought it a pretty decent piece of kit for 1940, more reliable and providing better firepower than the pz-I and II at least iirc.

Toldi was Hungarian and did not fight in France. The name comes from the Hungarian hero.

[Johan Banér]

Originally Posted by Stryker 19K30

Toldi was Hungarian and did not fight in France. The name comes from the Hungarian hero.

You're absolutely right. Complete brain-fart on my part. Scratch that.

[nikolas93TS]

Originally Posted by Stryker 19K30

Pretty sure I remember this tank being in an engagement with Marine M-48s in the Dominican Republic during Operation Powerpack.

And M50 Ontos as well.HEAT rounds scored hits on an old Swedish Landsverk L-60 light tank and a French AMX-13 light tank in 1965.

[MonsterZero]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Hmm, I think it's just the looks, and they can be quite deceptive. BT-7, which appeared the same year, had slightly stronger armour, much better gun, much more powerful engine, and much greater speed. In fact, it's rather in the T-26 category, and despite a few minor advantages, its gun is still a puny 20mm peashooter compared to the Soviet 45mm tank gun. At the range greater than 1km it would have no chances in an tank vs tank encounter.

1 km would be very challenging, even for the 76mm gun in the T-34 tank. Remember that Russian artillery video I sent you via Facebook? They have a segment on the 45mm infantry AT gun 53-K, which was the same gun as mounted in BT-7. Penetration tables show good penetration at 500 meters, but that was optimistic, and in real combat conditions the enemy tank had to be much closer, like 300 meters.

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

1 km would be very challenging, even for the 76mm gun in the T-34 tank. Remember that Russian artillery video I sent you via Facebook? They have a segment on the 45mm infantry AT gun 53-K, which was the same gun as mounted in BT-7. Penetration tables show good penetration at 500 meters, but that was optimistic, and in real combat conditions the enemy tank had to be much closer, like 300 meters.

Wait a second - the armour is 15mm only. You can probably punch it through with an AP 50cal at a point-blank range. But this is a 45mm gun!

[Stryker 19K30]

The Hungarian Toldi didn't fare very well against the Soviets in any capacity.

[MonsterZero]

Originally Posted by Stryker 19K30

The Hungarian Toldi didn't fare very well against the Soviets in any capacity.

A 1934 or 1935 design didn't have a chance against a 1940 design like the T-34 because during those 5 years a revolution in tank design took place, especially the Soviet move to the very heavily armored tanks like the t34 or KV that also had excellent mobility in all terrain conditions.

In the 1930s many military theorists thought a tank was not supposed to fight other tanks so it didn't need good armor. One of them was George Patton in USA. It was thought infantry anti-tank guns will do a much better job dealing with enemy tanks.

Actual WWII conditions demonstrated that one way or another, tanks always end up encountering hostile tanks, no matter how you theorize that this is not supposed to happen.

[Dashy]

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

A 1934 or 1935 design didn't have a chance against a 1940 design like the T-34 because during those 5 years a revolution in tank design took place, especially the Soviet move to the very heavily armored tanks like the t34 or KV that also had excellent mobility in all terrain conditions.

In the 1930s many military theorists thought a tank was not supposed to fight other tanks so it didn't need good armor. One of them was George Patton in USA. It was thought infantry anti-tank guns will do a much better job dealing with enemy tanks.

Actual WWII conditions demonstrated that one way or another, tanks always end up encountering hostile tanks, no matter how you theorize that this is not supposed to happen.

Emphasis mine.

Sure, it looks pretty, but it's not a very decent tank, it's main armament is what, a 20mm gun upgraded to a scary 37mm? it has 15 mm of frontal armour?

If looks could kill ....



Hell, the Schofield is probably better, sure it lacks 5mm of armour, but the 2 pounder and higher speed make up for it