LTV-20 Loach MBT by matty02102

matty02102

41 / 4

23rd May 2018

31st Aug 2022

Seen with a HC-01 supporting. The next generation in MBT design, featuring a hull only setup with armour angled for excellent deflection. The tank has a very low profile and can take a beating. Give me suggestions for more tanks or stuff in general :)

tank engine explosive realistic explosion bunker power explode

Comments

• 

  matty02102 24th May 2018
  And yes the skirting is not a solid object that is unmovable, so that'll have less effect on the clearance, maybe I should change that out a little
• 

  matty02102 24th May 2018
  When I've looked at the performance records of the 103 in trials its always performed as well as other MBTs, although never combat proven, which is a whole other story. Funnily enough, the tank can fire, on the move, 'just as well' as the Abrams (in the 90s) according to trials
• 

  matty02102 24th May 2018
  Yeah I've just read up on the Swedish line of tanks a little more, tis a cool little subject. Yeah as Pyro is saying, the physical breach needs no traverse as it relies on the pneumatics of the tracks moving up/down for elevation.
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 24th May 2018
  A little addendum: This is part of why Sweden opted out of Strv 103 production in favor of the Strv 122
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 24th May 2018
  The only problem I have is along the lines of what tails had to say: Due to the lack of side and rear protection (note, I didn't say armor), this tank must favor surprise attacks and long-range engagements. And due to this, infantry support is minimal, which decreases survivability.
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 24th May 2018
  Since this is designed to be similar to the 103, the gun has no traverse whatsoever, and relies on hydraulic suspension and track traverse. The skirts are fine as long as they are rubber, as seen on some older Soviet tank mods (Like in the Yugoslav Wars) used to protect against explosives.
• 

  Gnaeus 24th May 2018
  the armor on the barrel will give it no vertical traverse. It has flat armor. no ground clearence from the skirts. and it would be slow. Let me tell you that its not big eats small its the quick eats the slow...
• 

  987tails 24th May 2018
  and HE rounds are more favoured since all tanks fire at in the middle east are buildings and enemy mounted trucks. plus if the enemy is lucky and has a tank, i guarentee you that itll be destroyed with a tomahawk rather than a sabot. and t90's lying around in the middle east arent even a threat to MBTs like the M1A2/A1 since its CHOBAM plating is too tough to pierce with a non sabot yet gets blown up with a single APFS sabot front on.
• 

  987tails 24th May 2018
  hmmm, you make a very solid point. remember that in the middle east after the 2nd gulf war, when all that isis crap came around, they favoured gurrella warfare like the vietnamese did in vietnam. TD's are extremely vulnerable to GW because they can get flanked and if they are tracked they are really... really screwed. tank vs tank combat isnt as popular since the gulf wars ended. these days tanks are really used for cleanup purposes, assaults, fortification and training.
• 

  matty02102 24th May 2018
  Also THANKYOU FOR FP EVERYONE :)