Useable S-Tanks?

Will we ever be able to use the S-Tanks lying around in the world? This would be perfect to deal with a reaper if you dont want to waste a lot of your ammo.

Now for a bit of technical data on this tank,

The S-Tanks could be operated with just a single crew member.
The tank has an automatic loading system which can fire every 2.8 seconds and uses hydraulic suspension to aim the 105mm fixed gun. The tank has a laser rangefinder. Ammo capacity is 50 rounds. The tank CAN NOT fire on the move but it was possible to stop the tank quickly and get the gun on target in about 5 seconds.
On the 360° comanders cupola there is a ksp 58 machine gun and on the hull theres 2 other fixed ksp 58 machine guns.
The tank weighs around 42 tons and the 2 engines in total produce 780hp, 18hp/ton. Top speed is 50km/h both forwards and backwards.
The tank should be able to withstand any machine gun fire from the robots to the front due to its extremely sloped armor. Tho it could be disabled by the missles some robots fire, and a firebird might be able to knock it out from above since the roof armor is not that great. Altough the roof armor was able to withstand 20mm AP rounds fired from a Saab 32 Lansen at an angle during tests.

In my opinion this tank would be perfect for base assaults and dealing with the reaper. This tank is perfect for long ranges and is a great defensive weapon, while it may not be a great offensive weapon. It would be a really interesting new gameplay for generation zero.


…But it’s still just a game with some of it’s own rules.

A reaper can blast away everything with just a single firestorm attack. Nearby machines, no matter if friend or foe, immediatly get destroyed.

There are many wrecked stridsvagen tanks on the battlefields, so obviously they weren’t as perfect to fight the machines.

Yes, it may be controlled by just one man and has good statistics in real life, but I could imagine, that it has no chance if it is outnumbered by armed machines flanking it and fighting in medium to close range.

Additionally … We can destroy any machine with just a .32 möller, every machine except the firebirds with just a brenbal bat, why should there be other rules for the stridsvagen tanks?

Yes, it would be some armor around us while fighting a tank or a reaper or what else, but that doesn’t weight the reduced mobility on a battlefield.
While we would have to face the machines to fire at them, they would have a large and easy target to aim at. While we change the position we cannot shoot at the machines, but they just turn and keep on firing.

A reaper even just could stomp our tank to scrap.

In my opinion a stridsvagen tank just would be an armored coffin.

No tank is invincible of course theres some destroyed S-Tanks around the map. I dont think you understand how this tank generally would be used, youre not really supposed to fight robots at close range with the tank. But even if you do and youre about to get flanked you could pop smoke and quickly reverse into cover. Its best suited for long range sniping and with the laser rangefinder and the fixed gun for better accuracy it would work great. Also i think its a great idea with the blast of the reaper destroying the tank so that theres at least a balance.


I know, but they don’t play on our rules and just wait for being sniped by a tank.

Let’s say you approach a group of machines east of lilla hammarnäs and east of stenbacka.
You “sneak” over the knoll and start firing at a bunch of machines of all classes in the distance. You shoot once, twice and move back behind the knoll to take cover and slightly change position.

Tanks and harvesters will already have started shooting at you with rockets or a mortar.
On moving back behind the knoll they would start following you to get free sight. Tanks are fast.

Runners and hunters will directly move towards your position, while the hunters split into two groups.

  1. Those that start using their shoulder cannon from distance and
  2. Those that directly go into medium to close combat while flanking you. A few from the left, a few from the right.

When you changed your position and get over the knoll again to continue shooting the distant machines, you already will have most of them directly next to you.

While I agree that the smoke would be cool for tactical retreats, it just could help against smaller machines (without additional optics) or against those, whose optics already have been destroyed.

The stridsvagen tank just isn’t made for fighting those machines effectivly. An enemy without fear, highest mobility and the ability to fight in any direction.

Besides of that I could imagine that most of the problems during a combat would occur due to the landscape. There are too many obstacles.

Yes, in real most of them wouldn’t be an obstacle… But it’s just GZ, where every bough, every fence, every rock and more are obstacles.

I don’t want to argue/fight with you.
I just wanted to tell my opinion. GZ is about a guerilla warfare against the machines. Why do we need to fight like that? Because the swedish army and their heavy equipment failed.

Keep in mind that you have a rapid firing 105mm… if you know how to use the tank then you would wipe out hunters and runners first, in about 30 seconds. After wiping the hunters and runners out you quickly pop smoke so nobody sees you since the robot tank is aware of you and sprinting towards you now. After popping smoke you either reposition far to the sides or move back a bit. Now you just rapid fire at the robot tanks armaments until they fall off and then finish him off. After destroying the robot tank you will move up to the poor slow harvester and shoot his missle rack until it breaks and finish him off too.

But now lets say youre in a real emergency and runners and hunters unexpectedly appear on your sides, what do you do?
Option 1: Use the ksp 58 machine gun on the commanders 360° cupola
Option 2: Do a clutch brake maneuver and get the gun on target in almost no time
Option 3: Pop smoke and hope for the best while reversing into cover

Im not saying this tank should be a wonderweapon, but what im saying is that it should be able to withstand couple of hits from the front while it should be able to withstand almost no shots to the sides. It would be like a robot tank for the player but smaller.

Then i guess we shouldnt get our hands on swedish guns either!


It’s a great idea, actually. There are any number of areas on the map where an S- Tank could move out from cover to an area with a great field of view, from which it could engage machines at long range. The 105 mounted on it could quickly very destroy any machine other than rivals or the Reaper.

While a single player might have a difficult time using one, a 4- player team consisting of either 2 tanks and two infantry or 1 tank and three infantry could wreak havoc on enemy machines. If in the unlikely event that too many machines appeared, the tank could disengage at high speed over an open area, withdraw sooner over rougher terrain, or the player could abandon the machine- while the other three cover the tank and then scatter. A 4- player team doesn’t need to run from anything other than possibly a Reaper- so the reality here is that a tank/ infantry team would demolish almost any opponent.

Truth be told, I suggested this very thing twice previously. On both occasions, my suggestions were in response to a player survey sent to my e- mail. I sent in my reply but never heard of any feedback one way or the other regarding the tank. My conclusion is that the development team simply doesn’t want to add it to the game for some reason- much like the opening up of new islands which players have been requesting for years now. So kudos for having a great idea. Just don’t expect anything to come of it.

1 Like

I’m still not convinced.
Yes, it can fire up to 15 rounds per minute… But just if you shoot in the same direction.
Turning the tank for changing the direction takes time.

Keep also in mind that a single person will have to do all the jobs that normally do three persons do in the tank.

Regarding the speed. It isn’t faster than a moped and has to fully stop to be able to shoot.

If it still can be succesful… We’ll never know. They never took part in a real battle and are out of service. And they’ll never fight against these highly mobile machines in real.

I say: they’re armored coffins

Pretty sure that you shoot in the same direction most of the time as i mostly do when i snipe…

It wouldnt take much time to reposition with the S-Tank, its maneuverability is very good. Look at this video the tank does some pretty aggressive maneuvers and moves fast and smooth on rough terrain: The 103C model, which is the model in game and from the video above, has the most horsepower output out of all the S-Tanks. Its maneuverability and mobility is the best among all S-Tanks.

The Driver was responsible for driving and shooting the tank and had to look out for targets on the left, thats just 1 person doing all of this. If you would sit into the commanders seat you will get the same controls as the driver would, which means you could also drive and shoot the tank + you have a 360° cupola which the driver doesnt. So this is not really a problem. Keep in mind that this tank was supposed to only have 2 crew members at first but then changed to 3 because it needs at least 3 people to maintain it. IIRC there have been trainings with the S-Tanks in sweden with 1 man operating the tank all alone.

As i stated before, this isnt really an issue either because you can stop the tank and get the gun on target in around 5 seconds, depending on your skill.

Ive told you multiple times why it would not suck, maybe in your opinion its not worth to be implemented because you dont know how to use it! You underestimate it a bit, the S-Tank wasnt like any other tank.


Right, the S-Tank is incredibly unique. Ingenious, even, I’d say. It really deserves more recognition and…exposure in the gaming world. I think the only two games that include versions of them are like ‘World of Tanks’ and their more broad-horizoned competitor, ‘War Thunder.’

If I remember right, it effectively has two separate drive systems—like a diesel for low-speed movement and pivoting while stationary, and a gas turbine for high speed movement? And the transmission is not the same as the typical transmission in a car, where speed in reverse is severely restricted…instead, the gearbox for the S-Tank is like mirrored front to back, so speed in either direction is the same. Rapid approach, rapid reverse, rapid reposition.

Frontal armor on the underside is improved beyond just the hull by the presence of the stowed plow… The suspension is incredibly unique, allowing the vehicle to “squat down” or “stand up on tip toes” to either hide behind or peek over obstacles… And it was or could be amphibious?

And between the driver’s station and the commander’s station, most if not ALL of the controls are duplicated. From either seat a single person can drive, stop, shoot, without having to swap positions. And with the main weapon being fed by an auto-loader system, there is no manual loading to fuss with, so again no swapping position to do another job…you’d only deal with manual loading after the auto-loader has been exhausted—which would require you to exit the vehicle to reload the external storage boxes, the magazines, if I’m not mistaken.

We see that all the time in games, where one man operates a tank alone…see it occasionally in movies or on TV, too…but the S-Tank is pretty much the only one that can actually do it, that I know of, completely legitimately.

I think seeing all these things littering the battlefields is, like their poor representation of the AG4, an extreme disservice to the S-Tank.

I do understand, however, that the main focus of the game is supposed to be man versus machine—flesh versus metal… Guerilla warfare, asymmetrical warfare. But I don’t think that necessarily should mean we never get our hands on any serious military hardware, up to and including a tank.

Should it be limited? Sure, it would be. As you point out, Mad, the terrain would be just as big of an enemy for us as the machines would be, if not more so. All kinds of obstacles, just as in many other games we’ve ever gotten behind the controls of a tank, would severely limit our ability to go anywhere. Add to that, fuel consumption. Add tweaks to restrict our ability to farm fuel, or to mass produce it… Add to that, maintenance, and tweaks to alter the effectiveness of our tool kits and our amassed resources—like the procedural missions, fixing fuse boxes, and our control point structure repairs, repairing a tank could be a resource intensive thing for us. Add to that, ammunition supply… The MGs on the tank, if we could use them—if the tank was implemented, we should be able to use at least one of the MGs that should be on it—would be using up our stocks of 7.62mm ammunition, and the main gun would have to be fed…we’d be scavenging, production might not be possible or could be a major drain on our resource…

I’ve mentioned crew-served weapons, before—and the emphasis it would put on co-op, players working together, like Saunders points out would also be necessary to fully realize the potential of the tank, combined arms tactics… I pointed out that crew-served weapons could be implemented as very high risk/reward tools to use in battle, very heavy and inconvenient to employ or to keep maintained or fed… Likewise, I think the tank should not be convenient thing to use, but it would be an incredible tool to have at our disposal at some point.

Like our Runner, part of the maintenance for it could be handled through a station of some sort. Additional armor could be mounted, depleted, replaced.


You’re right with what you’re writing. Sure.
I could imagine a mission where you need to use a stridsvagen tank because of the firepower. You need to destroy a barricade (a structure or a naturally blocked entrance or exit) but first have to get the tank there, so you need to drive it and fight with it.

But that’s all.

GZ is no tank fight simulator.
Making a tank fully available to be used like others suggested, would change the games focus very much. Not forced of course. It would still be our descition to use it or not. But such a tank as strong weapon just would open up demands for more and by that many would forget how the game was intended to be played. It would become a tank simulator for many.

Next we would see demands for useable vraken or a soviet or nato armored vehicle DLC.

Don’t get me wrong, I also thought how cool it would be to drive any vehicle, especially the stridsvagen tanks or even just the cars for four persons.

But it has to fit the game and make sense somehow. Otherwise the game changes too much and it loses its identification. Just like with the base building which just got too much in my eyes.

A stridsvagen tank either would be the rollin armored coffin or a superweapon. None of that is what I would have wanted.

Why using a tank, if it’s hard or expensive to maintain, difficult to use in many areas and doesn’t give me many advantages against the machines? What would be the advantages? One-shot kills against military harvesters and tanks in high distances (up to about 350m!)? Nice… And then my coffin gets destroyed by the other flanking machines, I die, and then have to repair it at high costs. Why? It’s a tank! If I have a tank, I need to use it. → tank simulator

If it’s not just a coffin, but a superweapon, who should ever stop me from using it? Well, the costs maybe. But which costs?.. It’s a superweapon and I have the skill to use it. I cannot get flanked as I can quickly turn the tank and destroy all targets easily, so it doesn’t get damaged that much. And until I need to maintain it, I will have found all that I need just by using it.

You may see… It’s all about the tanks…

I hope you get an idea of all the aspects I have in my mind.

But just because a tank is cool, it doesn’t make every game a better game.

Like how the control points came to be and the game was changed to a build/defend base simulator for some.

1 Like

honestly in my opinion the best way for tanks to be incorporated would be to use them like a trap with the tank body to be unusable but the gun still operational and it wouldn’t affect the story to much as for there’s always a chance that not the whole tank was destroyed.

1 Like

Well, of course.
I just don’t know if that’s also possible with the stridsvagen 103. I don’t know how everything relates to each other. At least, if the engines are destroyed, it can’t turn its cannon.

But what if just the diesel or just the gas engine is destroyed? Can it be able to just be turned like a stationary gun if the main driving engine got destroyed?

I was thinking more along the line where you have to lure the robots in front of the main cannon than fire it so that it can add some effort and tactics into ambushing the robots.

I also did a bit of extra research " 240 horsepower (180 kW) [Rolls-Royce K60] an Opposed-piston engine in diesel for slow cruising and maneuvering the tank in aiming, and a 300 horsepower (220 kW) [Boeing 502 turbine] (Boeing T50 - Wikipedia) for more power when travelling at higher speed or in severe terrain. The turbine was quickly found to be underpowered and was replaced by a Caterpillar turbine delivering 490 horsepower (370 kW)"

if both engines were disabled than no but as it seems if one survives than maybe, but that dose add some more in as we could get both with and without engines just so long as the gun works.


Like adding mopeds and dirtbikes and Broangen Dirt Track has turned GZ into “GZ MX 2023”…?

No, adding the bikes did not suddenly make it a bike simulator. Just adding a tank would not suddenly make it a tank simulator.

Just adding something to the game doesn’t necessarily transform it into anything else. Not if the implementation is handled right. The motorbikes, for instance.

When the devs added the motorbikes, they seemed to have nerfed the ability of the machines to notice players riding the bicycles. It has become super easy, on XB at least, to ride a bicycle right through or past a huge crowd of machines, without drawing their attention at all. Without any stealth perks. Used to be that the rapid movement and high stance would get their attention. Then came the motorbikes, and suddenly bicycling around was somehow super stealthy, far too stealthy. Meanwhile, the sound the bikes make doesn’t seem to generate enough interest, either. The noise should almost be a death sentence… This is an instance, in my opinion, of somewhat flawed implementation. The bicycles should have had some cargo capability, saddlebags. Same for the mopeds, and dirtbikes, and all the trikes—not just the “plundra-crafting-recycling-linked” trike…and stealthy should not be the case, with any of them.

Sure, you’re right to caution against it to some extent, but it’s just that the implementation would have to be handled correctly. Not that it shouldn’t be done at all, wholesale.

Like with the bikes, the sound of a tank’s engines running should also pretty much be a death sentence, if the tank is unsupported. Like I mentioned before about crew-served weapons, the inconvenience of them versus the payoff, and the same for any possible tank. Again, as Saunders pointed out as well. A tank would be the sort of thing best used only in co-op. A serious risk. A liability, despite the strength.

To reference Maverick, whether the S-Tank would be just an armored coffin or a superweapon…would come down to the playerS using it. “The pilot” and/or those around them. Is the tank well used, and/or well supported? Or was it an idiot at the controls, and/or folks who know nothing of teamwork, combined arms tactics, who were doing whatever it was they were doing around it? And the situation—was it the right time/place/circumstance to employ such a weapon, or was it not?

Anyway, just because a player has or gets access to something, does not necessarily mean they MUST use it, or even WILL use it. The lowest common denominator, the great unwashed masses, MIGHT see it that way, but that’s them. Not everybody. A good game does not JUST cater to OR limit itself because of the lowest common denominator, the great unwashed masses. They branch out a little more, with a little something for everyone. Within reason, sure.

Sure, any implementation would have to be carefully handled…but it shouldn’t be immediately written off, in my opinion.

As for using an S-Tank only for one mission…I hate seeing that in games. It’s a waste of time, for a developer to come up with some great trick or feature…to only use it ONCE. Or even TWICE. A game should always make a bit more use of whatever feature than that. I seriously hope I’m not alone in that. Just weigh the costs versus the benefit. To go through all the time and effort to do something, to then only do it once, or twice…

Speaking of which, as much as I initially hated the truck escort missions for FNIX Rising, we really ought to end up escorting another vehicle at some point. At least once more. Lot of work, to make that truck work…even as badly as it did. Improvements to be made, better implementation, but the idea wasn’t a bad one. Likewise, the mission-oriented area defense missions for the ringfort and Bjorntunet… We should see more of those—both those mission types. If not in this game, then in the next.

Now, if they implemented the tank as aee proposes, that might be fine. Either randomly spawned, pre-positioned, or mission/side-mission specific trap uses… Limited or zero mobility. If I’m not mistaken, that was a possibility I also mentioned before, when I spoke of crew-served weapons at some point.

I think one crew served weapon example I provided was about like so: The player stumbles across a guided missile launcher emplacement, or just a heavy MG, or an automatic grenade launcher, in amongst some military strongpoint…the weapon is in working condition, there is some ammo scattered around the area, they can gather the ammo up and move it to the weapon, but they maybe cannot move the weapon…there are enemies out in the field to the front, which the player can then engage with the emplaced weapon. Doing so is going to alert every machine in the area, so it is going to be risky. They can lure the machines out into the open and get them to gather up, first, by using any lures they may possess, if they’re smart, to make the use of the emplaced weapon less risky…or they may have to deal with the risk, with getting flanked and having the weapon destroyed before they can exhaust the ammunition.

Likewise, with the immobilized S-Tank… Speaking of immobilized, there is more than one way to render a tank immobile. It isn’t necessary to destroy the engine(s). The tracks, alone, can be damaged or destroyed. Likewise, the suspension can be damaged or destroyed. Believe it or not, the vehicle can even just be hung up on something—well strung concertina wire, barbed wire, as we see around the numerous trenches, the trenches themselves, earthworks, fallen trees, large tree stumps, boulders… A tank’s mobility can be seriously limited in so many ways. Many of these means could be used to create different unique situations, where an S-Tank can be turned in place, but cannot be taken out of the area.

It could be a whole new “procedural/dynamic” mission archetype. That might be the best way to implement the tank, while also preventing over-use. At least, it could be a good start. Mission could go a bit like so: “Rumors of an S-Tank that might still be functional have started going around…but the area is dangerous, crowded with enemies. Go there, investigate the location, and see if we’ve found something to even the odds!” Player gets there, tank is hung up in barbed wire and badly damaged…or partially buried in rubble (debris of a house/other building/landslide/rockslide/etc)…or completely immobilized…whatever other possibilities.

In any case, it is not going to be something the Resistance can bring back from the brink of death so readily, just yet. Player then has the option to quietly leave, or wreak havoc on the nearby enemies and exhaust that specific tank’s usefulness. Major rewards on one of the machines out in front of the tank, possibly a mission-specific Rival spawns with the mission and the player MUST destroy it to complete the mission, regardless of whether they use the tank to do that or not.


Just because tanks are used as props in the game doesn’t mean they should become a usable part of the game. Next would be the jets, cars, trucks, weapon mounts on vehicles and the large turrets everywhere? Where would it end? It could be turned into ARMA 3 with hundreds of USD spent on DLCs if you want something more in the game.

But they did add drivable tanks in one of the older COD WWII games, multi-player only, and that was fun. Up to 3 players could be on them, driver/cannon operator, machine gunner and second machine gunner. They were easy to destroy, and players would jump on and off all the time.

well to be fair i see this game as more like a run around and shoot compared to how it used to be where we would have to be sneaky and use our ammunition wisely but if i was to stick to what this game is an (open world) where you the player have to use what is available to destroy finx than adding useable tanks or weapon mounts as a way to use the environment to your advantage would make the game more immersive while also keeping true to the core game of " STEALTH AND STRATEGY."


I don’t know about you but I sneak around more and better than when I first started playing the game. And I also use my ammo more wisely due to wanting to destroy machines without alerting other near by machines. I use weapons that do that with the fewest rounds. And in solo, I no longer engage the machines head on. I pop up, take a few shots and use the terrain to hide and flank the machines over and over. Even lure them into areas for best ambush.

Since most machines have very good hearing and most can detect temperature differences, how does a heavy, noisy tank with heat from engines give you back the sneaking around feeling?
We can also change directions instantly without losing speed and the machines can still hit us with rockets and bombs. Run in a straight line long enough, they can even train their machines on you. How does a slower maneuvering tank not get hit and destroyed? Maybe a few of the reasons none of the tanks are operational.

1 Like

I could theoretically, because I’m more experienced now, but I don’t do that. And although I’m more experienced, on the other hand the game changed too much in different aspects.

  • We now have another faction. By that and not changing how the player gets detected/pulled into a combat, it’s much harder to sneak around everywhere. Just a single small combat between FNIX and soviets, and our stealthy moment is over.

  • the ability to craft almost everything and the fact that some ammo types and health-items are now much more present in loot changed how we needed to play to survive.

So it’s because the game turned a lot into a direction where run and gun is a legal and effective way to be succesful.

Motorbikes did also do a part to support that playstyle. Fast and loud instead of slow and quiet.

Three-wheeled motorbikes are the same, but with an additional use.

I would have loved to see useable cars in the game. Not for combat, but primarly for transportation of up to 4 players. Fast on roads (without obstacles), harder to handle than a motorbike but less loud, and with the ability that passengers can shoot out of it in emergency. Can be a rollin coffin, too, as it easily can be destroyed.

A useable tank instead would be slower, better on terrain, much louder, have even higher fuel consumption, strong, but … Well, most else depends on how it would be to use it. And that’s what I can’t imagine how it could have its place in GZ. Either it’s a too strong weapon or it’s too less useful to make sense using it, as it doesn’t make sense to use it in combats if it’s also a rolling coffin.
That’s why the swedish army failed. And it wouldn’t make sense if a teenager would be better in using a tank than the swedish army.

Finally, I would write much more about what of that idea disturbs me and why, but my english isn’t as good and I don’t to write more and more to explain it.

I just think, the devs will have reasons why they just added bycicles and motorbikes and not more and greater vehicles yet. And I think that they don’t want to make us drive rollin coffins.

Calle learned that, too. He had a truck with much armor, but without weapons. We needed to protect him, but finally he died using the truck. He was a target right from the beginning of his trip and that is something we should prevent to be ourselves. We’re the only hope of the resistance.

1 Like