It's definitely a design of its time. The primary concern was "halt a Soviet armored column from bowling through to Stockholm" so I'd assume they would have been primarily used defensively on major roadways, where the lack of a turret is less of a problem. And in that same vein, eliminating the traditional turret brings the unit cost down quite a bit, so a smaller economy could build more of them and theoretically mount a more competent defense.

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago

It supposedly held its own in trials and exercises with other MBTs of the era, and had a marked advantage when defending fixed positions. But it came from an era when effective gun stabilization wasn't really a thing yet (meaning that having to stop to aim wasn't that much of a disadvantage) and the primary threat to tanks was expected to be other tanks (meaning it's light but insanely sloped upper armor would be effective against projectiles on a flat trajectory, rather than a massive liability against top-attack missiles and other modern threats like drones). An excellent outside-the-box design for its era, but not at all suited to the modern battlefield.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Additionally, tanks in casematte design have a lower silhouette and thus are harder to spot and provide a smaller target.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Defense is exactly what the Strv-103 was designed for. One of the crew was seated facing backwards to act as the rear facing driver, allowing the tank the ability to immediately pull back from positions without needing to turn.