Forum

Speaking of infantry and Norrland brigades; without a surplus of cheap armoured vehicles, I guess they would still be using soft-skinned vehicles (with the company of IKV 91 the only exception)

I can't think of any major differences from IB 77R and NB 85 organizations.

Hm. We used to regard the Ikv 91 as pretty soft-skinned, too, actually ... "regnskydd med motor" ("motorised rain cover") was what we used to call them.
They look like a real tank but ... nah. Just ... nah.

About the 121, let's be fair here...

Germany operated 2,125 2A4's by the time the cold war ended.

Add to that the fact that the wall falls in the game timeline, so they also operated some 2000+ T-55AM and 500+ T-72's, I'm not sure that the lease of a measly 160 A4's would be that much of an issue.
Especially since the integration of East Germany into West Germany (forming just... Germany) put some heavy economic strain on the country, so the influx of money would be appreciated.
Even more so if the coup works and there is more incentive for Germany to upgrade their existing forces with the new Leo 2A5's.
(In fact, IIRC, the contract was actually signed with Germany before the coup happened... but I might be wrong on that one)

Nothing happens in a bubble, like you say... But that doesn't mean that everyone would just button up and isolated because of the coup.
Sweden already had a close cooperation with the NATO countries before the cold war ended, and this wouldn't change that.

Also, IF the Germans (for some strange reason) didn't want to lend Sweden some tanks for wads of cash, I'm sure the Americans would... since the Abrams was the runner up in the trials and in serious consideration for the purchase.

Lastly, I don't think there's a chance in hell that the Strv 2000 project could be A: Completed in time for the game's start... even with a massive influx of money and B: financed to begin with... because the reports all stated that it would be much more expensive a project than first thought, and it wouldn't be feasible to complete it before the year 2000 anyway.

160 tanks is still the lion's share of a full division's MBT complement ... not to be scoffed at, to my mind. And in the choice of equipping my forces with Leopard 2A4's or T-55's ... that's not even a choice. Even the AM upgrade was hardly on-par with Strv 102's, let alone the 104 — I'd be inclined to deem those 160 A4's would have been more than a match for those 2,000 T-55's. So, in a situation where NATO and national governments start looking at prioritising their defensive posture vs. the Pact, I'm not convinced Germany would be all that inclined to merely shrug its proverbial shoulders at letting those tanks go just like that, never mind the financial incentive. Same would go for the Americans ... whose "surplus" at that time, if any, mostly would have been M1's anyway and thus, with only a 105mm main armament, hardly interesting for Sweden.

Btw, as I think I've mentioned a couple of times, the procurement agreement for the Leopards was signed in 1994, long after the coup.

But as I've said, it all depends on what conditions are set for the scenario. I maintain that for the Moscow coup to be able to succeed, other things must have changed in the IRL timeline before August 1991. Just for instance, the Baltic Way manifestation of August 1989; an event not many who wasn't directly affected by it remember anymore, but which was earth shattering in its day — in many ways, a foreshadowing of what would happen months later. Did it happen in this timeline in the same way, or was it e.g. met with a hardline response by Soviet military acting without orders from the Kremlin?
There need to be some smaller indications here and there in the preceding history that pave the ground for the coup succeeding.

And for astute analysts, those indications would also prompt slightly different conclusions, leading to slightly different decisions further up the chain.

Even though the conditions are fundamentally different on many levels, the ongoing Zombie Apocalypse has shown Sweden that if the Government really thinks it's motivated, finding a few hundred billion for extraordinary investments is ... not impossible.
Within limits, you can always compress the development and delivery times of new hardware by investing at least 1.5x your compression factor in resources. The old adage being "we can make this good, fast, or cheap — choose any two". For instance, by running processes in parallel — e.g. by building the assembly lines already while development is still ongoing — you take normally sequential costs concurrently, but can cut final delivery times by several factors.
At the level of financing originally planned for it, I agree; the Strv 2000 wouldn't have been operational by 2000, let alone break of hostilities in 1997. But if Sweden finds itself motivated to switch onto a different track already in 1989 or 1990, or severely backtrack in 1991 — by investing a massive wad of dosh, I remain convinced they'd been able to field perhaps a division's worth of Strv 141's by 1997.

If neither Germany or the US could or wanted to provide tanks, Sweden might have ended up with Leclerc or Challenger II which were also tested. Not the tank Sweden wanted, but beggars can't be choosers.

Leclerc would probably be finished (teething issues fixed) by 2000, byt Strv141 could/would be in production, but with as many problems the game designer wants them to have

If neither Germany or the US could or wanted to provide tanks, Sweden might have ended up with Leclerc or Challenger II which were also tested. Not the tank Sweden wanted, but beggars can't be choosers.

Leclerc would probably be finished (teething issues fixed) by 2000, byt Strv141 could/would be in production, but with as many problems the game designer wants them to have

.
Actually, if the situation in Europe by the time is such that both the Germans and the Americans feel compelled to prioritise their own armament before supplying to ever-so-friendly neutrals, I am sure neither the Brits nor the French would be in any position to prioritise otherwise.

My point is, should the Germans find themselves forced to decline Sweden's request to procure their tanks, the implication would be that Sweden would have to go the Strv 141 route — at that point, no other alternatives would be left on the table.

Come to think of it though ... a wild card here might however be Finland. They might conceivably choose to go into a joint venture with Sweden to produce the Strv 2000. At this point in history, I believe their chief MBT is the T-72M1. Slightly utopian, I agree, but again: depending on the conditions set for the scenario, it is not inconceivable that they'd want to upgrade. They would have good reason to.

True, they too would probably prioritise themselves. I just thought it would be interesting with a scenario where Sweden is being compelled to buy the second (third?) best option because of availability. But it's also a question about where the production is made and how long it takes to start production in Sweden. Strv 122 was a mix of some import and mostly domestic production.

Norway might be interested in Strv141 as well if they feel the need for something beefier than their M48A5 and Leopard 1 (they also used upgraded Chafees until the late 1990s) https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/norwegian-armor/

I re-read a bit about the early 90s tank procurement, and there was an offer from Yugoslavia for the M84 tank

True, they too would probably prioritise themselves. I just thought it would be interesting with a scenario where Sweden is being compelled to buy the second (third?) best option because of availability. But it's also a question about where the production is made and how long it takes to start production in Sweden. Strv 122 was a mix of some import and mostly domestic production.

Norway might be interested in Strv141 as well if they feel the need for something beefier than their M48A5 and Leopard 1 (they also used upgraded Chafees until the late 1990s) https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/norwegian-armor/

I re-read a bit about the early 90s tank procurement, and there was an offer from Yugoslavia for the M84 tank

.
Norway, indeed ... they, too, would likely look to upgrade their MBT fleet at that point. But Norway being in NATO would change the dynamics a bit.
Finland being a neutral like Sweden might drive the two together in a joint development programme, while Norway's needs would carry higher priority among other NATO members.

The offers of T-72's and T-80's from various quarters all came after the Pact's dissolution, and so aren't likely to be on the table in this scenario. Apart from former DDR ones, possibly.

T80Us (and T-72 for the mech brigades) is definitively post-cold war.

But there is a alternate timeline that starts in 1989 when Sweden started looking at buying new tanks. That involved Swedes going to the USA, West Germany and France. But apparently Yugoslavia was also visited for a look at the M84 (licence-produced T-72). The Yugoslavs even sent a quote when the evaluation of western tanks came to an an end and quotes were requested from the western manufacturers.

And that's where the M84 alternate timeline ends in the real world.
http://ointres.se/strv_2000.htm

Not a very likely alternate timeline, but interesting nonetheless

Transplanted from the Finland thread — this issue is perhaps more relevant to address in this thread:
.

Worth to note that in the 40s and 50s and the Royal Swedish Air Force flown ferret missions across the Soviet border on behalf of the USAF. Later they switched to peripheral flights, bt were still working in concert with USAF and RAF.

They were definitely close to NATO.

.
That is all correct — Sweden had entered into classified agreements about exchanging reconnaissance data and intelligence for advanced equipment.

Just to clarify, "across the Soviet border" in this context means "over Soviet territorial waters" in the Baltic Sea. This all led to escalated tensions that culminated in a Swedish Tp 79 (DC-3) ELINT plane, and subsequently a Tp 47 (PBY-5) amphibious plane out looking for it, being shot down by Soviet interceptors over international waters in 1952.

While a lot of water had flowed under the bridge by 1990, Russian documents that emerged during the Yeltsin era showed that Soviet military planning regarded Sweden as a NATO ally, not a neutral, throughout the Cold War.
This attitude would certainly still be very much in force by the Twilight scenario's 1997.