Forum

I am intrigued that the game will include an alternate Swedish setting! I am however a bit curious about what assumptions will go into its underlying premise.

The basic premise for this edition of T2K is as I've understood it that while the Wall did collapse in '89 and Germany hence IS reunited, Boris Yeltsin did NOT manage to avert the August 1991 coup, with the consequence that the Soviet Union did NOT collapse, and hence much of the Warsaw Pact should remain intact, the Baltic states never gained independence, etc.

In Sweden's actual history, that collapse had immediate repercussions on defence policy, with downscaling of the operational strength and reductions in ongoing investments. The slogan used by defence minister Anders Björck at the time was that Swedish defence was made "smaller but sharper" (*mindre men vassare"); while spending was cut, the intent was to get "more bang for the buck" ("mera pang för pengarna"). But the fact remains: the ongoing programme to acquire a new MBT for the Swedish army was reduced to a fraction of the originally intended numbers, as was the on-going acquisition of the Gripen multi-role fighter. Development of a new medium-range AA system (Rbs 23) was put on hold. Numerous obsolete units (such as the bicycle infantry "cykelskytte") were, instead of being modernised into mechanised infantry, simply disbanded. And so on, and so forth. Some systems were eventually developed and fielded, but years, even decades later, and in much smaller quantities.

Will the Swedish setting take all this into account, so that the Swedish defence that meets the Twilight War is not simply what the country historically had at the time, but rather that which would have existed, had policy not suddenly changed direction in late 1991?

Will it even take into consideration other, wider consequences, such as might the unchanged course of Swedish policy in the end have led the country to not elect to acquire a foreign MBT, but instead invest in developing the domestic Strv 2000, in keeping with the mainstream of Swedish Cold War acquisitions policy?

If I recall correctly, the last GDW Edition (2.2) had the coup in Russia succeed, and as a result, the Cold War doesn't end in 1990, and no 'peace dividend' (that was the term in the UK, as I recall). If anything, tensions build. Hence, I would assume that the Swedish armed forces in the new game will be '1990 level, plus a little bit', the same as every other nation, then degraded by ~5 years of war.

Though way back when I was playing 1st Edition, I always liked the idea (which wasn't the game background) that Sweden wasn't badly affected by the war directly, but then invaded northern Europe - the devastated Europe setting put me in mind of the 30 Years War, just in need of a Lion from the North...

Either way the events would have unfolded, Sweden would have aquired a foreign tank, since it was deemed to be a defense risk to stick with the tanks we had until after the year 2000 when the Strv-2000 would have been available at the earliest.

So even if we had decided to go with the domestic development (which still wouldn't have been a guaranteed outcome of this scenario) they still would have aquired a new foreign produced tank.

And, since they'd be doing the same tests as they did in real life, they would have gone with the Leo. (ie. the immediate procurement of the Leo 2A4's for lend and then our version of the Leo improved which turned out to be Strv-122, produced domestically).

I mean, don't forget that one of the results of the testing done on the Abrams, LeClerc, Challenger 2 and Leo 2 was that they turned out to be much more mobile in heavy snow than the Swedes had anticipated and that we also figured out that developing a domestic tank in the form of the Strv-2000 project would have taken much longer than anticipated, not just more expensive.

So even if they decided to go with the Strv-2000 project after the tests, it most likely wouldn't have been ready for production by the year 2000 anyway.


So I don't think we'd have seen much difference in the materiel used in the Swedish armed forces, but rather a difference in the amount of materiel.

Many more Strv-122's for example.

And, since they'd be doing the same tests as they did in real life, they would have gone with the Leo. (ie. the immediate procurement of the Leo 2A4's for lend and then our version of the Leo improved which turned out to be Strv-122, produced domestically).

I'd consider this a forgone conclusion.

Since the tanks Sweden had available around 1990 were impossible to upgrade to carry main armaments capable of defeating modern armour (and the Strv 103 in addition was impossible to get to fire on the move), and since Strv 2000 (or "Strv 141" as it would have been called, had it entered service) was too far away, FMV would still go for the Leopard 2, even as a stopgap - Challenger 2 was in many ways superior, but much too expensive to be considered a serious contender; Abrams and Leclerc didn't measure up in several other areas in the trials that were performed. The Leopard was the only viable option.

Question is however - assuming FMV had elected the domestic option as a long-term solution - to what degree an "upcoming" Strv 2000 acquisition had affected the Leopard 2 deal. Since it would only be a short-term stopgap - would we only have got the A4's on loan? Or would we have gone for a less ambitious domestic rendition of the Leopard 2 Imp (in that case called Strv 121, as we never would have borrowed the A4's)?

Or, would these scenarios cancel out? Would a "less ambitious" Leopard 2 acquisition in the face of an upcoming Strv 2000 prompted by a successful August coup in the end have amounted to exactly what we ended up getting IRL, in the face of a collapsed Soviet Union?

When did Sweden get the Leo II's? (the A4's in particular) And who from? Were these surplus vehicles generated by defence cuts ('peace dividend') in other nations?
With the alternate history (Cold War doesn't end), would these vehicles have been available? Or Cold war continues = no cuts = no surplus vehicles = nothing available for Sweden?

IRL, this was done in the mid-late '90's (the formal procurement was signed in 1994; delivery 1996-2002), and the partner was (West) Germany.
Sweden procured 120 units of their own modified version of Leopard 2 Improved; 91 of these were produced domestically on licence.
In Swedish service, these bear the name Stridsvagn 122 (Strv 122).

As part of the same deal, as a stop-gap before the 122 could go into service, Sweden also procured 160 units of surplus Leopard 2A4's, in Swedish service called Strv 121, on lease These were all delivered before the end of the same year - 1994. These have for the most part since been returned to Germany; about 1/3 remain mothballed in Sweden.

So in the 'Cold war continues' scenario, with no cuts to the (West) German army, there likely wouldn't be any surplus Leo A4s.(Hence no such vehicle as Strv 121)
What options would have been able in that case?
Retaining the Strv103?
Upgrades to the Centurion/Strv104?
Early acquisition of the Strv 122?
Other?

If I remember correctly, field test with the involved tanks were ongoing around 91-92 in Sweden, and it was fairly clear that the Leopard was the one likely to win.

One might imagine a scenario where the USSR failing to collapse prompts the sitting right-wing government to get FMV to expedite the process, so that the deal is signed already in 1992, and deliveries and domestic production of the modified Imp starts already in 1993, at an accelerated pace.

In that scenario, Sweden never leases the A4’s, and therefore the Swedish Imp instead gets the designation Strv 121 (being the first tank with a 12cm gun to enter service).

Extending the service life of either the Strv 103 or 104 even further simply wasn't feasible, as neither was physically possible to upgrade with heavier armament than the 105mm guns they already had (which were too ineffective against modern composite armour - same reason why e.g. only the M1 had a 105mm gun, and subsequent Abrams versions all have had 120mm guns) - beside the fact that both by then were already well past their use-by dates; the Centurion due to sheer age (being a WWII-era design), the 103 due to having become tactically obsolete, as it could never be modified to fire on the move; rendering it much too limited for the tactical environment of a modern battlefield.

On a slightly different note ... I remember that an earlier edition listed the Interdynamics MKS as Sweden's standard assault rifle.
This was of course pure fantasy. That weapon was never going to be a real contender for replacing the Ak 4, for oh-so-many reasons (and indeed, nor did it; anywhere close - in the end, it was a local modified version of the FNC, manufactured under license, that became the new Ak 5).

For the new edition however, given the altered historical premise of the setting, I would not deem it as stretching credibility too much beyond the bounds of acceptable tolerances to allow the CBJ Tech/Saab-Bofors CBJ MS PDW to have replaced the Kpist m/45 ... possibly as a "Kpist m/96" or some suchlike.