You are on page 1of 49

UDES

Light
During the 1970s, were provided a rmstaben with input from eg the different UDE groups in the tank trials
conducted. iktigaste v The group was UDES (Sub team group Direct E ld Stridsfordon) at FMV.
The task of UDES was to collect, process, coordinate and present in uniform shape technical-economic basis in
the field of combat vehicle systems. F irst meeting was held on 7 January 1971. Standing agenda items during
the many meetings that took place during the 1970s were:
Basis for playing cards
Attempt
Examples of such illkommande points on the agendas were:
Impressions (1971-10-27)
Meeting (")
Stridsledning (1972-03-29)
Armored (1972-05-24)
Stridsledning wagon (1972-08-21)
Tank (1972-08-21)
General included: Display, Protocol Adjustment, Orientations, Trials (1972-08-23)
Ammunition Carriage (1973-03-22)
Infantry Cannon Wagon (1973-12-14)
Light tower tank (1973-12-14)
Anti-tank wagons (1973-12-14) and anti-tank cars (1975-06-16)
Of the threat of combat vehicles (1975-06-16)
Study Situation and Continued study activities (1975-08-14)
Anti-tank Robotic Vehicles (1975-09-15)
Visiting the U.S. (1975-10-27)
Try the German automotive (1975-10-27)
Threat Tank III (1975-10-27)
Dark warfare (1975-10-27)

UDES - Surface Group Direct Fire Combat


UDES led by chief engineer Sven Berge at Combat Vehicle Office at FMV. The group took on the work to
develop the concept and describe various options for new combat vehicles in the form of tanks, anti-tank
wagons or armored personnel carriers.
The studies were primarily based on finding a cheap solution for a tank, which in some important respects is
superior opponent. Three basic concepts for a new tank was produced - a tornls tank, a conventional tank with
towers, and a tank with flush-mounted cannon. Both Swedish and foreign options were considered. A large
number of "playing cards" were developed - ie comprehensive system descriptions of the study concepts.
The matrix below is an attempt to correlate the various UDES concept that developed during 19 70s. In some
cases, the concept has changed over time, hence the contradictions that can be compared with other open
literature.
Tanks
UDES 01
Improved Strv 103, cannon 10.5-12 cm, half numb weapons storage, weight about 40 tons
UDES 02
Foreign tower wagon (type the Leopard 2, Chieftain or XM1), cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight
about 50 tons
UDES 03
Reduced UDES 01, canon 10.5-12 cm, half numb arms storage, weight about 20-25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
UDES 04
Reduced UDES 01, canon 10.5-12 cm, half numb arms storage, weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
UDES 11
Main Battle Tank with stiff weapon storage, gun 10.5-12 cm, weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons), playing cards in 1971 accounted UDES 11:01 a.m. 20 tons of ammunition
wagon with weak armor in the family UDES 03
UDES 15
Main Battle Tank with turret from Bofors cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
UDES 16
Main Battle Tank with turret from Hagglunds, cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
UDES 15/16 Main Battle Tank with towers, balanced solution of Bofors and Hagglunds proposals,
cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight 25 tons (later 30 tons)
UDES 17
Main Battle Tank with height adjustable cannon 10.5-12 cm (pivot), weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
UDES 18
Main battle tank with flush mounted cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
UDES 19
Main battle tank with flush mounted cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons)
OTHER combat vehicles
UDES 05
Armored with weak armor, turrets with 9 cm low pressure cannon, weight about 15-20 tons,
belonging to family UDES 03
UDES 06
Armored with strong armor, turret with 25 mm cannon, weight about 15-20 tons, belonging
to family UDES 04
UDES 07
Armored with weak armor without towers, weight about 15 tons, belonging to family
UDES 03
UDES 08
Armored with strong armor, weight about 15 tons, 25 mm cannon, belonging to family
UDES 04 (was also highlighted as rebuilt Pbv 302)
UDES 09
Stridsledning truck, weak armor, turret with 25 mm cannon, weight about 20 tons, family
UDES 03
UDES 10
Stridsledning truck, heavily armored, turret with 25 mm cannon, weight about 25 tons,
family UDES 04
UDES 12
Ammunition Wagon with strong armor, weight about 25 tons, family UDES 04
UDES 13
Infantry Cannon Carriage (Ikv 91) by 9 cm low pressure cannon, weight about 15 tons

UDES 14
UDES 25
UDES 26
UDES 27
UDES 28
UDES 29
UDES 30
UDES 31
UDES 32
UDES 33
UDES 34
UDES 35

Infantry Cannon trolley, tower by 10.5 cm strvkanon, weight about 20 tons


Anti-tank robot trolley, tower with Saab heavy pvrb, weight about 15 tons (later 12 tons modified Pbv 302)
Anti-tank robot trolley, tower with 9 cm pvpjs, weight about 14 tons (later 12 tons modified Pbv 302)
Pansarvrnsrobotbil based on different options (armored Tgb 13, 20B, 40), pvrb TOW
tripod or Saab heavy pvrb in towers, weight 5-14 tons
Pansarvrnsbil based on armored Tgb 40 by 9 cm pvpjs in towers, weight about 14 tons
Anti-tank Robot Trolley with pvrb TOW in the tower at a new low Pbv 302, weight about
13 tons
Anti-tank Robot trailer based on an armored Bv 206, armed with TOW pvrb on stands or
towers, weight about 5 tons
Pansarvrnsbil with 10.5-12 cm strvkanon at pivot, weight about 9 tons
Anti-tank truck with 10.5-12 cm strvkanon in tower alternatively pivot, weight about 13 tons
Anti-aircraft missile wagon based on Lvrbv 701
Transportation (Trailer) without an engine in two variants (A from IVC, B from Hagglunds)
Transportation (trailer) with engine available in two variants (A from IVC, B from Hagglunds)

HOTSTRIDSFORDON
UDES 51
Main Battle Tank with 11.5 to 13 cm strvkanon in towers, weight about 40 tons (of the
threat Strv II, version 3)
UDES 52
Armored with 7.3 cm low pressure cannon in the turret, weight 11-12 tons (of the threat
Pbv II)
UDES 53
Main battle tank with flush mounted from 11.5 to 13 cm strvkanon (equivalent UDES 19),
weight about 40 tons (of the threat Strv III) in variants A, B, F
UDES 54
Armored personnel of 25 tons (of the threat Pbv III)
By autumn 1976, full-scale models developed by UDES 05, 06, 11, 15/16, 19 and 32. Trattrapperna full scale
made it possible inter alia to make comparisons with existing vehicles, look at the areas / volumes and
component location, cannon rich opportunities, spotting opportunities, and more. On all UDES-concept was
also developed wooden models in scale 1/10.
To test the technical uncertainties in the UDES concepts presented in the playing cards, was taken a few simple
tests rigs up for some of the concepts. The rigs could be more or less complete vehicles.
Below is a brief presentation of the concepts.

UDES 01

Improved Strv 103, cannon 10.5-12 cm, half numb weapons storage, weight about 40 tons.
UDES 02

Foreign tower wagon (type the Leopard 2, Chieftain or XM1), cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight about 50 tons.
UDES 03

UDES 03 was a f rminskad UDES 01, canon 10.5-12 cm, half numb weapons storage, weight about 20-25 tons
(later 25-30 tons).
The tank studies commenced aimed primarily a successor to Strv 103. The first option studied was a very light
combat vehicles with a crew of two. To begin with, was carried simpler principle experiment as shown below to
get an idea of the services include vehicle profile. .

To these simple principle experiment was also a trattrapp presented in full scale

Thereafter, for spring experimental rigs up to try out firing and driving characteristics of such tornls tank in the
20 ton class. These were named UDES 03 krrigg respective UDES 03 shooting rig (10.5 cm L/45 cannon).
Apparently, the following photographs were tank concept exceptional opportunities to target the chassis ...

In sliding rig could slide options in a tornls wagon with a relative to the chassis eleverbar cannon verified.

The simple rig experiments, conducted in PD, however, showed that a combat vehicle with only two man crew
would have insufficient capability of detecting, observing and keeping the context of other carts. In late 1973
widened because the studies to include different kinds of tower wagons with three-man crew. The most compact
design solution proved UDES 19 - a concept that was characterized by a top mounted cannon in a one-man
mini-tower (see below).
UDES 04

Reduced UDES 01, canon 10.5-12 cm, half numb arms storage, weight about 25 tons (later 25-30 tons)

UDES 0 5

The concept UDES 05 was a p tends tracked vehicle with weak armor, turrets with 9 cm low pressure cannon,
weight about 15-20 tons, belonging to family UDES 03. For detT concept was a trattrapp forward at full scale.

UDES 06

Armored with strong armor, turret with 25 mm cannon, weight about 15-20 tons, belonging to family UDES 04.
Although this concept was a trattrapp forward at full scale.

UDES 07
Armored with weak armor without towers, weight about 15 tons, belonging to family UDES 03.
UDES 08
Parallel to the tank studies were conducted including studies of a new armored. Concepts UDES 08 was a p
tends tracked vehicle with heavily armored, weight about 15 tons, 25 mm cannon, belonging spirit family
UDES 04.

A test rig for UDES 08 was developed and it was based on a converted Pbv 302 (Later referred to as Pbv 302 h,
the H stands for the rear observation hood).
The trailer was rebuilt by Hagglunds during the spring of 1975 and included a panoramic sight with rotatable
outlook for the wagon boss, rotatable observationshuv for shooting squad leader and ball-facing sides and left
the back door for shooting group.
Experiments with UDES 08 started in March 1976, and the purpose of the tests was to "create practical
experience as a basis for studies of various alternatives to new armored", for example related to the design and
the technical operation of the equipment and battle tactics at armored group. In addition, an assessment of the
possibilities to improve or change the battle tactics in platoon and company made.

The trailer had initially given a standard tape deck, but was fitted later (in the early 80's before the development
of STRF 90) with wrap-around pedestrian / overlapping carrying wheels. From a report by Mrten Svantesson
we find the following summary:
"Overlapping carrying wheels were a construction Hagglunds have they suggested in several studies to reduce
ground pressure. Use overlapping carrier wheel is a way to have a distance between the running wheels below
brhjulsdiametern.
It was made in 1980-81 both model tests and full-scale trials. In the model tests had to be relatively
unambiguous jakanda response to questions about the case more support wheels (overlapping) gave better
properties in terms of traction, sinkage, ground pressure and rolling resistance. In full-scale tests (when d a
modified e P bv 302 were used as guinea wagon), the results were not as clear-cut.
The problems tend to be associated with overlapping carrying wheels: band roll and build up of soil and the
like inside the running wheels, were analyzed. The results were that band heel, after modification of attempts
cart, could be avoided completely and that the jordan collection inside carrying wheels that actually, in extreme
marfrhllanden, could occur, did not lead to any problems.
The negative results were no increased accessibility in comparison with a standard pbv 302 was observed.
However, got one other positive results in the comfort of the cart was increased and that the rolling resistance
on soft soil was reduced.
On me it does not seem as if the concept been sufficiently addressed. I am not so sure the result that
accessibility is really improved in the experimental basket as well as model tests and experiences from WWIItrailers suggest otherwise.
Different locations of the drive wheels in harness for overlapping
rear wheels.
The variant th is the rate used in the above experiments.
Those in the middle belongs to:
Television PzKpfv V Panther 1943
Th PzKpfv VI Tiger 1943 (The gray turntables were removed with
the use of narrow band).
The far left is to my knowledge never realized.

On the other hand, the belt tension on modern cars (ex.


STRF 90) be increased to such a level that the need for
overlapping carrying wheels are significantly reduced.
"
On the rebuilt Pbv 302 was also tested alternative to
ombevpning because the trolley 20 mm automatic gun
was considered too weak. At study r and try FMV 1982
-1984 looked at the following weapons:

Mauser MK25E
Oerlikon KBA
Oerlikon KBB
Rheinmetall RH 20
Chaingun M242
This results in continued attempts at PS Skvde with Mauser MK25E and Oerlikon KBA during 1986-87.
Purpose of these experiments was to "Obtaining data for ombevpning of pbv 302 and armament of combat
vehicles 90. The experiments designed to evaluate vapenhuvarna from tactical and technical point of view, to
provide FMV basis for selection of vapenhuv and weapons. "

UDES 08 is now saved for posterity and has been renovated. Take some of this work on the website

UDES 09

The concept for UDES 09 was originally marketed a Stridsledning Cart with weak armor, turret with 25 mm
cannon, weight about 20 tons, in the context of family UDES 03. Over the years, refined Blueprint to become
increasingly similar to the structure we now recognize as Combat 90.
UDES 09 was also presented as an articulated concept according to the following sketch:

UDES 10
Stridsledning truck, heavily armored, turret with 25 mm cannon, weight about 25 tons, family UDES 04
UDES 11

Concept UDES 11 was a main battle tank with rigid weapon storage, gun 10.5-12 cm, weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons). In playing cards in 1971 accounted UDES 11:01 a.m. 20 tons of ammunition wagon with
weak armor in the family UDES 03. UDES 11 were also highlighted as a trattrapp in full scale.

UDES 12
Ammunition Wagon with strong armor, weight about 25 tons, family UDES 04.
UDES 13

Infantry Cannon Carriage (Ikv 91) by 9 cm low pressure cannon, weight about 15 tons.
UDES 14

UDES 14 was an Infantry Cannon Wagon that had a tower with a 10.5cm str idsvagns cannon, weight about 20
tons. This concept came to be developed as an experimental rig - a Ikv 91 with a new turret. Later developed the
concept UDES 14 for a brand new vehicle with a brand new tower solution according to the following sketch:

UDES 15

Main Battle Tank with turret from Bofors cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight 25 tons (later 25-30 tons).
UDES 16

Main Battle Tank with turret from Hagglunds, cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight 25 tons (later 25-30 tons).
UDES 15/16

Main Battle Tank with towers, balanced solution of Bofors and Hagglunds proposals, cannon 10.5-12 cm,
weight 25 tons (later 30 tons). This concept was also developed as a full-scale mockup of wood.

UDES 17

Main Battle Tank with height adjustable cannon 10.5-12 cm (pivot), weight about 25 tons (later 25-30 tons).
UDES 18

Main battle tank with flush mounted cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight about 25 tons (later 25-30 tons)
UDES 19

UDES 19 was a concept for the Main Battle Tank with flush-mounted cannon 10.5-12 cm, weight about 25 tons
(later 25-30 tons). This concept was developed as a trattrapp and the top of the stored canon law was tested
later on a Marderchassi. The picture below shows UDES 19 trattrapp compared with Strv 103.

The studies and trials of new combat vehicles led to the realization that the governing principle which was most
promising to steer tracked vehicles in the Swedish terrain was articulated. During the second half of the 70th
century was therefore studied a combat vehicle options with top mounted cannon into a mini tower.

A sliding krrigg with this embodiment was developed (UDES 19). The rig to UDES 19 based's on a chassis of
the German Marder armored one. This chassis was already in Sweden since the autumn of 1976 because we had
hired it from West Germany with a tank Leopard 1 and a Mrsertrger (also based on Marder) for a year's trial.

A 10.5 cm gun mounted on top Mardern in a one-man turret. With this rig UDES 19 was carried out several
attempts - driving, shooting, and more.
It's made really two rigs for UDES 19. In addition to driving and push rig a factory also produced a laddrigg. On
these g enomfrdes run - shoot - and observation - and laddfrsk. Laddriggen tested principle of letting a
laddpendel rotating around the same axis as the gun bring shoots one by one from the magazine to the gun.
The design proved to work well and be so robust that neither snow nor the branches to testing (up to 5 cm) thick

posed no obstacle to function, however, was seen to be a risk that debris came with the shots into the cannon.
Were tested but not susceptibility to fire.
During the shooting trials confirmed that it was s nabbare to focus a cannon - this is because it has less mass
than a regular tower. D also got the rig long hauling times due to bad fininriktningssystem.
Parallel also tested this principle with top mounted cannon on a chassis to Strv 103.

UDES XX 5
The Swedish snowcats 206 stood out as unique in terrainability and thoughts aroused because this principle of
articulated vehicles could also be used for a tank. It would provide an opportunity to travel over soft ground far
superior to any other known tanks and would therefore provide a major advantage over an attacker's
maneuverability in large parts of the Swedish terrain.

A tank must be able to make the center pivot in order to avail a battle position maximally and to fight in
buildings. Even if one were to try to turn an articulated vehicle by braking one side band, it would not work
because the strap bearing no one gets too long. The innovation that solved the problem was a hydraulic cylinder
high located between the front and rear. Using this could carriage parts compulsive angled towards each other in
height. Thus came only those parts of the bands that were closest to the waist to make contact with the ground
and strap bearing no one was short enough for center pivot.

AB Hagglunds & Sons produced a four tonnes of heavy articulated experimental vehicle built on a bv 206
chassis - called UDES 5 XX (where XX stood for Extra Experiment). The vehicle was found to have unique
accessibility features. None of the tested ditch types became prohibitive; either vehicle launched himself across
the narrow and deep trenches or vehicle went into the ditch and "tilted" the front end toward the opposite ditch
slope, thereby gaining enough traction to pull himself up.

The vehicle climbed unimpeded across all types of stone walls and similar obstacles. It could also get up on a
railway without loading dock. The experiments with this vehicle is one of the most spectacular implemented.

The main conclusions from these experiments were as follows:


A new combat vehicles must have high mobility, at least as well as supporting units, such as infantry
units. FMV found in the tests and trials that a vehicle with articulated steering means a promising design
solution
Armament should be strong so that defeating the tanks is possible
The vehicle weight is limited by the requirement of accessibility and therefore the vehicle's protection is
limited. Studies on protection showed that vehicle at all times should withstand the effects of weapons
from the most common threats, ie shrapnel and finkalibereld. This should be combined for the total
weight of 20 tonnes.

UDES XX 20

In order to decide on the acquisition of the next generation of combat vehicles needed CA additional evidence.
Already in defense in 1977 had a further shift of new tank proclaimed. Rather than prioritized acquisition need
splinter primarily to Upper Norrland. Therefore, it was decided in the early 80's that tank studies concentrated
on a lightly articulated alternative with 12 cm high-pressure cannon as main armament, and a full-scale
experimental rig with a weight of about 20 tons would be produced.

The purpose of the experimental rig was to investigate:


If the theories and observations that have applied for the previously tested lightweight experimental rig
UDES XX 5 also applies to an articulated fighting vehicles with higher combat weight (about 20 tons)
If a new design principle of the distribution of mass of the gun and shoot loads on both the front and rear can

be realized according imaginary theories, as well as the slide technical characteristics obtained when a 12
cm high-pressure cannon mounted on a relatively light chassis
Observation Opportunities from a vehicle with top mounted cannon and articulated chassis
The new combat vehicle rig came to be known UDES XX 20. The main supplier was HB Development AB.
Delivery of the experimental rig was in early 1982. During the period from January 1982 to March 1984 was
carried out trials with UDES XX 20 during FMV and PS management.

The experimental rig UDES XX 20 was an articulated tracked vehicle with the engine in the rear and cannon on
the front end.

The crew consisted of three men - head coach, gunner and driver. The crew was placed in the front carriage.
A special device to meet one of the most important basic requirements were wagon boss's placement in an
instant height adjustable armor protected cabin, which is in its highest position allowed observation around the
horizon (the gun).
This sample was not in the experimental rig but was only described in game card UDES XX 20 of the supposed
serial execution.
Shooter provided with a observationshuv, which could invisas from carriage boss observationshuv.
On the experimental rig loaded the smooth-bore 12 cm high pressure gun from Rheinmetall manually - an
operation that was supposed to be automated in a series of performance (loading from a magazine in the front).
Ammunition Storage and charge automatic was meant to be placed in the rear.
Gun was placed in a sidriktbar mounts at the front end.
The tripod was positioned so far back on the front end to lavettens sidriktaxel and sidriktaxel between the front
and rear end will coincide.
The cannon was addressed with a simple, electro-hydraulic straightening system and charged with one shot at a
time.

The control system was of type double articulated. This was based on the wagon portions were connected by a
steering joint which allowed the front and rear suspension to move relative to each other. A hydraulic cylinder
positioned above the wrist regulated governance in horizontal or vertical, and a hydraulic cylinder on each side
of the trail was responsible for steering the side. Steering trail had been constructed in two versions - one with
three degrees of freedom (orientation, tilt direction and rolling) and one with two degrees of freedom
(orientation and tilt).

Total weight (incl. dummy)


Crew
Vehicle length (cannon in the direction at
12)
Eldhjd (max)
Chassis Length
Chassis width
Chassis height (roof, front suspension)
Engine
Speed
Armament
Rate of fire
Protection

UDES XX 20 (attempt rig)


26 tons
3 men
9630 mm

2150 (2600) mm
7400 mm
2900 mm
1500 mm
Detroit Diesel 8VA-71TA 600 hp
55 km / h
12 cm L/44 Rheinmetall
7-10 shots / minute (practical)
15-20 mm RHA frontally, 6 +6 mm RHA
page
Shoot The experiments showed that it can provide an easy-combat with a powerful armament on muzzle brake
use. Stress on the crew in connection with the shooting was acceptable, and the precision was good.

Traction experiments were primarily with Ikv 91 as compared vehicles. The goal was to try the rig would have
as good traction as this vehicle. At obstacle climbing attempt, driving in easy and moderately difficult terrain
and the snow was accessibility features of UDES XX 20 as well or better than the comparing vehicles.

The assessment was that the corresponding results would be achievable even on soft ground and in difficult
terrain modification of the experimental rig. Salvage and excavation ability, however, was worse. It proved
possible to run with a reduced number of bands was possible provided that the front end had at least one band something that could reduce vulnerability to mines in comparison with strap-controlled combat vehicles.

Problems contrary position regarding the observation and transition to firing was significantly greater at UDES
XX 20 than at Ikv 91 - moving from the observation position to firing position was longer and took more time.
There was a greater risk of losing the target while moving. In firing showed UDES XX 20:01 higher silhouette,
which meant that the movements became more disclosure. The problems at unplugging the position was
considerably larger, even with specialized tools.

The experience gained in the experiments led to two new proposals, UDES XX 20 B and C where the location
of the crew was different, but also the following reconstructions were proposed:
Introduction of double-tilt direction
Introduction of high idler, and a belt tensioning device between the first support wheel and pinion

What gave the trials with articulated vehicles experience? Here's a comparison with band-driven combat
vehicle:
Advantages
Greater mobility over soft ground, trenches and vertical barriers due to lower spec. ground pressure,
longer harness, articulated truck parts and forced control of the same.
Better protection p ga narrower vehicles, resulting in less front silhouette, better front armor at the same
weight and lower risk when crossing the nation.
Less risk of exclusion at the mine detonation when the vehicle can move with tape destroyed.
Disadvantages
Vulnerability we trail.
Larger target surface from the sides and from above.
Increased complexity results in higher costs for operations, maintenance, engineering and
manufacturing.
Upptiltning of wagon parts for small turning radius is time-consuming.
Greater emphasis.
In the experiment carried out with UDES XX 20 [1] could not be all of the above expectations are met, but it was
judged that it would go with modifications. It was maneuverability in difficult terrain and soft ground which did
not meet expectations.

The reason that the concept articulated was not used is that the battle financially assessed tape drive vehicles to
be superior articulated; benefits did not offset the disadvantages in terms of increased maintenance costs.

Sammantfattningsvis can be said from mobility experiments with xx20 that perhaps the most important
conclusion drawn was linked to the vehicle's movement in soft ground. What emerged with abundantly clear is
that there is an upper weight limit for an articulated concept when mobility in soft soil (read marshland) will be
limited. The reason that an articulated vehicle stuck in a bog can be explained that when a heavier front end
crush the support layer in a bog, so is nothing which stops when the rear suspension comes after the occupant in
the same track. And even worse if the terrain is so channeling that several vehicles to go the same route. To then
be on a total weight of 18-20 tons for an articulated vehicle proved to be simply too much ...
E verliggande cannon studied in a number of different concepts during the 19 70's and early 19 80s - UDES

concepts 17 (04B), 18, 19, 32 and XX 20.


The f earpieces that emerged can be summarized as follows:
1. Better protection when the whole crew sitting in the chassis.
2. The vehicle can be narrower p ga volume gain was achieved thanks to the smaller tower storage.
3. The above gives even weight gain as a result of the reduced amount of armor in the front due to the
narrowness.
4. Faster alignment of the cannon, because it has lower mass than a regular tower.
5. No vulnerabilities in tower storage.
And n ackdelar na:
1. Reduced visibility and observation opportunities due to lower position of crew and cannon gives
blind spot.
2. The charging system is more exposed and additionally out of reach of the crew in case of
malfunction.
3. Long charge times due to long laddrrelse.
4. Characteristic profile gives short detection speed.
5. High total height of the cannon to be able pupil is enough.
On UDES XX 20 was tested, not all aspects of the use of overhead projector.
The man tested was spotting opportunities and how stable the combination overhead cannon / articulated
chassis was during shooting.
UDES 25

Anti-tank robot trolley, tower with Saab heavy pvrb, weight about 15 tons (later 12 tons - modified Pbv 302)
UDES 26

Anti-tank robot trolley, tower with 9 cm pvpjs, weight about 14 tons (later 12 tons - modified Pbv 302)
UDES 27

Pansarvrnsrobotbil based on different options (armored Tgb 13, 20B, 40), pvrb TOW tripod or Saab heavy
pvrb in towers, weight 5-14 tons
UDES 28

Pansarvrnsbil based on armored Tgb 40 by 9 cm pvpjs in towers, weight about 14 tons


UDES 29
Anti-tank Robot Trolley with pvrb TOW in the tower at a new low Pbv 302, weight about 13 tons
UDES 30

Anti-tank Robot trailer based on an armored Bv 206, armed with TOW pvrb on stands or towers, weight about 5
tons
Within UDES studies also began efforts to obtain an armored variant of Bandvagn 206. The concept went under
the name UDES 30. A trattrapp was developed. The idea was that a Bv 206 with armored body would carry
anti-tank missile TOW - either stati row or in a tor n

This laid the foundation for the "scariest" or Bv 206 S as the official name later became.
UDES 31

Pansarvrnsbil with 10.5-12 cm strvkanon at pivot, weight about 9 tons


UDES 32

Anti-tank truck with 10.5-12 cm strvkanon in tower alternatively pivot, weight about 13 tons. This koncet was
also highlighted as a trattrapp in full scale.

UDES 33
Anti-aircraft missile wagon based on Lvrbv 701
UDES 34
Transportation (Trailer) without an engine in two versions.

Transportation (Trailer) without an engine in variant A from IVC.

Transportation (Trailer) without an engine in variant B from Hagglunds.


UDES 35
Transportation (trailer) with engine available in two variants (A from IVC, B from Hagglunds)
The end of UDES studies
Towards the end of the 1970s changed h otbilden 19-90s - which among other things was reflected in FB78. F
rom the studies have been primarily focused towards obtaining a new tank focused instead they continued
studies na towards light within the framework of a combat vehicle family, including to meet air land attached
armored unit in Upper Norrland. This resulted in the development of UDES XX 20 was canceled.

The detailed system studies and the numerous attempts with various test rigs, however, had given many
valuable lessons that came in use in the development of what would later be referred to as Combat 90.
The section below for ease-combat options that formed the basis for further studies were largely based on 1970s
UDES studies.

When projects Tank 2000 started up from 1984 to 1985 were also seen UDES concepts 11, 15/16 and 19 above,
that they might serve as a reference before the studies on a new tank for the 2000s, which then kicked off.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Here is a list of systems studies of vehicle concepts which may be of interest (each of these studies was
previously H-stamped today avhemligade):
* A: FA H M52: 10/72 Project UDES 03 (Stage 1) Tank with cannon stiff laterally swivel vertically.
* A: FA H M52: 10/72 Project UDES 03 (Stage 2)
* A: FA H M52: 49/73 UDES 14 Statement of system study, phase 1 UDES 14, light tower tank of about 26
tons
* A: FH M52: 56/73 UDES 14 Statement of system study, stage 2
* A: FH M52: 25/74 UDES 05B, 06B Statement of system study. 20 T pbv (9 cm low pressure cannon / 25mm
cannon).
* A: FH M52: 32/74 UDES 25 Statement of system study. P VRB-armed pbv.
* A: FH M52: 1/75 UDES 27 Statement of system study. Armored wheeled vehicles based on tgb 40.
* A: FH M52: 5/75 Report, construction study UDES 15/16. 25-30 ton tank with turret-mounted cannon.
* A: FH M52: 42/75 System Study UDES 32. P vpbv with overhead gun based on Ikv 91.
* A: FH M52: 49/75 Complementary systems studies UDES 11,15 / 16 and 19
* A: VH M52: 53/75 Anti-tank Robotic Vehicle Statement of serious study
* A: FH M52: 3/76 Statement of studies of anti-tank missile vehicles
* A: FH M52: 17/76 UDES 33. Statement of study of anti-tank missile vehicles on Ikv 103 chassis.
* A: FH M52: 40/76 UDES 53 A Statement of system study. 40 ton tank with overhead cannon
* A: FH M52: 3/78 Technical report. Articulated combat and cannon carriage complementary
realiserbarhetsstudie
* A: FH M52: 44/78 Reports Additional studies of UDES 11, 19 o 32 See above for description.
* A: FA H M52: 47/79 UDES light combat vehicles PV coaches Stage 2
* A: FA H M52: 52/79 UDES light combat vehicles Pv-carts. Complementary to the previous.
* A: FA H M52: 1/80 UDES light combat vehicles Cost Estimates
* A: FA H M52: 2/80 UDES light combat vehicles Pbv coaches Stage 2
* A: FA H M52: 26/80 System Study Phase 3 Armored tracked light combat vehicles
* A: FA H M52: 30/80 UDES light combat vehicles Pbv coaches Stage 3
* VEHICLE H M52: 46/82 UDES 09 Study on armored with PV capacity
* VEHICLE H M52: 1/83 UDES Study on tracked armored vehicle pioneer. Final report.
* VEHICLE H M52: 17/83 UDES Bandvagn 206 armored study report
* A: FHM 52:31 / 74 UDES 05 Report of the study of compact tower KV 90 L/40
* A: VHM 52:31 / 75 UDES 05 Statement of study of compact tower KV 90 L/49
* A: PH A502: 33/81 Experience from studies / trials 1976-79 with combat vehicles in the weight class 20 tons
and heavier
* A: VH A502: 64/81 UDES - lv function in combat units. LV arming of studied ease str f
* A: FH A52: 107/78 Basic Supplies trials krrigg for articulated vehicles (Krrigg bv 206).
* A: FH A52: 3/79 Basic m trl try krrigg for articulated vehicles (Krrigg bv 206). Photo.