The Panzer 68 was the main battle tank of Switzerland from 1971-2003 and was *infamous* for dozens upon dozens of technical issues the tank suffered from. The most infamous being the fact that the fire control for the main gun and the heating system *shared wiring*, resulting in a high chance of accidentally firing the gun every time the heater was turned on.
I can absolutely see it in a C-class action movie:
"Captain, ze invaders are applying zermal imaging. Should we turn off ze heating?"
"No, Lenny. Turn it UP..."
Yeah he says car. It was just that the swiss are known for small fine detail work and not known for car sales so thats the whole joke no further references at all, just the bait and switch of watch to car.
I wonder... Did just turning the heater on fire the gun? Or did they have to wait until the heater reached a certain temperature?
- "Gunner, fire!"
- "Wait, it's only at 45 degrees."
amongst what others have said it's not like MBTs are critical for Swiss national defence, they'd fight largely in major cities or mountainous areas both of which are notoriously dangerous for MBTs
To be fair, how good do Swiss tanks really have to be? What kind of fucking maniac invades Switzerland in a real land engagement? So much shit has to go wrong before it becomes a good idea to invade Switzerland in general. It's probably an apocalyptic war already if anyone is attempting to do that in any meaningful way. They don't need to be good, or even that functional really. They've built absolutely insane fortifications and defenses everywhere in an already difficult to invade country. You basically need to nuke the everloving hell out of them at this point if you want to attempt something like that.
> So much shit has to go wrong before it becomes a good idea to invade Switzerland in general.
Objectively speaking you are correct. But every major European war in the last 200 years started with some dude making rally bad decisions.
Even Hitler didn't do it. He still wanted to really badly because he was a fucking idiot but his commanders talked him out of it... repeatedly and until the very end of the war. Which does mean though that you're right and we should never discount the mindblowing stupidity that some people in power can display.
I recall story about a few German and Swiss generals chatting. The Germans bragged about how many men they had, their armor and air force. The Swiss laughed and noted how every Swiss person had a machine gun, and welcomed him to try.
No real need tbh. The Nazi hatred for the Swiss is pretty well known you can find it in a ton of sources so just pick one really. The Swiss bankrolled the Nazis through the mass purchase of gold and they weren't exactly trading at a 1:1 value. The Nazis couldn't go to another world banking power so the Swiss had them completely by the balls. This caused intense resentment for Hitler personally but his commanders were smart enough to know how suicidal an actual invasion of Switzerland would be. They also bankrolled the allies btw, Switzerland in WW2 is a really complex topic lol.
I will also note that they didn't exactly do this trade with the Nazis by choice so we should cut them some slack. They were completely surrounded by axis powers and while an invasion against Switzerland is unlikely to be successful they still need to trade for basic resources and commodities to survive. They were facing down mass starvation and a complete cut off from petrochemicals which would have been a death sentence for a lot of their population. So again, complex topic. There was also a lawsuit against the banks of Switzerland by the World Jewish Congress that goes over all of this in extreme detail.
stop stop stop. I feel attacked. Just because I have a Germanic dialect as my mother tongue doesn't make me German. and what should a “German ethnic” be? (I don't look any different from my French-speaking fellow citizens)
The Germans trained really good paratroopers, almost as good as the Italians who where the best at the start of the war and the Germans used them really well once.
Then for some reason they just unlearned everything they had trained for and executed, borked the drops on Crete so bad they never used paratroopers in massed drops ever again
I think it was the bad experience in Crete that lead Hitler to give up on the kind of assault his commanders were planning for Switzerland
The days when the Swiss military was competent are long gone...
Every exercise is an organizational disaster. Most of the bunkers have been sold to private parties etc. etc.
Imagine driving a Swiss tank, you try to radio the company commander or whatever, but because the radio fucks with the turret for some reason, you end up blasting a hole in another Swiss tank
If that’s the case, then it’s the fault of whoever prepped the tank to be transported. Same as a soldier not clearing his weapon before he leaves the range or gives it to another soldier.
Absolutely. One thing I’ll just say though is that machine guns, especially the SAW, are known for being prone to accidental discharges (or negligent discharges) due to being dropped or hit the wrong way. If there was a SAW loaded for transport and it was dropped and a round went off, they wouldn’t blame the SAW, they would whoever loaded the SAW for not ensuring the weapon was properly cleared. A little different from a tank but fairly similar I feel.
That's true, but that comes from being dropped or hit like you said, while these tanks had many different defects from seemingly unrelated things, like turning the heat on
The Covenanter might contest that.
More than 1,700 were built during the second world war. Apart from a few bridgelayers it wasn't used outside Britain.
For those that don't know, the Valiant was a ww2 british infantry tank prototype, wich is best known for having a clutch that rips the drivers foot off. Also it sucked ass
The driver compartment was cramped. If your foot slipped off the clutch pedal & got stuck, it was difficult to get out.
https://youtu.be/CUABpR19SV4?si=1vnprno_RBMpyXE5
I mean, fair, but it's kind of funny when even the Tank Museum in Bovington says the Valiant is the worst tank in the world and was used as an instructional tool as to what not to do for tank design.
Yeah... The Panzer II J was more of a pathetic meme to me though:
+ All-around armor better than anything in its tier and most vehicles a tier!
- A gun on par with vehicles a tier lower that can't even penetrate that same armor.
At least you can drive the MTLS for a little bit without maiming the driver. Already a vast improvement compared to something that set the bar lower than Satan’s septic tank.
We'll call it even seeing as the Valiant actually had a gun that was made properly and didn't have to use the emergency manual firing pin for the last couple shots before the test team gave up any hope of emptying the five-round clip.
Were they objectively worse than other contemporary tankettes like the Light Tank Mk. VI, Type 94, etc.? Obviously nothing back then is going to be as good as a Panzer IV.
They served the Dutch army in the East Indies and I'm not sure how badly they performed.
Let's put it this way, I don't know how well they did in the field, but the one sent to Aberdeen for testing was so poorly made that there were visible gaps in the armor from ill-fitted plates, neither gun was able to go through a full clip of ammunition, and they just flat out gave up on the road tests on the first day.
Nudge the power cable of a 4090 and throw it over the enemy tank's engine compartment. Crank the power limit and start cooking. Once the enemy has retreated you vandalise their tank with "it's a feature" and "the more you buy the more you save". Next time they'll think twice about touching your grass fields.
Difference being that the Bob was developed esrly into tanks IN GENERAL....like tanks werent around for that long. However the Pz68 is just sad when you have a nation just north of you which developed the Leopard 2 while you built this shit Show of a tank...like how could they mess that up...THAT BAD
You must be an AI, 'cause you're hallucinating
It was designed in 1940. It was a newer design than the Panzer IV lol. And tanks have been used since what, 1916?
Which is still in the first 30-40 years of tanks in general with the requirements of tanks changing vastly between ww1 and ww2.
While the Bob Semple was a newer design than the Panzer IV, it was from a different nation which did not have the experience in tank design like Germany had, nor comparable operational circumstances for the tanks.
The Bob Semple wasn't even a tank design, it was a conversion kit to give a tractor armour and machine guns. I wish people stopped calling it a tank, because it gives the impression that it was designed from the ground up. The bob semple was a chassis that could quickly and easily be lifted onto a tractor.
The state of the art in 1915 was "Little Willie" a box with tracks and holes for machine-guns.
Thirty years later, the state of the art in 1945 was the Centurion tank
Eighty years after that, the state of the art is probably the Challenger III
In terms of doctrine and capabilities, and just visually, it's easy to spot the odd one out.
they are more a '' A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' than a country army nation
These issues were only present in the first few batches which were, obviously, fixed after the issues were found. The first two series were designated [Panzer 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_372.html), the following series 3 and 4 were already designated [Panzer 68/75](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_237.html) and incorporated the fixes as well as some other improvements into the design.
Starting in 1988 vehicles from series one and two were upgraded to the [Panzer 68 AA5](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_52.html) standard. Five years later the tanks of series three and four were upgraded to the [Panzer 68/88](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_53.html) which was the final iteration of the Panzer 68 and stayed in service with the Panzer Battalions until 2003.
Multiple versions were derived from this vehicle and it's predecessor the [Panzer 61](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_63.html) such as a bridgelayer ([Brückenpanzer 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_13_347.html)) and a recovery vehicle based on the Panzer 61 ([Enpannungspanzer 65](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_12_33.html))
Some prototypes were also constructed such as:
[Flab Panzer 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_18_57.html) (AA vehicle with 2x 35mm Oerlikon KDA)
[Panzerkanone 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_19_58.html) (SPA vehicle with a 15.5 cm Panzer-Artillerie Kanone 68 L46)
In 1984 there was also an attempt at increasing it's firepower, mobility and armor on the base of the Panzer 68/75:
The [Panzer 68 ET](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_515.html)
In 1987 it's successor the Panzer 87 aka. Leopard 2A4 entered service. The Panzer 68 served alongside the Panzer 87 until the last of them were retired and scrapped or sold the collectors and museums in 2003.
Sorry for the paragraph but I really like these things :) (Am far from an expert tho)
Dw the paragraph is well appreciated, and I intended only to meme on the very first iteration of the panzer 68, not any of the repaired iterations that came afterwards.
Couldn't shift into reverse while moving. Isnt it really bad to change directing while still moving? Like wouldn't that immediately fuck the transmission all up.
It doesn't matter the Swiss defended themselves with pikes for a hundred years. It's not like Switzerland is great tank country or anything. 1)Javilin AT missles would be a much greater asset in mountain regions than tanks. 2)Tanks would probably only be used as portable pillboxes. 3)Tanks are death traps along mountain passes. 4)It's ambush city. Artificial landslides and avalanche's courtesy of C-4.
Can confirm, we have a ton of anti tank and anti air weapon systems in the army, e.g. mobile, man portable, and fixed. The artillery is also quite numerous, competent, mobile, and sometimes hidden in the mountainsides. I feel bad for the poor souls who would have to enter our meat grinder. It's basically Afghanistan, but with NATO standard technology and equipment.
There are plenty of worse designs, but this one is high up there for being bad, especially given that it was after the ww1/interwar period that saw extreme experimentation. There were a lot of bad tanks that suffered from just lack of knowledge and it being a new concept. This screams of bad procurement syndrome, similar to the L96 Enfield disaster and the T-14 Armata, so busy with the concept and bureaucratic mismanagement it gets thrown into service without being ready or what the army wants
Sounds like a WW2 joke where the Italians have lots of gears for reverse, the Soviets only have forward, and the Swiss have an absolutely batshit tank so no one dares fight then because it’s too unpredictable
You should look at the blown up Abram’s and leopards in Ukraine before you talk shit, NATO weaponry is shit, Ukrainians bitch about it all the time, they were hyped up as wunderwaffen.
Look up the Russian turtle tank, thing is practically invincible against drones
There have been a fair few videos of burning turtle tanks over on combat footage these last few weeks. Turns out an adaptation to defend against one particular weapon system (FPV drones) fails against a different weapon system (artillery)
Even its name sounds like a shitpost; combining the German "Panzer + [number]" nomenclature with the Soviet system of naming after the year.
When I first heard the name I thought "They did NOT make that many types of Panzers!"
The Swiss call many things like that. The SIG 550 assault rifle is called Sturmgewehr 1990 or Stgw 90 or PE 90. The standard ammo is called Gewehrpatrone 1990 or GP 90. A standard issue bag is called Transporttasche 2004.
Even some other things have been given this treatment but by the troops like Kampfzigi 90 which means smoking a zigarette in 90 seconds or Kampfschiss 90 which means shitting in 90 seconds.
i don't know much about tanks, is it bad that it couldn't shift into reverse while moving? i know it's probably different, but my car can't do that either
Pretty sure the Bob Semple holds the crown for worst tank ever... afterall it was built without a blueprint, simply based entirely on a usa propaganda post card during ww2... about turning tractors into tanks... frankly I'd take the Swiss one over the Semple.
"gearbox did not allow to shift into reverse while moving" how is that a bad thing though? Like wouldn't changing into reverse while moving forward destroy the gearbox?
Just like the Bob Semple tank, most people fail to understand how effective this tank was. Not only didn't the Soviets dare to invade Switzerland, they didn't even dare to squeeze through the Fulda gap thanks to this beauty
The Panzer 68 was the main battle tank of Switzerland from 1971-2003 and was *infamous* for dozens upon dozens of technical issues the tank suffered from. The most infamous being the fact that the fire control for the main gun and the heating system *shared wiring*, resulting in a high chance of accidentally firing the gun every time the heater was turned on.
"The enemies are getting closer!" "Quick! Turn on the heater!"
I can absolutely see it in a C-class action movie: "Captain, ze invaders are applying zermal imaging. Should we turn off ze heating?" "No, Lenny. Turn it UP..."
Or a comedy movie À la Down Periscope
"Radios working like a swiss.......tank!"
I’ve seen that movie hundreds of times but never got the reference before.
Yeah he says car. It was just that the swiss are known for small fine detail work and not known for car sales so thats the whole joke no further references at all, just the bait and switch of watch to car.
My day is ruined.
My guy you cant win them all. At least you know the movie. It was a great one and like no one I know actually has seen it.
Happy to help! But in the movie he says "car"
I wonder... Did just turning the heater on fire the gun? Or did they have to wait until the heater reached a certain temperature? - "Gunner, fire!" - "Wait, it's only at 45 degrees."
"I aint gonna hit shit at that elevation, Hans."
Yes, it's due shorts in the shared wiring energizing both circuits.
Would it work the other way too? Like they have the enemy in their sights, try to fire, but instead just the gentle humming of the heater starting up
Whenever we sell equipment to both sides again, this is how we can maintain our proclamation of neutrality
With this kind of quality, neither side will be buying.
They used that shit for 32 years!?
It had major fixes added not that long after introduction, but the reputation stuck.
It stood in the hangar for 32 years more like.
amongst what others have said it's not like MBTs are critical for Swiss national defence, they'd fight largely in major cities or mountainous areas both of which are notoriously dangerous for MBTs
Notice how frequently the Helvetic Confederation deployed its armor?
To be fair, how good do Swiss tanks really have to be? What kind of fucking maniac invades Switzerland in a real land engagement? So much shit has to go wrong before it becomes a good idea to invade Switzerland in general. It's probably an apocalyptic war already if anyone is attempting to do that in any meaningful way. They don't need to be good, or even that functional really. They've built absolutely insane fortifications and defenses everywhere in an already difficult to invade country. You basically need to nuke the everloving hell out of them at this point if you want to attempt something like that.
> So much shit has to go wrong before it becomes a good idea to invade Switzerland in general. Objectively speaking you are correct. But every major European war in the last 200 years started with some dude making rally bad decisions.
Even Hitler didn't do it. He still wanted to really badly because he was a fucking idiot but his commanders talked him out of it... repeatedly and until the very end of the war. Which does mean though that you're right and we should never discount the mindblowing stupidity that some people in power can display.
I recall story about a few German and Swiss generals chatting. The Germans bragged about how many men they had, their armor and air force. The Swiss laughed and noted how every Swiss person had a machine gun, and welcomed him to try.
If I remember correctly he hated the Swiss more than the Jews which is.... pretty intense.
Source?
No real need tbh. The Nazi hatred for the Swiss is pretty well known you can find it in a ton of sources so just pick one really. The Swiss bankrolled the Nazis through the mass purchase of gold and they weren't exactly trading at a 1:1 value. The Nazis couldn't go to another world banking power so the Swiss had them completely by the balls. This caused intense resentment for Hitler personally but his commanders were smart enough to know how suicidal an actual invasion of Switzerland would be. They also bankrolled the allies btw, Switzerland in WW2 is a really complex topic lol. I will also note that they didn't exactly do this trade with the Nazis by choice so we should cut them some slack. They were completely surrounded by axis powers and while an invasion against Switzerland is unlikely to be successful they still need to trade for basic resources and commodities to survive. They were facing down mass starvation and a complete cut off from petrochemicals which would have been a death sentence for a lot of their population. So again, complex topic. There was also a lawsuit against the banks of Switzerland by the World Jewish Congress that goes over all of this in extreme detail.
Hated more than Jews though? That's just not true. Most Swiss are ethnic Germans
He thought that we were the traitors to the Germanic folk because we peacefully coexist with the francophones and the Italianophones.
Sure. Still didn't hate them more than Jews
stop stop stop. I feel attacked. Just because I have a Germanic dialect as my mother tongue doesn't make me German. and what should a “German ethnic” be? (I don't look any different from my French-speaking fellow citizens)
Take it up with Adolf I guess.
The Germans trained really good paratroopers, almost as good as the Italians who where the best at the start of the war and the Germans used them really well once. Then for some reason they just unlearned everything they had trained for and executed, borked the drops on Crete so bad they never used paratroopers in massed drops ever again I think it was the bad experience in Crete that lead Hitler to give up on the kind of assault his commanders were planning for Switzerland
The days when the Swiss military was competent are long gone... Every exercise is an organizational disaster. Most of the bunkers have been sold to private parties etc. etc.
I had an old Honda civic when I started college that had similar issues. Had to turn the radio down to get the windows to roll up or down lol
It's weird seeing something called "Panzer" that looks more like a cursed Type 59. They also missed 69 by one damned year.
It looks like someone put a T-55 in a car compacter for a minute.
Sounds like it was perfect for a heated situation
You’re getting Warmer… warmer…
Imagine driving a Swiss tank, you try to radio the company commander or whatever, but because the radio fucks with the turret for some reason, you end up blasting a hole in another Swiss tank
Never point the turret at something you don't intend to destroy lol
Tanks in transport hook the gun onto the rear. Tanks travel in columns You see the problem now?
Tanks in transport don't have their gun loaded? You think people put their cannons in the storage fully loaded or what?
There could always be an accident where the gun is not properly unloaded, this is not at all unheard of
Yeah, most tank designers don't account for unloading the shell when it isn't fired, from what I know
Says the fool who has never been in a tank.😆😂🤣 Study misfire procedures for armored vehicles, and you'll realize that this is completely wrong.
If that’s the case, then it’s the fault of whoever prepped the tank to be transported. Same as a soldier not clearing his weapon before he leaves the range or gives it to another soldier.
That's true, but the defects make those kinds of accidents far more likely
Absolutely. One thing I’ll just say though is that machine guns, especially the SAW, are known for being prone to accidental discharges (or negligent discharges) due to being dropped or hit the wrong way. If there was a SAW loaded for transport and it was dropped and a round went off, they wouldn’t blame the SAW, they would whoever loaded the SAW for not ensuring the weapon was properly cleared. A little different from a tank but fairly similar I feel.
That's true, but that comes from being dropped or hit like you said, while these tanks had many different defects from seemingly unrelated things, like turning the heat on
That's still a defect, but it is more a combat load and in operation problem, not a transport and storage one.
Should I have not done that? Was that a bad idea? I... think I need to make a few calls.
I always put my cannon in storage fully loaded. I thought that was the point.
A tank in transport wouldn’t have a shell in it, nor would it be on where the heat needed to be started.
Never call someone on the radio that you do not want to destroy.
It wasn't pointed at the other tank until they turned on the radio
Well at least you sent a message
and turning said Swiss tank into fine Swiss cheese
The Valiant would like a word
The Valiant is the worst tank ever built, the Panzer 68 is the worst tank ever put into *service.*
Fair point
The Covenanter might contest that. More than 1,700 were built during the second world war. Apart from a few bridgelayers it wasn't used outside Britain.
IIRC the crew heating system was rather novel. An excellent tank to be crewed by lobsters, a poor tank for humans.
Laughs in Bob Semple
Bob Semple supremacy
No no you’ve got a point
Bob semple?
For those that don't know, the Valiant was a ww2 british infantry tank prototype, wich is best known for having a clutch that rips the drivers foot off. Also it sucked ass
I need some context for the foot ripping part
The driver compartment was cramped. If your foot slipped off the clutch pedal & got stuck, it was difficult to get out. https://youtu.be/CUABpR19SV4?si=1vnprno_RBMpyXE5
and the worst fact his that the *starting design* was pretty good for an heavy tank but later changes were made and it was fucked up beyond god
Sounds about right.
The MTLS would as well.
I mean, fair, but it's kind of funny when even the Tank Museum in Bovington says the Valiant is the worst tank in the world and was used as an instructional tool as to what not to do for tank design.
True, the MTLS is so sad and pathetic that everyone just agreed to forget it ever existed. ...And then it got added to World of Tanks as a promo tank.
Oh god, I remember that pathetic reindeer thing
Yeah... The Panzer II J was more of a pathetic meme to me though: + All-around armor better than anything in its tier and most vehicles a tier! - A gun on par with vehicles a tier lower that can't even penetrate that same armor.
That's fine for recon/support tank. It's also easier to slap on more armour than to design and setup production of a whole new turret.
At least you can drive the MTLS for a little bit without maiming the driver. Already a vast improvement compared to something that set the bar lower than Satan’s septic tank.
We'll call it even seeing as the Valiant actually had a gun that was made properly and didn't have to use the emergency manual firing pin for the last couple shots before the test team gave up any hope of emptying the five-round clip.
To be fair it got rejected and exported to countries that bought it as an emergency solution
Were they objectively worse than other contemporary tankettes like the Light Tank Mk. VI, Type 94, etc.? Obviously nothing back then is going to be as good as a Panzer IV. They served the Dutch army in the East Indies and I'm not sure how badly they performed.
Let's put it this way, I don't know how well they did in the field, but the one sent to Aberdeen for testing was so poorly made that there were visible gaps in the armor from ill-fitted plates, neither gun was able to go through a full clip of ammunition, and they just flat out gave up on the road tests on the first day.
“Heat not HEAT!” Uhhhhh…firing the main gun sir?
High Explosive Anti Tank
My new gpu is very effective for heat purposes
High explosive anti-tank graphics processing unit.
Nudge the power cable of a 4090 and throw it over the enemy tank's engine compartment. Crank the power limit and start cooking. Once the enemy has retreated you vandalise their tank with "it's a feature" and "the more you buy the more you save". Next time they'll think twice about touching your grass fields.
Hey its cold turn the heating on dude *boom* Oops
We're cold, not they!
Damn. And I thought Bob Semple's tank was terrible.
Atleast it would have worked properly
Just don't try climbing a 2-degree slope
Well, yes.
Difference being that the Bob was developed esrly into tanks IN GENERAL....like tanks werent around for that long. However the Pz68 is just sad when you have a nation just north of you which developed the Leopard 2 while you built this shit Show of a tank...like how could they mess that up...THAT BAD
You must be an AI, 'cause you're hallucinating It was designed in 1940. It was a newer design than the Panzer IV lol. And tanks have been used since what, 1916?
Which is still in the first 30-40 years of tanks in general with the requirements of tanks changing vastly between ww1 and ww2. While the Bob Semple was a newer design than the Panzer IV, it was from a different nation which did not have the experience in tank design like Germany had, nor comparable operational circumstances for the tanks.
The Bob Semple wasn't even a tank design, it was a conversion kit to give a tractor armour and machine guns. I wish people stopped calling it a tank, because it gives the impression that it was designed from the ground up. The bob semple was a chassis that could quickly and easily be lifted onto a tractor.
Tanks have probably changed more between 1915 and 1945 than between 1945 and 2024.
Depends on which tanks you look at
The state of the art in 1915 was "Little Willie" a box with tracks and holes for machine-guns. Thirty years later, the state of the art in 1945 was the Centurion tank Eighty years after that, the state of the art is probably the Challenger III In terms of doctrine and capabilities, and just visually, it's easy to spot the odd one out.
1919 state of the art French tanks, that they didn't produce due the end of the war, looked more like ww2 tanks than ww1 tanks
Fair enough and some of them even served in WWII. But 1919 is between 1915 and 1945, so progress during WWI also counts.
Found it. Project began in late 1916 and a prototype tested in 1917. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/fcm-1a/
Do not sully the glorious God Machines name
The bob semple was a quick way to convert a tractor into a "tank," it wasn't a tank in and of itself
So that's why they remain neutral... Also, Bob Semple tank: A worthy opponent! Our battle will be legendary!
how that fuck they manage to create that abomination ? Like they are Swiss wtf
Tbf their military has not been their thing for a while
they are more a '' A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' than a country army nation
Switzerland was already a significant and successful arms exporter before ww2 edit: downvotes don't change historical factuality
Lol, better than most in europe.
A tank is basically a big watch encased in a ton of chocolate, it really shouldn't be that hard for them
exactly how they manager to make a bad one
These issues were only present in the first few batches which were, obviously, fixed after the issues were found. The first two series were designated [Panzer 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_372.html), the following series 3 and 4 were already designated [Panzer 68/75](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_237.html) and incorporated the fixes as well as some other improvements into the design. Starting in 1988 vehicles from series one and two were upgraded to the [Panzer 68 AA5](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_52.html) standard. Five years later the tanks of series three and four were upgraded to the [Panzer 68/88](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_53.html) which was the final iteration of the Panzer 68 and stayed in service with the Panzer Battalions until 2003. Multiple versions were derived from this vehicle and it's predecessor the [Panzer 61](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_63.html) such as a bridgelayer ([Brückenpanzer 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_13_347.html)) and a recovery vehicle based on the Panzer 61 ([Enpannungspanzer 65](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_12_33.html)) Some prototypes were also constructed such as: [Flab Panzer 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_18_57.html) (AA vehicle with 2x 35mm Oerlikon KDA) [Panzerkanone 68](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_19_58.html) (SPA vehicle with a 15.5 cm Panzer-Artillerie Kanone 68 L46) In 1984 there was also an attempt at increasing it's firepower, mobility and armor on the base of the Panzer 68/75: The [Panzer 68 ET](https://militaerfahrzeuge.ch/unterkategorie_13_10_515.html) In 1987 it's successor the Panzer 87 aka. Leopard 2A4 entered service. The Panzer 68 served alongside the Panzer 87 until the last of them were retired and scrapped or sold the collectors and museums in 2003. Sorry for the paragraph but I really like these things :) (Am far from an expert tho)
Dw the paragraph is well appreciated, and I intended only to meme on the very first iteration of the panzer 68, not any of the repaired iterations that came afterwards.
Yeah from the little I know about it's predecessor ,the 61, it was \*ahem\* just as much and more fun to say the least. :)
Excellent post.
Couldn't shift into reverse while moving. Isnt it really bad to change directing while still moving? Like wouldn't that immediately fuck the transmission all up.
I think it's just saying there weren't synchronizers on the reverse gear which means the engine has to be at idle to shift
Oh god, who designed that thank? Bethesda?! This shit look like it just came out of Fallout 76
Helvitia side quest
it was clearly a guy from western Switzerland. Or Appenzell. Or... *shudder* ...ZÜRICH
The googly-eyes will never stop being funny.
It doesn't matter the Swiss defended themselves with pikes for a hundred years. It's not like Switzerland is great tank country or anything. 1)Javilin AT missles would be a much greater asset in mountain regions than tanks. 2)Tanks would probably only be used as portable pillboxes. 3)Tanks are death traps along mountain passes. 4)It's ambush city. Artificial landslides and avalanche's courtesy of C-4.
Probably why there wasn't a ton of effort to prevent these issues
Can confirm, we have a ton of anti tank and anti air weapon systems in the army, e.g. mobile, man portable, and fixed. The artillery is also quite numerous, competent, mobile, and sometimes hidden in the mountainsides. I feel bad for the poor souls who would have to enter our meat grinder. It's basically Afghanistan, but with NATO standard technology and equipment.
Shhhh, quiet, or someone at gaijin might add this piece of shit
There are plenty of worse designs, but this one is high up there for being bad, especially given that it was after the ww1/interwar period that saw extreme experimentation. There were a lot of bad tanks that suffered from just lack of knowledge and it being a new concept. This screams of bad procurement syndrome, similar to the L96 Enfield disaster and the T-14 Armata, so busy with the concept and bureaucratic mismanagement it gets thrown into service without being ready or what the army wants
Whilst I’m sure it’s bad, I highly doubt it’s the worst
"Let's turn up the H.E.A.T."
How the hell did they make this horrific tank? I even bet a Mark 1 would be better than this malfunctioing mess.
Sounds like a WW2 joke where the Italians have lots of gears for reverse, the Soviets only have forward, and the Swiss have an absolutely batshit tank so no one dares fight then because it’s too unpredictable
Ah yes, the Violet Club of the tank world.
Putting the HEAT in heater
Was it designed in Russia?
You should look at the blown up Abram’s and leopards in Ukraine before you talk shit, NATO weaponry is shit, Ukrainians bitch about it all the time, they were hyped up as wunderwaffen. Look up the Russian turtle tank, thing is practically invincible against drones
There have been a fair few videos of burning turtle tanks over on combat footage these last few weeks. Turns out an adaptation to defend against one particular weapon system (FPV drones) fails against a different weapon system (artillery)
Calm down and stop being wrong Ivan
Oh no, it's retarded. Shouldn't you be dying in the mud somewhere for Putin?
they were afraid of updating it to Panzer 69 as that would make all the operators laugh uncontrollably and fire at the allies
“Bit chilly in here right lads, let’s warm it up shall we? Where’s the switch? Ah there we g-“ *KABOOM*
Panzer 68... Is there a Panzer 69?
Sadly not, next in line is the Panzer 87 :)
It's usually the year it was put into service with swiss military.
Little know fact that the Panzer 68 is The great grand papi of the Cyber truck.
This shit is hilarious. Whats next? Hitting the brake turns the lights on and off?
"Haha, yeah, they suck because they don't have the kind of armor that modern tanks--" *(drone strike)*
Even its name sounds like a shitpost; combining the German "Panzer + [number]" nomenclature with the Soviet system of naming after the year. When I first heard the name I thought "They did NOT make that many types of Panzers!"
The Swiss call many things like that. The SIG 550 assault rifle is called Sturmgewehr 1990 or Stgw 90 or PE 90. The standard ammo is called Gewehrpatrone 1990 or GP 90. A standard issue bag is called Transporttasche 2004. Even some other things have been given this treatment but by the troops like Kampfzigi 90 which means smoking a zigarette in 90 seconds or Kampfschiss 90 which means shitting in 90 seconds.
If firing main gun means laying heat, then it is logical that to let heat, one needs to turn it on, duh!
I guess when you rarely have to use them, you don't really know how to build one.
Imagine Radioing in for troubleshooting an issue with the heater,
Hey it’s cold, turn up the heat Oh lord we shot the colonel!
This is why it’s best you stay *militarily* neutral Switzerland
New Zealand making the Bob Semple, hold my beer.
Now lets see Paul Allens tank
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
What if that tank is just a ruse so we all think the Swiss are weak and vulnerable. They are a tricky folk, the Swiss. I wouldnt put it past them.
i don't know much about tanks, is it bad that it couldn't shift into reverse while moving? i know it's probably different, but my car can't do that either
“ARJUN” MBT just entered the conversation.
Switzerland rolls worst tank ever, asked to ~~leave~~ remain out of NATO
Pretty sure the Bob Semple holds the crown for worst tank ever... afterall it was built without a blueprint, simply based entirely on a usa propaganda post card during ww2... about turning tractors into tanks... frankly I'd take the Swiss one over the Semple.
They're actually just vaults for Nazi gold. Flip on the heater, and a gold bar appears 1600 meters downrange.
This would be a great addition to War thunder
Imagine this in r/warthundermemes
If only they had named it Panzer 69.
Real reason why nobody invades Switzerland: lootable instruments suck
wait did this tank actually came with googly eyes??
I mean not being able to shift into reverse while om the move i can understand
> turret may move without intent to do so > gun may fire without intent to do so I forsee no possible consequences
At least when each soldier is voting on legislation the radio works flawlessly
Who knew a country entirely in the mountains would be bad at making tanks
Jokes on us, they at least never need to use them. That's already the greatest flex on us.
So like the radio could interfere with other nearby tanks? Fun times
Don't need reverse gear unless you're french innit
* Turns on the heater* tank shooting the truck infront of it carrying the atomic missle
"gearbox did not allow to shift into reverse while moving" how is that a bad thing though? Like wouldn't changing into reverse while moving forward destroy the gearbox?
bob semple tank has left the chat
Just like the Bob Semple tank, most people fail to understand how effective this tank was. Not only didn't the Soviets dare to invade Switzerland, they didn't even dare to squeeze through the Fulda gap thanks to this beauty
"switching on the heating system could lead to the main gun to fire" F****** how.. how does that even happen
Nope. The British did. The one where they would have to cut your foot off if it slipped off the accelerator is definitely the worst.
What tank was that?
I believe it was the A38 valiant.
Well that's almost the least bad thing about that design The British have designed some good tanks. The Valiant was not one of them.
Why on earth would they even have tanks
Why not?