Swedish Road Markings Question - Cold War Prep

[Mako]

Just curious, since the Soviets will be assaulting through and across Finland and Sweden, on their way to secure Norway, during the Cold War.

I've seen photos of paved Swedish roads with dashed lines along their edges, and would like to know when those are used instead of the ones with the solid lines on them?

Apparently, it is referred to as a "broken edge line".

Presumably, one or the other is meant to represent that the shoulders of the roads are either firm, or soft, I suspect.

Also, I'd like to know if the main roads in Northern Sweden are mostly paved, and/or if possibly gravel, and if now most are paved (looks that way from photos I've seen), when that occurred roughly, since I'm not sure what my timeline is for the invasion(s)?  

Could be multiple ones, from as early as the 1950s to the 1980s.

Can't wait to pit some S-Tanks vs. Soviet T-54s/55s, and/or other kit as well.

[traveller]

The lines would be mostly dashed. Solid ones are only if you are not allowed to cross them, for instance if there is a bicycle lane. Roads would be paved, even in the north from late 70s I think but when I grew up in the 60-early 70s smaller roads were usually gravel, even in the south. An interesting objective for the Russians would always be the "road runways" that the Swedish airforce used. Typically a road stretch of maybe 1000 m that was completely straight. Hangars were hidden in the forest along the road. You can still find these road stretches all over Sweden. In the 50s Sweden had the 4th largest airforce in the world...

Please post some photos of your S-tanks!

[Ogrob]

Broken lines are standard. Full line means your vehicle is not allowed onto the edge of the road, it may be a bike path for example.

I would say mostly gravel roads for northern Sweden. Today the roads are mostly paved, but there is still a decent amount of gravel road, especially between smaller villages. Making it gravel should give it the right kind of back in the day feel for Cold War-era Sweden.

[pocoloco]

Hah, as if we would have let the Red Army reach Swedish border...  

Actually in 1950s to 1970s Sweden had secretly approved that US/Nato could use Swedish airbases and airspace if they neede to nukennorthern Finland to stop the the SU. Then again Sweden also had a deal with Finland to keep reserves of Drakens for Finland if our Dakens went down in numbers.

Keen to see your forces for this.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

The lines would be mostly dashed. Solid ones are only if you are not allowed to cross them, for instance if there is a bicycle lane. Roads would be paved, even in the north from late 70s I think but when I grew up in the 60-early 70s smaller roads were usually gravel, even in the south. An interesting objective for the Russians would always be the "road runways" that the Swedish airforce used. Typically a road stretch of maybe 1000 m that was completely straight. Hangars were hidden in the forest along the road. You can still find these road stretches all over Sweden. In the 50s Sweden had the 4th largest airforce in the world...

Please post some photos of your S-tanks!

With reference to the road runways:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/23/sweden_leaked_every_car_owners_details_last_year_then_tried_to_hush_it_up/

[Mako]

Thank you all for the quick replies and info.

I really appreciate them.

From just a few pics I've seen, labeled as Northern Sweden, some of the two-lane roads (and/or larger ones), have the solid lines, but no bike lanes to speak of, that I can tell.  Both seem to just be on the edge of flat shoulders, where it looks like you could pull off, so I thought perhaps there was a difference between the two, as far as the shoulder softness goes.  I did run across a warning sign for the latter.

Others have the broken lines.  

Not sure I want to do broken edge lines for all the roads, since that seems like a major pain, but might do it for some.  We'll see.

I suspect a bit of boggy ground will be needed, not to mention streams and rivers, in addition to endless trees.

Anyone know what the bridges are like, in the northern interior of the country, as well as along the coasts?

Just curious to know if main battle tanks can use them, or if instead, they'll need to erect snorkels, and/or let the amphibious vehicles lead the way, instead?

Looks like an interesting mix of terrain, with: forests; open meadows; ponds, streams and rivers; peat bogs I suspect; and perhaps some hard, rocky ground above the water table of the countryside.  

I imagine the road nets will be critical to any advance, and that most heavy armor will need to stick to those, in order to not become bogged down.

I'll be using 1/144th scale vehicles and troops for the games.

[carlos marighela]

The important thing is to get the clouds right. The clouds in Sweden are interesting.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

The important thing is to get the clouds right. The clouds in Sweden are interesting.

Is this a music forum? ^__^

[carlos marighela]

Is this a music forum? ^__^

Well, just for the moment and only cos it's all quiet on the Eastern Front.

[Hammers]

Typically a road stretch of maybe 1000 m that was completely straight. Hangars were hidden in the forest along the road. You can still find these road stretches all over Sweden.

...with a incline at one end. They are all over and still, as I understand, part of the defense plan. Aircraft design specifications still demand short take of and landing.

[Hammers]

Typically a road stretch of maybe 1000 m that was completely straight.

These stretches are where Swedes traditionally exceed the top speed limit of 100 km/h by 50 km/h or so. You more or less have to, or you're not considered a Swede any longer.

[Hammers]

Thank you all for the quick replies and info.

I really appreciate them.

From just a few pics I've seen, labeled as Northern Sweden, some of the two-lane roads (and/or larger ones), have the solid lines, but no bike lanes to speak of, that I can tell.  Both seem to just be on the edge of flat shoulders, where it looks like you could pull off, so I thought perhaps there was a difference between the two, as far as the shoulder softness goes.  I did run across a warning sign for the latter.

Others have the broken lines.  

Not sure I want to do broken edge lines for all the roads, since that seems like a major pain, but might do it for some.  We'll see.

I suspect a bit of boggy ground will be needed, not to mention streams and rivers, in addition to endless trees.

Anyone know what the bridges are like, in the northern interior of the country, as well as along the coasts?

Just curious to know if main battle tanks can use them, or if instead, they'll need to erect snorkels, and/or let the amphibious vehicles lead the way, instead?

Looks like an interesting mix of terrain, with: forests; open meadows; ponds, streams and rivers; peat bogs I suspect; and perhaps some hard, rocky ground above the water table of the countryside.  

I imagine the road nets will be critical to any advance, and that most heavy armor will need to stick to those, in order to not become bogged down.

I'll be using 1/144th scale vehicles and troops for the games.

There is a solid line where there is no (good) shoulder or traffic outside the line is discouraged for other reasons (steep ditches etc.).

Bridges etc. are almost always built to meet high demands all over. Plus building code is rigorously enforced. There's a lot of heavy traffic due to mining and forestry industry.

[Hammers]

Please post some photos of your S-tanks!

Please do!

[Ockman]

Wow, this sounds promising!

[Mako]

I've been looking into this, and need to check a couple of rules systems I have to see how they'll handle the situation, but things look bad for the Soviets, assuming some basic situational issues.

In the game, for grins, I thought I'd check out how a Soviet tank company of a Motor Rifle/Naval Infantry unit might fare, pitting T-55s against the S-Tanks.

Someone previously mentioned most of these were fielded in the Northern portion of the country, and due to their design, they're really best on defense.

I've been toying with creating some of my own, "To-Hit" rules to possibly complement/replace other rules I have, for a little more granularity.  Not sure I'll do that, but with some assumptions being the S-Tank should be treated as a "hull-down" vehicle when in the open, due to its lack of a turret, and then as a "turret down" vehicle when dug in with their dozer blade(s), on the defensive.  Due to that, it appears they'll be really hard to hit, let alone see, if properly camouflaged, the Soviets may need more than a company of tanks (planning 13, for the company, since it is supporting the infantry) to take on a platoon of Swedish armor (3 tanks).

Presumably, they'd set up with a position where they can't be easily flanked, e.g. perhaps along a road that needs protection, and with thick forests, and/or boggy ground, or steep hills to protect their flanks.  Possibly even a river.

If such a position can be found, and defended, it appears that Soviet infantry, and/or artillery may be needed to take the position(s), since the S-Tanks should be able to pick off most of the armor, before they are identified, and/or hit and knocked out.

That seems to be especially true if you use the ammo bounce rules and values for the Soviet's 100mm cannons on their T-55s - War Thunder Wiki page lists those for various weapons rounds (haven't found stats for the S-Tank yet though, like for other vehicles from the early to mid-Cold War).  Both AP and HEAT rounds have a very good chance of ricocheting off the S-Tanks' armor, even if they can be placed on target, due to its very steep slope, and if you add in their top secret anti-HEAT round slat armor for their front hull, things get even worse for them.

Also, the S-Tanks' autoloaders are apparently very fast, as is its ability to get off shots quickly, compared to even US and British tanks, which will also be bad news for the communists.  Reportedly, while their acquisition rates were slightly slower than traditional MBTs of the day (0.5 seconds slower, apparently), they could still fire 1.5X as fast as the latest version of the M60A1, or British tanks.  Supposedly, this is because the driver can also fire the gun, and/or the commander can do both too, which apparently eliminates the communication lag inherent in tanks with larger crews, and with separate duties.

Early to mid-Cold War Soviet tanks designs are a bit slow in firing on the enemy, compared to NATO and Swedish designs, which further enhances the S-Tanks' chances against the invaders.

May need to revise the scenario conditions, and/or increase Soviet force numbers and types to give them a fighting chance.