Savage Panda me too, I used to play wot on my iPad, but once I got a computer I switched to war thunder. Doesn't mean I can't still enjoy chieftains vids tho :P
The Strv 103C is definatly the most fun tank I have ever driven! And I'm looking foward to driving our Strv 103C again at Möllerödsdagarna during the last weekend of August! :D
Being a gearhead myself, I can understand the joy of hearing an engine like that start up. The episodes where we get to see you drive the tank are the best.
One of the more interesting reviews. Quite an exotic machine with some great thinking behind it for the day. So glad you got to drive it and tell us what it was like.
Wish modern cars had turbines. They'd be great when paired with an electric car as a range extender. Just toss in any flammable liquid from JP-4 to biofuel to Chanel No. 5 and off you go. Shame Chrysler had to kill their turbine car program in the late 70s.
OK, after watching this whole 3-parter on the 103c, I have decided that I am going to start grinding up to owning one in WoT. It is JUST TOO FREAKIN COOL AND UNIQUE to pass up!
I haven't played wot in ages, but I still love your videos. Informative as always, with a bit of humour. I do hope you get to do more of these longer looks on vehicles, including newer tanks as well. Would love to see the Abrams (and more than that, to HEAR one) and a Leopard 1/2. Thank you for the videos! If you're ever in Finland, I'll get the first and the second round.
Id say ur best review yet that ive seen ive seen aboot 8 tank reviews befpre this one today and i didnt get bored once for this video n hardly ever forr the rest great job!
Absolutely Fabulous!! Outstanding to finally see you at the controls of one of these beauty's rather than a static display however understandably. I was disappointed sir, in your response to my request for one of your top notch walk thru of my favorite tank the A39 Tortoise and although I did enjoy your counterparts presentation he doesn't quite reach your level of depth as well as the little incites that you so generously provide and lets face it sir, he doesn't have your screen presence. To the point though sir, this presentation was thorough and gave me quite an in depth understanding of the basic workings of the S tank. Thank you once again for the efforts of you and your crew to bring this valuable and informative information to us the general public. Carry on sir.
+bingokitty I agree with your above commented sentiments. Thanks to Mr. Moran and his camera minions, and in this respect too, WG, for affording him to be able to do so, bringing us concise, clear, apt & insightful information, with a level of humour most can agree with.
I was lucky enough to hitch a ride with a strv 103 a couple of moths back, hoping i get to see it again this summer if i get to volunteer at the tank-restoration garage again.
Lucky guy gets to drive tanks around.... That turbine sound is soo satisfying to hear, wich is one thing they really nailed in Armored Warfare, never gets old hearing the turbine starting up.
Hi Nick. It was great to see you driving the S tank and listening to you explain how it handles on the move. Hopefully we'll get to see you drive more tanks on Inside the chieftains hatch. I also agree with the top comments about your face and the GT!
This is, probably, the best video so far by Chieftain. This tank is so unusual and driveable... It is awesome. Now, let's go see a running King Tiger from France or a Chieftain!
Awesome vid just Awesome :) I hope you manage to drive a few more , It does finish off a Chieftains Hatch in the best way ... and I just love to see your face with that huge big smile :)
I love the S-Tank design. Creative and practical, the one place it could find a home in U.S. service is in the Airborne service. It is small enough and light enough to airdrop. The question being how the suspension would handle it? I mean if you were in the 82nd Airborne and were given a choice between an S-Tank type design and say nothing which would you prefer. The M551 Sheridan and its aluminum hull armor and failed gun/missile system has left the airborne troops with nothing sense its removal from frontline service. I love you evaluation of the S-Tank and all you presentations so far, keep it up. I am a submariner (disabled vet) and have studied naval warfare and military gaming for nearly 40 years.
But Airborne is a offensive Operation at all. This Tank is focused on defensive tactics an lacks offensive potential completly. I don't think this Tank would make a good Airborne Tank.
Heh, as an American with no actual military service, I knew on an Intellectual level, that the Abrams had a turbine engine in it, but I have never heard one going ether in person or on a video. But when I heard that distinctive whine from when you started the turbine in the Strv-103C, it truly hit that there is a genuine JET ENGINE inside the Strv, and that the Abrams also has one, if of a different type. There is something about hearing that sound coming from a tank that is very satisfying ... and the look on your faces seems to agree.
I like the way you identified the problem of not being able to easily tell if you were going to shoot into dirt when hull down. Is there a quick bore sighting option you could use for that? The other thing it couldn't do was provide indirect fire.
unleecensedminky Doubt the people of Monaco would risk there incredibly expensive vintage wines on my lowly peasant armored vehicle but you are right if the last hundred years has taught us anything it's that taking armor into cities without effective infantry support is suicide.
Ha ha! Last time I went there the local supermarket had a bottle of 'Petrus' on the shelf for basically 2000 euros...still a cheap price to pay if you drink it, fill with petrol and take out a tank :)
Eh, they dropped napalm on the tank during trials in the 60s and it kept on trucking, I doubt some expensive Molotovs would do much harm to a buttoned up and operational S tank :)
This re-emphasized one of my main curiosities about the S-tank's dual engines: can it be driven on one engine alone? If the turbine sucks fuel and stalls out (At low speeds? I am really not clear on why the tank was stalling.), why not do initial driver training on just the diesel? And then, if damaged, can the S-tank limp away on one engine, or is there no way to shunt away from having both engines acting against the transmission? (What is the procedure for towing, for that matter?) One thing I noticed is that this tank's engines, both of them, are louder than I expected. The Abram's turbine whine is usually much more muffled, while I compare that diesel as being about the same as standing next to a prime mover tractor at idle. A big rig is usually a lot quieter, though, in traffic, so I am surprised that this S-tank remains loud while driving! The smoke trail from the diesel visible on the tank's right as it climbed the hill was very disconcerting. An opponent on the other side of the hill could hear the tracks, but why give a visual cue to trace the tank's actual location?
Nicholas Not long ago a convoy from Ft. Lee (I suspect) was stopped by a gas station, seeing "younger" Soldiers, I really felt awkward, part of me wanted to go talk with them, but being out and a little older... The smell of the Diesel and canvas, the hint of MRE heater in the air. ... Times I feel like I never left.
I've seen one of these things and they really are tiny. It was in the US in Northern Virginia, some tank warehouse had spilled its guts into a field and invited people to check it out (I think they were in the process creating an Army Museum or something. there was a reason for it, i just can't remember the particulars anymore) There was an FT not far away and this thing wasn't THAT much bigger than the FT was (don't get me wrong, it was considerably bigger, just not as much as you'd expect). Super cool to see, I just wished I'd paid more attention to it since I was kind of distracted by all the other tanks. Also that turbine starting was fantastic to listen to. Wish Chrysler hadn't had to kill their turbine car program in the late 70s. They'd make great range boosters for electric cars I think.
You are referring to the Virginia Museum of Military Vehicles in Nokesville. Now also known as the Museum of Americans at Wartime, or just "The Tank Farm"
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks! I'd been trying to figure where it was for a long time. I really need to go back there. It was one of the coolest places I'd ever been to.
I remember reading about these a couple of decades ago and wondering how well the idea worked. Seems like primarily geared around defense vice cruising around behind enemy lines destroying supply train. Its should work far better on a side slope than a conventional tank. Doesnt seem like it would be too hard to put an automatic stabilization system on it.
So interesting that anyone in it can drive it from where he sits, I'd imagine the thought of the driver being killed and having to extract his remains and re-position yourself (as we see in these videos not always easy by any stretch) just to be able to get away from or properly do battle with whatever just did in the driver, but in this tank, that is never a problem.
Thinking about it & knowing Sweden, the average temperature seems about 12 degrees lower than in the UK in the Winter ... lets just say not warm! But the clothing is good & you would be out of the elements even if cold ... They could have heated the interior, but might that have increased the overall heat signature of the vehicle & made it thermally an easier target to spot? ... What do people think? Designed to suit the environment of Sweden & blend more easily with the surroundings :)
Crew won't spend all the time inside a tank. If it's really warm inside but cold outside, what kind of clothing are they going to wear? If they wear really warm clothes, they'll melt when they're inside a tank, but if they wear light clothes they'll freeze when they go outside. That's my experience in CV9030 during Finnish winter. Best for crew would be that the temp difference between outside and inside is small.
You should have the clothes on that lets you survive outside the tank/vehicle. If your tank, for some reason, cath fire and you crawl out in your t-shirt and boxers, in the winter and -25 C, you are in serious trouble. This was the standard. Of course soldiers in vehicles that did have good heating and could travel all buttoned up didn't care much for that.
Hello Chieftain, I hope this get to you I am a new subscriber to your channel I Love the videos and appreciate your hard work that you and everyone behind the scenes do to make these videos possible. I was inquiring for a future video if it is possible to make a video of you driving the M1 Abrams of your choice, having served in the Military my self I understand the rules of classification that we all had to abide by. but I'd love to see you take it out for a drive. Again, thank you for you Service and Sacrifice. Joshua Hodge
So the gun is an extended British 105mm L7. They made their own ammo was it compatible with the standard NATO 105mm (at least as fitting the chamber goes)
Absolute genius solution to what was a problem at the time - yet odd the max. crew height is 1.75. Anyone who's been to Sweden will know that this is the equivalent of dwarf height in that country. Still.... I guess it meant that shorter folks like me would still have something to do.
I love this thing so much lol also hope you see this cuz ikr where else to ask but is there consideration for more reprints of hunnicutt's work like the ones on the pershing/medium tanks?
TheChieftainWoT it'd be so awesome to have more done! I just got my copy of firepower today and I am LOVING it so far just got to the t29 section if you ever need a signup for more I'll probably one of the first! great work with everything you've done btw! ✌☝️🤙
i think that even then the lack of the ability to fire on the move would still make it alot less versatile than a conventional tank. but i do love the strv 103, one of the coolest tanks ever imho
with a modern fire computer and modern suspension you might be able to make it work on the move, perhaps even while drifting. I'm not sure why you would want to though. its perfectly fine in a defensive role...
jrfi orn there allredy where a Strv 2000 project, it basicly look liked our CV9040's but it wasabit bigger and had a 130mm main gun and a 25 mm seperate auto-canon, search for Stridsvagn 2000 and you will probably find some documents
+Split Personality There were several proposals for the Strv 2000 project, but most were to have an 140mm main gun with or without an auxiliary 40mm autocannon (same Bofors as in the CV9040). All were turreted though, even if one of the proposal was supposed to have an unmanned turret, rather like the T-14 Armata but with no turret armour/shielding whatsoever. www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm
jrfi orn one of the obsolete S-tanks was used for a land drone experiment in the 90'ies. and Imo, that concept with a 140mm gun, a modern turbo diesel power pack to replace both current engines and a telescope snorkel and inflatable flotation bladders instead of the flotation screen so the tank would float with the front glacis level about a meter below the surface with just a four inch wide snorkel sticking up.
So hypothetically. if the Tank was laying in wait for some infantry with HE loaded and an enemy tank came into view. I was really wondering how the Autoloader would work to remove a live run. is it possible ? and where would the round be moved to ? I have no knowledge of Tanks I am just interested.
The fastest way to get a round out of the tube is out the far end. This is standard practice in manually loaded tanks as well. If it hits, great, it may distract or cause minor damage. If it misses, the gun is now empty in a half second. There is likely to be some method of manual ejection, though, for gunnery ranges and the like.
Fantastic to see such detail on this crazy tank design. It's a pitty you don't demonstrate the gun laying - especially the traverse. And yes, the drone shot from above for a sec is good but a low to the ground side on shot is what is really needed to show the elevation at work. I would have thought these were two major features of the tank that were worth showing. As good as the clip is and as much as I enjoyed it Im left disappointed.
The downsides of Strv S are only downsides because tanks nowadays are expected to be all purpose. If tanks were built with much more focused purposes, like they were in the past, they would excel at those purposes. The Leopard 2 is a great tank for doing battle in the field, but upgrading the Strv S with all the modern technologies would create a fearsome beast to guard the forests and hills of Sweden.
This could still be useful today as an assault gun to support infantry. Load all HE. You might even be able to get a hold of some 105mm HESH for buildings.
The CV9040 is probably better for infantry support than any MBT will ever be. Cheaper, better manouverability, more versaitile, carries troops and equipment, got a gun that can handle most situations from targeting infantry, buildings, other APC's and armoured support and fend off helicopters that get too close. No matter that I love the 103 and even the new leopard, but the CV90 is better at infantry support than both of them.
A 40mm shell carries around 70 grams of HE. A 105mm carries 2kg of HE. There is a world of difference between the two because while the 40mm might punch big holes in a building, the 105mm will probably level it. The turreted mount gives a huge advantage to the 40mm though, especially in high elevation. That said with the abandoning of the 103D program there is little hope for the S-tank to rise again. The big gap is in armour, because modern APFSDS are quite unaffected by sloped steel outside of the thicker armour presented due to the angle. Fixing that would require a new glacis, but since the engines are front mounted a thicker glacis might not be possible without a complete re-engining as well. Perhaps a Merkava style glacis and hinge that attaches at the angle between UFP and LFP might work but this might require hull changes. The second problem is the gun. I'm not sure how well the S-tank hull could handle a 120mm, although I do know that there do exist low recoil versions as well as highly efficient muzzle brakes, so maybe it might work? Either way it would require a new tank program and the result would obsolete the S-tank anyway, so I do see why the Swedes moved away from it in the end towards the Leopard 2. Personally I think there was merit in the Strv 2000 concepts: www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm . The advancements in remote weapons systems will mean that the future of tanks will incorporate overhead or even unmanned turrets a la the T-14, and the Swedes were particularly advanced in pursuing such a concept as it had dramatic weight reduction potential.
Effective and reliable gun stabilisation is what killed the S-tank concept. Effective and avaible APFDS is what made the armour inefficient. That could probably have been corrected with ceramic plates, with out adding too much weight. I do think that they explored this possibillity. The 40mm is more than enough for supporting infantry. You could level a building with a big HE round..or just kill what's inside with the shrapnel from the 40mm. That gives the "same" practical result with a lighter gun. That in turn leaves more space for the infantry and their weapons it's supposed to carry. And the versatility in what targets that can be engaged is better with the 40mm.
Funny thing is there is no "siege mode" and there is indeed a brake turn in real life Strv 103. Pity You did not show any of view through viewports nor sight. Sight picture and cycling through different magnification levels would be rly interesting.
If you are worried that the gun would bury into the terrain if you come across a sharp incline, I suppose you would be able to drive forwards with the hydraulics lifting the entire front of the tank?
The way he said "in 2 seconds flat" is like those sentences where one part doesnt belong. I'm reminded specifically of the tide pod container that a dude "baby proofed" it with a.... "THIRTYTHOUSANDVOLTTASER" lol
Ace Trainer Tullius do to it being in service with the U.S. And Other countries, he can't do a inside the Chieftains hatch, but he can do an outside if the somebody would let him get close to one
@@Kyle-gw6qp I know. But I was saying Nicholas could never be able to a inside the chieftains hatch on the Abrams because of the sensitive nature of the equipment on board. He could do an outside the chieftains hatch if someone would let him.
Ser Garlan Tyrell neither. As the designation 'Stridsvagn' says, It was designed and used as a main battle tank in the same way as the Centurions that served alongside it. Had it been a tank destroyer, spg or assault gun it would have been designated as 'Pansarvärnskanonvagn'(Pvkv), 'Bandkanon'(Bkan) or 'Stormartillerivagn'(Sav) respectively. There is an SPG based on an elongated S-tank hull, it's called Bandkanon 1A. There are youtube videos of it, it's a quite impressive and unique vehicle in it's own right and until the program was scrapped, that SPG was considdered as a potential launch platform for tactical nukes and chemical agents like sarin nerve gas.
Like any other tank, it is designed to engage with direct fire any target on the battlefield, in offense or defense, while having the armor to withstand attack from any likely threat.
And they hope that the the battlefield isn't in an urban environment... Would it have been more effective when defending/less effective when attacking? Also its all well and good comparing it to the Centurion, but considering production didnt get going until '67, both the Chieftain and T-64 would have already been in service. How would the 40mm of armour fared against their guns with contemporary sabot ammo?
Ser Garlan Tyrell it would definitely have been more effective in defence or enveloping offense in semi-covered countryside than anywhere else. What really made it obsolete was the turbine exhausts going upwards and the inability to traverse or lay without engine power as the turbine exhausts pop out like a small sun in a thermal sight... It's main protection comes from the extreme glacis angle which means that not even apfsds has much of a chance of normalising enough to penetrate and doing damage from the front and from the sides it's likely to over penetrate if it hits. After all, a vehicle as low as the S-tank is easy to hide in cross country driving anywhere that's less flat than the US midwest...
It may be an outdated machine and an outdated design, but its still one of the most badass looking tanks ever made if you ask me.
A shame that the S-Tank was not available for use in Iraq in DESERT STORM.
@@davidmurphy8190it's an ambush vehicle. Shoot and scoot . It would have been next to useless in Desert Storm.
@@StevenBrown-w5b yeah it was designed for a specific kind of warfare.. this is definitely a regional tank..
If Defence ≠ Offence...in swedish terrain eastward! It'll do just fine - even today.
I love how auto annotations considers the engine sound 'Applause' and the Turbine Whine 'Music'
To be fair that turbine was some very good music.
Jericho's Trumpets! :D
10:52 That is the face of a very happy Tanker. :)
Chieftain'gasam ;)
I don't play World of Tanks (more of a War Thunder player) but I love your channel. So high quality and your a great reviewer.
Savage Panda same
Savage Panda me too, I used to play wot on my iPad, but once I got a computer I switched to war thunder. Doesn't mean I can't still enjoy chieftains vids tho :P
One more here.
It's a shame Gaijin can't do stuff like this.
I love both of the games
Hitpoints on tanks makes me sad. That's why I don't play WoT, though hitpoints on ships works well, which is why I love WoWS.
He is having so much fun driving that it is infectious :)
somebody scribbled down "MUCK" on the helmet at 8:35 which means "being released from service" in Swedish :P
Hi I'm rewatching this in the future. And I thought it said MICK. I laughed my ass off until I saw your comment
Your face when that GT whines to life...
that was the face of ecstasy .... I think he enjoyed it lol
Exactly the same as mine :D
You really could see the sparking in his eyes.
It looked like something properly indecent was going on! :D
The Strv 103C is definatly the most fun tank I have ever driven! And I'm looking foward to driving our Strv 103C again at Möllerödsdagarna during the last weekend of August! :D
Being a gearhead myself, I can understand the joy of hearing an engine like that start up.
The episodes where we get to see you drive the tank are the best.
Very nice! A REAL live demo, not a game scene. Incredible. Very well done.
It's a great day when I've got a new Inside the Hatch video to watch. You're my hero Chieftain!
One of the more interesting reviews. Quite an exotic machine with some great thinking behind it for the day. So glad you got to drive it and tell us what it was like.
I've always wanted to see the interior of the S Tank.......so cool !........was an Awesome defensive system...... thank you for the video!
*turbine is spooling up*
Captions: [music]
Damn right!
The difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.
Wish modern cars had turbines. They'd be great when paired with an electric car as a range extender. Just toss in any flammable liquid from JP-4 to biofuel to Chanel No. 5 and off you go. Shame Chrysler had to kill their turbine car program in the late 70s.
A part 3? How rare! Exciting!
What a unique armored vehicle!! Thank you for sharing this!!
OK, after watching this whole 3-parter on the 103c, I have decided that I am going to start grinding up to owning one in WoT. It is JUST TOO FREAKIN COOL AND UNIQUE to pass up!
Thanks to you Nicholas, and all the crew here, really well done!
That smile when the turbine spooled up.
It made - me - rev my engine, that's for sure.
I haven't played wot in ages, but I still love your videos. Informative as always, with a bit of humour. I do hope you get to do more of these longer looks on vehicles, including newer tanks as well. Would love to see the Abrams (and more than that, to HEAR one) and a Leopard 1/2. Thank you for the videos! If you're ever in Finland, I'll get the first and the second round.
it has been over 20 years since I heard that turbine whine...
I played WoT from 2011 till 2015, but I always loved this channel.
Id say ur best review yet that ive seen ive seen aboot 8 tank reviews befpre this one today and i didnt get bored once for this video n hardly ever forr the rest great job!
Absolutely Fabulous!! Outstanding to finally see you at the controls of one of these beauty's rather than a static display however understandably. I was disappointed sir, in your response to my request for one of your top notch walk thru of my favorite tank the A39 Tortoise and although I did enjoy your counterparts presentation he doesn't quite reach your level of depth as well as the little incites that you so generously provide and lets face it sir, he doesn't have your screen presence. To the point though sir, this presentation was thorough and gave me quite an in depth understanding of the basic workings of the S tank. Thank you once again for the efforts of you and your crew to bring this valuable and informative information to us the general public. Carry on sir.
+bingokitty I agree with your above commented sentiments. Thanks to Mr. Moran and his camera minions, and in this respect too, WG, for affording him to be able to do so, bringing us concise, clear, apt & insightful information, with a level of humour most can agree with.
Thanks Nicholas for posting this series on the "s" tank I learned a lot
Massively enjoyed these S-tank videos!
I was lucky enough to hitch a ride with a strv 103 a couple of moths back, hoping i get to see it again this summer if i get to volunteer at the tank-restoration garage again.
Lucky guy gets to drive tanks around.... That turbine sound is soo satisfying to hear, wich is one thing they really nailed in Armored Warfare, never gets old hearing the turbine starting up.
Hi Nick. It was great to see you driving the S tank and listening to you explain how it handles on the move. Hopefully we'll get to see you drive more tanks on Inside the chieftains hatch. I also agree with the top comments about your face and the GT!
I love your channel so much, just watched it on the WOT NA channel, but im going to watch again here :)
Love this tank, one of my all time favorite designs. Would not want to come up to a squadron if these in the field, that is if you can see them.
My copy of Firepower arrived yesterday 😀😀 Thanks very much to you & WG for organising it!!
Also, great vid on one of the more unusual designs 😊
This is, probably, the best video so far by Chieftain. This tank is so unusual and driveable... It is awesome.
Now, let's go see a running King Tiger from France or a Chieftain!
Awesome vid just Awesome :) I hope you manage to drive a few more , It does finish off a Chieftains Hatch in the best way ... and I just love to see your face with that huge big smile :)
I love the S-Tank design. Creative and practical, the one place it could find a home in U.S. service is in the Airborne service. It is small enough and light enough to airdrop. The question being how the suspension would handle it? I mean if you were in the 82nd Airborne and were given a choice between an S-Tank type design and say nothing which would you prefer. The M551 Sheridan and its aluminum hull armor and failed gun/missile system has left the airborne troops with nothing sense its removal from frontline service. I love you evaluation of the S-Tank and all you presentations so far, keep it up. I am a submariner (disabled vet) and have studied naval warfare and military gaming for nearly 40 years.
But Airborne is a offensive Operation at all. This Tank is focused on defensive tactics an lacks offensive potential completly.
I don't think this Tank would make a good Airborne Tank.
Heh, as an American with no actual military service, I knew on an Intellectual level, that the Abrams had a turbine engine in it, but I have never heard one going ether in person or on a video. But when I heard that distinctive whine from when you started the turbine in the Strv-103C, it truly hit that there is a genuine JET ENGINE inside the Strv, and that the Abrams also has one, if of a different type.
There is something about hearing that sound coming from a tank that is very satisfying ... and the look on your faces seems to agree.
Alexander Jones kinda sounds like a turbo charger.
I like the way you identified the problem of not being able to easily tell if you were going to shoot into dirt when hull down. Is there a quick bore sighting option you could use for that?
The other thing it couldn't do was provide indirect fire.
Wonder how many mpg it gets? Imagine insurance would be quite reasonable as a weekend run around,just going shopping, beach maybe annex Monaco.
Molatov cocktails would finish you in Monaco. Have you ever been there...High balconys, narrow streets ;)
unleecensedminky Doubt the people of Monaco would risk there incredibly expensive vintage wines on my lowly peasant armored vehicle but you are right if the last hundred years has taught us anything it's that taking armor into cities without effective infantry support is suicide.
Ha ha! Last time I went there the local supermarket had a bottle of 'Petrus' on the shelf for basically 2000 euros...still a cheap price to pay if you drink it, fill with petrol and take out a tank :)
It is probably closer to GPM than MPG.
Eh, they dropped napalm on the tank during trials in the 60s and it kept on trucking, I doubt some expensive Molotovs would do much harm to a buttoned up and operational S tank :)
Would love to drive one of those around...
Nicholas Moran, you are the man! :)
Greetings from Sweden.
Nick's job has to be one the coolest post-service jobs out there.
Thank you so much for these! From a loyal Swedish subscriber. :)
Small correction: 0:56
It IS a vehicle for short personnel.
This re-emphasized one of my main curiosities about the S-tank's dual engines: can it be driven on one engine alone? If the turbine sucks fuel and stalls out (At low speeds? I am really not clear on why the tank was stalling.), why not do initial driver training on just the diesel? And then, if damaged, can the S-tank limp away on one engine, or is there no way to shunt away from having both engines acting against the transmission? (What is the procedure for towing, for that matter?)
One thing I noticed is that this tank's engines, both of them, are louder than I expected. The Abram's turbine whine is usually much more muffled, while I compare that diesel as being about the same as standing next to a prime mover tractor at idle. A big rig is usually a lot quieter, though, in traffic, so I am surprised that this S-tank remains loud while driving! The smoke trail from the diesel visible on the tank's right as it climbed the hill was very disconcerting. An opponent on the other side of the hill could hear the tracks, but why give a visual cue to trace the tank's actual location?
It can be driven around a bit on just the diesel. Not as quickly, obviously. I don't know what the disconnect process would be for one engine
Best episode so far!
Great commentary...well done on all three vids.
Nicholas
Not long ago a convoy from Ft. Lee (I suspect) was stopped by a gas station, seeing "younger" Soldiers, I really felt awkward, part of me wanted to go talk with them, but being out and a little older... The smell of the Diesel and canvas, the hint of MRE heater in the air. ... Times I feel like I never left.
Gotta be my favorite episode.
I've seen one of these things and they really are tiny. It was in the US in Northern Virginia, some tank warehouse had spilled its guts into a field and invited people to check it out (I think they were in the process creating an Army Museum or something. there was a reason for it, i just can't remember the particulars anymore) There was an FT not far away and this thing wasn't THAT much bigger than the FT was (don't get me wrong, it was considerably bigger, just not as much as you'd expect). Super cool to see, I just wished I'd paid more attention to it since I was kind of distracted by all the other tanks.
Also that turbine starting was fantastic to listen to. Wish Chrysler hadn't had to kill their turbine car program in the late 70s. They'd make great range boosters for electric cars I think.
You are referring to the Virginia Museum of Military Vehicles in Nokesville. Now also known as the Museum of Americans at Wartime, or just "The Tank Farm"
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks! I'd been trying to figure where it was for a long time. I really need to go back there. It was one of the coolest places I'd ever been to.
Great series! Keep up the great work!
first time I have seen him smile with real enjoyment
I remember reading about these a couple of decades ago and wondering how well the idea worked. Seems like primarily geared around defense vice cruising around behind enemy lines destroying supply train. Its should work far better on a side slope than a conventional tank. Doesnt seem like it would be too hard to put an automatic stabilization system on it.
A new Chief video on sick day? Hell yeah! :D
Loved the tour!
Very cool seeing such a unique vehicle.
Thanks Nick
So interesting that anyone in it can drive it from where he sits, I'd imagine the thought of the driver being killed and having to extract his remains and re-position yourself (as we see in these videos not always easy by any stretch) just to be able to get away from or properly do battle with whatever just did in the driver, but in this tank, that is never a problem.
I've seen the one at Puka, Same time I met you there Nick for the WarGaming meet up there. A few years ago now. :)
GenFUBAR
Thinking about it & knowing Sweden, the average temperature seems about 12 degrees lower than in the UK in the Winter ... lets just say not warm!
But the clothing is good & you would be out of the elements even if cold ... They could have heated the interior, but might that have increased the overall heat signature of the vehicle & made it thermally an easier target to spot? ... What do people think? Designed to suit the environment of Sweden & blend more easily with the surroundings :)
Crew won't spend all the time inside a tank. If it's really warm inside but cold outside, what kind of clothing are they going to wear? If they wear really warm clothes, they'll melt when they're inside a tank, but if they wear light clothes they'll freeze when they go outside. That's my experience in CV9030 during Finnish winter. Best for crew would be that the temp difference between outside and inside is small.
You should have the clothes on that lets you survive outside the tank/vehicle. If your tank, for some reason, cath fire and you crawl out in your t-shirt and boxers, in the winter and -25 C, you are in serious trouble. This was the standard. Of course soldiers in vehicles that did have good heating and could travel all buttoned up didn't care much for that.
Great video. Keep them coming.
By far my favorite episode. Hopefully you haven't jumped the shark with this one!
That's a nice best-job-in-the-world face ;-)
And as always, a very nice video.
Hello Chieftain,
I hope this get to you I am a new subscriber to your channel
I Love the videos and appreciate your hard work that you and everyone behind the scenes do to make these videos possible. I was inquiring for a future video if it is possible to make a video of you driving the M1 Abrams of your choice, having served in the Military my self I understand the rules of classification that we all had to abide by. but I'd love to see you take it out for a drive.
Again, thank you for you Service and Sacrifice.
Joshua Hodge
So the gun is an extended British 105mm L7. They made their own ammo was it compatible with the standard NATO 105mm (at least as fitting the chamber goes)
Now to make a video of that M1 you keep talking about
Excellent videos!
Loved it Chieftain, thanks !
You hear that whine? That's 40 tons of kick-ass revving up
That sure looks like you were having fun! Did they have a spare that you could take home with you?
Absolute genius solution to what was a problem at the time - yet odd the max. crew height is 1.75. Anyone who's been to Sweden will know that this is the equivalent of dwarf height in that country. Still.... I guess it meant that shorter folks like me would still have something to do.
"MUCK" on the back of the helmet, haha!
I love this thing so much lol also hope you see this cuz ikr where else to ask but is there consideration for more reprints of hunnicutt's work like the ones on the pershing/medium tanks?
It is not out of the question. We have not, however, set any such plans in motion.
TheChieftainWoT it'd be so awesome to have more done! I just got my copy of firepower today and I am LOVING it so far just got to the t29 section if you ever need a signup for more I'll probably one of the first! great work with everything you've done btw! ✌☝️🤙
An upscale, 120-140mm cannon, Digital driving/suspension/aiming-fire control system Strv would be interesting... I'd call it the Strv 2000.
i think that even then the lack of the ability to fire on the move would still make it alot less versatile than a conventional tank. but i do love the strv 103, one of the coolest tanks ever imho
with a modern fire computer and modern suspension you might be able to make it work on the move, perhaps even while drifting. I'm not sure why you would want to though. its perfectly fine in a defensive role...
jrfi orn there allredy where a Strv 2000 project, it basicly look liked our CV9040's but it wasabit bigger and had a 130mm main gun and a 25 mm seperate auto-canon, search for Stridsvagn 2000 and you will probably find some documents
+Split Personality There were several proposals for the Strv 2000 project, but most were to have an 140mm main gun with or without an auxiliary 40mm autocannon (same Bofors as in the CV9040).
All were turreted though, even if one of the proposal was supposed to have an unmanned turret, rather like the T-14 Armata but with no turret armour/shielding whatsoever.
www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm
jrfi orn one of the obsolete S-tanks was used for a land drone experiment in the 90'ies. and Imo, that concept with a 140mm gun, a modern turbo diesel power pack to replace both current engines and a telescope snorkel and inflatable flotation bladders instead of the flotation screen so the tank would float with the front glacis level about a meter below the surface with just a four inch wide snorkel sticking up.
1:35 "which it's not bad but it's not great" Dyatlov will be proud
Great videos, I was wondering if you had a HE shell in the gun and wanted to change to a AP round or the other way around what would the procedure be.
Charlie Pace .... No doubt gunner would fire off the round he didn't need and chamber the one he did need.
So hypothetically. if the Tank was laying in wait for some infantry with HE loaded and an enemy tank came into view. I was really wondering how the Autoloader would work to remove a live run. is it possible ? and where would the round be moved to ? I have no knowledge of Tanks I am just interested.
The fastest way to get a round out of the tube is out the far end. This is standard practice in manually loaded tanks as well. If it hits, great, it may distract or cause minor damage. If it misses, the gun is now empty in a half second.
There is likely to be some method of manual ejection, though, for gunnery ranges and the like.
many thanks. I fine your channel very interesting.
Pity they didn't have a range! Would've been lovely to see the ol' M68/L7 bark!
Fantastic to see such detail on this crazy tank design. It's a pitty you don't demonstrate the gun laying - especially the traverse. And yes, the drone shot from above for a sec is good but a low to the ground side on shot is what is really needed to show the elevation at work. I would have thought these were two major features of the tank that were worth showing. As good as the clip is and as much as I enjoyed it Im left disappointed.
There's one at Puckapunyal? I shall investigate!
Do a video on the Valiant in Bovington Tank Museum?
This is a great video.
That looks fun to drive. Now I want one.
God, i haven't heard that sound in awhile too.
The downsides of Strv S are only downsides because tanks nowadays are expected to be all purpose. If tanks were built with much more focused purposes, like they were in the past, they would excel at those purposes. The Leopard 2 is a great tank for doing battle in the field, but upgrading the Strv S with all the modern technologies would create a fearsome beast to guard the forests and hills of Sweden.
This could still be useful today as an assault gun to support infantry. Load all HE. You might even be able to get a hold of some 105mm HESH for buildings.
The CV9040 is probably better for infantry support than any MBT will ever be. Cheaper, better manouverability, more versaitile, carries troops and equipment, got a gun that can handle most situations from targeting infantry, buildings, other APC's and armoured support and fend off helicopters that get too close. No matter that I love the 103 and even the new leopard, but the CV90 is better at infantry support than both of them.
A 40mm shell carries around 70 grams of HE. A 105mm carries 2kg of HE. There is a world of difference between the two because while the 40mm might punch big holes in a building, the 105mm will probably level it.
The turreted mount gives a huge advantage to the 40mm though, especially in high elevation.
That said with the abandoning of the 103D program there is little hope for the S-tank to rise again. The big gap is in armour, because modern APFSDS are quite unaffected by sloped steel outside of the thicker armour presented due to the angle.
Fixing that would require a new glacis, but since the engines are front mounted a thicker glacis might not be possible without a complete re-engining as well. Perhaps a Merkava style glacis and hinge that attaches at the angle between UFP and LFP might work but this might require hull changes.
The second problem is the gun. I'm not sure how well the S-tank hull could handle a 120mm, although I do know that there do exist low recoil versions as well as highly efficient muzzle brakes, so maybe it might work?
Either way it would require a new tank program and the result would obsolete the S-tank anyway, so I do see why the Swedes moved away from it in the end towards the Leopard 2.
Personally I think there was merit in the Strv 2000 concepts: www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm . The advancements in remote weapons systems will mean that the future of tanks will incorporate overhead or even unmanned turrets a la the T-14, and the Swedes were particularly advanced in pursuing such a concept as it had dramatic weight reduction potential.
Effective and reliable gun stabilisation is what killed the S-tank concept. Effective and avaible APFDS is what made the armour inefficient. That could probably have been corrected with ceramic plates, with out adding too much weight. I do think that they explored this possibillity.
The 40mm is more than enough for supporting infantry. You could level a building with a big HE round..or just kill what's inside with the shrapnel from the 40mm. That gives the "same" practical result with a lighter gun. That in turn leaves more space for the infantry and their weapons it's supposed to carry. And the versatility in what targets that can be engaged is better with the 40mm.
@@secularnevrosis That's not true for all situations. In US service, the M1128 MGS with the 105mm has proved it's usefulness in combat.
amazing video ... dude thank you
Funny thing is there is no "siege mode" and there is indeed a brake turn in real life Strv 103.
Pity You did not show any of view through viewports nor sight. Sight picture and cycling through different magnification levels would be rly interesting.
14:40 "hello russian's let's play hide and seek"
Sneaking, sneaking, sneaking up the mound. Ready to shoot my gun and fight on Russian ground.
I find the comments about crew duties interesting. Its been my primary criticism of the T-14.
If you are worried that the gun would bury into the terrain if you come across a sharp incline, I suppose you would be able to drive forwards with the hydraulics lifting the entire front of the tank?
Ditches or other steep inclinations should be traversed diagonally if to wide/steep, according to the manual.
The way he said "in 2 seconds flat" is like those sentences where one part doesnt belong. I'm reminded specifically of the tide pod container that a dude "baby proofed" it with a.... "THIRTYTHOUSANDVOLTTASER" lol
Fun, always wanted to see the internals.
Any possibility of a Review of the Abrams?
Ace Trainer Tullius do to it being in service with the U.S. And Other countries, he can't do a inside the Chieftains hatch, but he can do an outside if the somebody would let him get close to one
@@Duke_of_Petchington He serves in an Abrams.
@@Kyle-gw6qp I know.
But I was saying Nicholas could never be able to a inside the chieftains hatch on the Abrams because of the sensitive nature of the equipment on board.
He could do an outside the chieftains hatch if someone would let him.
Nice. It's not often we get to see you take a tank for a drive.
The suspension knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t, it knows this by subtracting where it is from where it isn’t 6:45
I LOVE how some bitter conscript has scratched MUCK into that telehjälm.
What sort of roles is it designed to do that a tank destroyer or self-propelled anti-tank artillery piece is not?
Ser Garlan Tyrell neither. As the designation 'Stridsvagn' says, It was designed and used as a main battle tank in the same way as the Centurions that served alongside it.
Had it been a tank destroyer, spg or assault gun it would have been designated as 'Pansarvärnskanonvagn'(Pvkv), 'Bandkanon'(Bkan) or 'Stormartillerivagn'(Sav) respectively.
There is an SPG based on an elongated S-tank hull, it's called Bandkanon 1A. There are youtube videos of it, it's a quite impressive and unique vehicle in it's own right and until the program was scrapped, that SPG was considdered as a potential launch platform for tactical nukes and chemical agents like sarin nerve gas.
Like any other tank, it is designed to engage with direct fire any target on the battlefield, in offense or defense, while having the armor to withstand attack from any likely threat.
TheChieftainWoT Chieftain maybe you will do a M1 Abrams inside the hatch? First models are almost same age as Patton or Leo 1 :)
And they hope that the the battlefield isn't in an urban environment...
Would it have been more effective when defending/less effective when attacking?
Also its all well and good comparing it to the Centurion, but considering production didnt get going until '67, both the Chieftain and T-64 would have already been in service. How would the 40mm of armour fared against their guns with contemporary sabot ammo?
Ser Garlan Tyrell it would definitely have been more effective in defence or enveloping offense in semi-covered countryside than anywhere else. What really made it obsolete was the turbine exhausts going upwards and the inability to traverse or lay without engine power as the turbine exhausts pop out like a small sun in a thermal sight...
It's main protection comes from the extreme glacis angle which means that not even apfsds has much of a chance of normalising enough to penetrate and doing damage from the front and from the sides it's likely to over penetrate if it hits. After all, a vehicle as low as the S-tank is easy to hide in cross country driving anywhere that's less flat than the US midwest...
So cool!
10:29 Electric is the future, but that sound cannot be beaten.....
thats a happy Tankie
Nick, I really enjoy your inside the hatch series. Yours are far better than the EU buffoon's.
:( was hoping to see it dig it's own fighting position.