Tank Chats
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лют 2021
- Curator David Willey discusses the Cold War era Swedish Stridsvagn 103, also known as the 'S-Tank'. Developed in the 1950s, the S-Tank was the first production tank to be powered by a turbine engine and it was also the only mass produced tank since the Second World War to not have a turret. A truly unconventional tank.
tankmuseumshop.org/products/t...
tankmuseumshop.org/products/e...
tankmuseumshop.org/products/t...
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum UA-cam channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP & become a Friend: ►tankmuseumshop.org/
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Instagram: ► / tankmuseum
The Tank Museum E-Newsletter sign-up: mailchi.mp/e6fae2ac8bee/newsl...
#tankmuseum #tanks
Sweden's best defence against Russia had traditionally been a horde of angry Finns.
I don't argue with success.
Talvisota!
LOL. This is the truest statement on the internet for today.
The last 100 years yes but not before that.
It don´t work all the time with the Finns you know. Remember 1809? The Finns did not do what they where supposed too.
Still one of the coolest looking armor vehicles ever built.
The sausage compartments on the tracks is genius.
Take a look at the bandkanon, another very well made warmachine developed here in Sweden.
Wouldn't it be nice to have one of these in the garage?? 😁😁😁😁😁😁
But seeing it pooping out the shell cases is hilarious!
Britain: We know about tanks, here try this Centurion
Sweden: Ok, but what do you think about an armed doorstop
Engineered to wedge strait under the Soviet door and keep them away :P
Anyone else start singing PRIMO VICTORIA upon seeing a Swedish Centurion? (Sabaton - Swedish metal band).. OK guess it's just me then!
Steel dör ståper non ze less ;)
Didn't they developed Strv 105 based on the Centurion?
@@X.Y.Z.07
The Strv 105 was the last upgrade for the Centurion in Swedish service that and while a Prototype was built the program was canceled in the 90s (like with the Strv 103D)
The Swedish Centurion variants had different numerical designations
Strv 81 (Mk.3)
Strv 101(Mk.10)
Strv 102 (strv 81 upgunned with the L7)
Strv 104 (102 with a new engine and Gear box)
And lastly the planned Strv 105 and Strv 106
(with the difference between the two being that the 105 would be upgraded from the Strv 102 and the 106 from Strv 101)
So the Strv 105 was simply a modernised centurion.
ah yes, the legendary self-propelled turret
Sturmgeschütz Swedish edition.
@@MrGreghome no...
@@SonsOfLorgar yes
Perfect description
@@johnraina4828 not by use, not by design.
I really like David's assertion that this IS a tank because of its doctrinal use, not its features. After all, the first "tanks" all lacked turrets.
Not the Renault ft
@@Beef-bullion That comment changes nothing, considering the Mark series, the A7V, the Whippet, that French turretless tank I can never remember the name of etc.
Completely agree - I see too many arguments like this on the www about classifications and I mostly blame World of Tanks and Wart Hunder
Frankly that argument is driven by nerds playing computer games that think just because something looks one way it is that. Correllation is always causations as any man knows... naturally.
I call it a nugget.
USA: Invents Lowrider cars
Sweden: Invents Lowrider tanks
More like Nazi Germany: Invents low profile tanks such as the StuG III
Sweden: Upgrades the low profile style of tank
I would love to see this AFV with all the whistles and bells of a southern California _low rider._ Can you see this beast with Carbon Dioxide compression shocks, neon lights along the underside of the hull, and a speaker playing Tejano music as it skips along the highway (ua-cam.com/video/qZRrBu4RXa4/v-deo.html)? That would give law enforcement a heart attack! 🇸🇪✌️Paging Jay Leno!
The band War's song, _“Low Rider”._
ua-cam.com/video/qMkwuz0iXQg/v-deo.html
@@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595 interesting use of the phrase “bells and whistles”😳...........whistles and bells?👈🏽🤭😆😆
@@dennissmith7214 haha someone did a thing different....
Cue the band War!😆😆😆
A massive gun mounted on a tracked wedge that looks like the back of an 80s lamborghini?
Yes please.
Thats exactly that I thought after seeing the StuG for the first time in War Thunder
It's very cool but it's still missing the red paint job the 80s Lambos were known for. Everyone knows red = fast. Not even a racing stripe - How fast can it really go 😜
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 no, English fast cars was green.
Italian fast cars are red though. :-)
In Sweden you could have your SAAB in any colour you likes, as long as it was military green/black. It was in abundance after WWII. :-)
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 Red paint job on a Lamborghini?
I think you are confusing it with Ferrari, who are well known for their red paint job.
It's pretty mindblowing that you could pretty effectively operate this tank with just one man if you had to, especially considering when it was designed. A truly revolutionary and innovative design, even if similar tanks haven't been built since. A great example of starting almost from the beginning again with the design process with a specific goal in mind.
But the thing is about one man vehicles is that is someone does go rogue or become crazy, if they are allowed into the vehicle, they could also effectively be their own one-man army
@@ivan-1876 How often do you think that would happen? Also the standard was to put three people in this tank to minimize arguing (supposedly).
@@TheSimon253 I mean having let's say 3 people will make it so that it is harder to rebel against the government or whatever as you would need to convince everyone. Especially because it's not in a depression or any economic crisis, I think having 3 people would be a safer bet than having one: You've seen video games like War Thunder and the like of controlling the vehicle yourself but it would be as said in the video, overwhelm the single person as you would have radio coming in from Control, radio from other tanks and most importantly having to keep watch over your field of fire. What I'm just trying to say is that there is a possibility(if low or none) that someone could go rogue or more commonly would probably be way too exhausted and thus the effective capability of the vehicle would go down. Now, this is a newly added point but a one-man tank would be pointless because if a tank with 300mm of penetration, which back in its day was a reasonable amount of armor, shot at it, the single crewman would also die and leaving nobody else to take over his position. My conclusion is just that it is a terrible decision to put a single man in the tank because of all the associated cons rather than the pro of being able to stretch out the army.
@@ivan-1876 the real thing is they have to be more complex and difficult to maintain to make them one person operable.
It isn't about "what if they get stolen" it's about "what if we are in a war and have to build and maintain many of these.
Don't be a fool
@@ivan-1876 The purpse was to be able to continue to fight, or recover the tank easily if the other two crewmen were incapacitiated. It was never intended to be used by a single crewman as standard.
I've been so blessed that I've never lived more than 30 minutes away from the museum
Me too.
Me too, Portland here👋
You've jinxed yourself. They'll put in six new stop lights between you and the museum.
I have wanted to go to the museum for years now but I live in Canada so who knows if I will get to visit at some point
Had an awesome day there on a business trip. Beautiful area and amazing museum.
he saw that statistically so many tanks got hit in the turret, knocking them out, and did such a brilliant design that he basically took a turret and put it on tracks, and succeeded in making the statistic that if this tank were ever shot at, it would be hit 100% of the time on the turret
lmao
The STUG III would disagree.
stug barrel can move
Or, cant be killed by a turret hit if the tank has no turret *taps head*
I wish I was better In math to understand this statistic
The S tank is always one of the things I have to see when I visit the museum
It is a very unique tank indeed!
As a Finnish person I can safely attest the Swedes often come up with some ingenious stuff...
As a swede I'm proud of this stridsvagn. 🇸🇪✌️
Well.. you got to find pride somewhere, huh?;)
@@Br1cht If you take the time to check it out you'll find that we're an industrial nation that can take pride in a whole lot of things.
saved by jesus christ ?
I've seen other impressive Swedish military hardware that one man could operate. One was a mobile artillery piece that appeared to be mounted on a heavy truck platform. It had a torrent at the back and there was a truck style cab for the driver to sit in and operate both. There was an auto loader for the artillery piece.
Why do the Swedish design one man machines like that? Is it to conserve and maximize all available personnel?
@@olliefoxx7165 redundancy
scandinavians : "what if we put a an engineer-tankist from over here at the drawing board? instead of buying stuff made elsewhere by car manufacturers?"
it's borderline obvious/genius
He took the 'build nothing but hetzers' idea to heart as well
Imagine thinking a car engineer designed the Centurion or the Chieftain in United Kingdom...
@@derrickstorm6976 Porsche? Renault? Mitsubishi? Oh well my bad then, the world probably only revolves around the UK i guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You kind of take your hobby super seriously, huh?
still looks modern in these days
Because its steel
Looks sci-fi.
15:28 dat thing quick
@@mrguest3749 And the video still really doesn't show how agile and fast it can truly be. When you see it pushing the limits, it's more like looking at a light tank or even something closer to a dunebuggy than a regular tank.
Also extremely importantly, its mobility allows it to move across terrain where few or no other "tanks" can pass, so, deep snow, wetlands and rough ground that was simply a stopsign for the armored forces of other nations, Swedish units could go straight through.
You should look at the CV90 ghost... looks like it's from the future
Always thought the lack of a turret comes back to a more defensive doctrine, so very suprised that this was not the case. Thanks for the interesting video!
Well the is both right and wrong about the Tactics, from the 50s to the early 70s the tactic was ”möta,hejda ,slå” ( meet, stop, attack) but that changed to ” delay and stop” in the late 70s and onwards
StuG are assault vehicles. They don't need a turret because they are on offense.
@@Alexplainow But they all have traversing casemate guns.
You can find the Swedish 1974 field manual for tank platoons online. It is the same for the Centurion and Strv 103 with no difference in usage, the only difference is steps when you fire the gun because of the autoloader.
The tank was used by 3 armored brigades in the south of Sweden where 2 of them are in Scania, the southern tip of Sweden that is primary open farmland. If you look at the Swedish Army in the 1960s you have 3 armored brigades in Scania, one on the island of Gotland, one between the two large lakes you can see on maps and one just south of Stockholm. So you find 6 armored brigades in the southern 1/3 of Sweden. In the northern 2/3 you will find 1 armored battalion.The armored battalion in the north did also use Strv 103 but the majority of the tanks was in the south.
So you have very few tanks where there could be a Soviet invasion over land and defensive combat was the idea. The tanks are in the south with the idea to destroy any amphibious landing.
@@target844 on p
"Did it change the price of fish?" Great chat, as usual. And another British idiom score!
It may have changed the price of Swedish Fish. That's something to chew on.
@@scockery Not if it's lutefisk - I'll starve rather than ever go near another morsel of that stuff! 🤢
The 3 lost cod wars by Britain did change the price of fish severely.
@@GARDENER42 lutefisk is norwegian, in Sweden we eat lutfisk and surströmming. :-)
@@AndersJackson Apart from the missing e, it's the same jellied yuk.
As for tinned, rotten herring...🤮😁
One Swede incorporated the first turret. John Ericsson for USS Monitor. Another Swede did away with it.
Sweden did help with the Finnish war effort with equipment, manpower and a sanctuary for children.
My grand dad fought as a volunteer in the winter war.
My great grandfather served in the finnish civil guard. My grandma was sent here to Sweden. Someday I will visit Finland.
I've made the mistake to like the video 2 seconds in. Now that the video is over, how can I like it again...?
You can like it even more by supporting the Tank Museum on Patreon.
"Its not a tank if it doesn't have a turret!"
so the British agree that the French invented the tank?
Some of the prototypes of little Willy did have a fully traversable turret though.
One classification says that "tanks have tracks and armor".
That's a funny yet ironically true statement. WW1 was a crazy time.
The Strv 103 does have a turret. One of the biggest among tanks, actually. So big that they put the tracks right under it.
Depends what definition you use. The armored knight was identical in role to a tank, Da'Vinci famously "invented" what could be described as a tank, the ww1 tank was imagined as "a land battleship" intended to push through the barbed wire and survive machine gun fire, so more of an assault vehicle (closer to a stug in role than the famous Renault LT). The british Mk1's were called "tanks" for secrecy, they were supposed to be "water carrier tanks" but the name stuck :)). So "tank" can be a rather broad term depending on what you use as a criteria. Would you call a light 6 wheeled armored vehicle armed with a 105 a tank ? It has armor, a turret and a big gun :)).
The S-tank: The heaviest armed bulldozer in the world.
Or to put it another way: the only tank that acts like an infantryman, it digs its own foxhole.
not really that amazing. it couldnt even climb an 80cm obstacle.
It doesn't seem like you know that tanks have been fitted with dozer blades for a really really long time.
@@antoniogomes4975moat tanks couldn't climb an 80cm obstacle back then
During my military service in the Swedish army during the 80s I come to witness how impressive the S103 was. The Centurions didn´t stand a chance. We had laser guidance so we could see directly if we were hitting other tanks. The S103 was primarily a defensive tank (but that is very important), but during the offensive we alternated so that some tanks protected the tanks going forward. This actually worked fine since it´s quit difficult to see from where the fire is coming from as you go forward. If you only have the role to protect (and you stand still) you can quickly observe fire and hit back.
I want to say that Sweden had the world's best tank in 1971, in the towerless Strv 103.
Some claim it was a anti-tank vehicles but in the real world it was an MBT, Main Battle Tank. The Swedish Army's doctrine, tactics and exercise with the 103 was largely the same as with Centurion.
That it was the best in the world for a period is about the fact that the technologies that made S-tank mediocre were not yet developed, good enough or did not exist in sufficient numbers with our imaginary enemy.
In 1971, Strv 103 was the car that was most difficult to detect. Without towers and very low, the imaginary enemy had two problems. First, see it and once it has fired at them, identify the threat as a tank and not as an anti-tank cannon. That advantage disappeared when the Red Army introduced different types of gadgets that looked in the infrared spectrum. The S-tank turbine engine sent up a plume of heat above the wagon. So even if the 103 was hidden behind a crest, the Russian could not miss it.
The cannon on Strv 103 was longer in 1971 than on comparable foreign tanks. It had two benefits. The exit velocity (and thus increased penetration at all distances) and a smaller dust cloud front tank (when the grenade travels longer in a cannon barrel reduces the pressure when the grenade leaves the muzzle). The recoil from a shot affected the 103 less as the unique design completely took care of that force and placed the cannon in exactly the same position as before the shot.
Since the cannon and vtank did not move relative to each other during firing, a fast automatic lodder system could be designed. Which still today has a world record. One shot every three seconds!
Since the enemy had a very hard time detecting, S-tank could shoot first. There is talk in the tank world about "Shot first-Kill first" and "Hunter-Killer" ability. Stabilization for the cannon / tower was developed so that it was possible to shoot during movement and that the commander could automatically send target indications to the shooter, which meant that the commander could more quickly concentrate on finding the next target, before the first was fought. In 1971, that technology was not good enough. "Hunter-Killer" ability had Strv 103 from the beginning when both commander and shooter could drive, aim and shoot.
In 1971, there was no ammunition that could penetrate the S-tank from the front. A pretty good advantage, right?
When the Soviets began manufacturing the T-62 and T-72, they developed a new type of arrow projectile with tungsten at the head. Tungsten is the metal with the highest melting point and an extreme tensile strength and very heavy, properties that prevent it from deforming when it hits steel armor but pushes it away.
In 1994, the Swedish defense fired an S-tank with a T-72 loaded with an arrow projectile. The shot went straight through the tank. Not so good!
The T-72's cannon has a caliber of 125 mm, 20% more powerful than the S-tank.
Strv 103 came into service as early as 1968, but I still choose 1971. This is due to improvements in what is called sub-series B: Stronger engine, floating equipment, reinforcement plates in the rear, barrel protection and smoke throwers. Strv 103 B was finally delivered in 1971.
I apologize for my poor English but I hope you still understand me
It wasn't actually that low profile and it wasn't actually so amazing. It was a good tank, but you are over doing it.
@@Kyle-gw6qp The gun depression angle is very impressive : if you want to fight hull-down from small hills (which Sweden is full of) it is a great advantage.
In 1971 I would have thought that the Chieftain would have been at least as good as the Strv 103, very heavily armoured for it’s time and with a very good gun.
Your English is not bad at all!
The S-tank were custommade to operate in Swedish climate, terrain and to work with the Swedish defence strategy during the cold war. That´s probably the reason why there isn´t any other tank similar to the S-tank.
During the mid 40´s, towards the beginning of the 70´s, Sweden had it´s own nuclear weapons program. Today, rumors say that researchers in the Swedish nuclear program built a prototype tank, similar to the S-tank, that could fire small nuclear weapons.
The downfall of this vehicle were those damn IKEA pictograph instructions.
Worth dealing with obtuse instructions if IKEA lunches come bundled. Those delicious tiny meatballs and lindenbery sauce it's served with. Mmmmm
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 actually Lingonberry, called Lingon i Sweden.
Yes, they are great! Even better when Mom makes them. :-D
😂😂😂
No, this is where IKEA got their ideas for their damn pictograph instructions. Sweden had a military based on conscription so they made manuals for dummies before it was thing.
Yes, it was a hipster tank, we may as well admit it.
My favorite tank in the world and HUGELY underappreciated.
When I did my military service in 00/01, dozens of 103s were parked near the army railway station, waiting to be shipped off and scrapped. Quite a sad sight, but they had outlived their usefulness, in part because it couldn't fire on the move, as mentioned in the video, but also because modern long penetrators didn't have the same issues penetrating it's very sloped armour.
It would have been interesting if sufficient numbers had been retained to convert them into amphibious drone AFVs with current tech instead of the fragile electronics that was tested as part of the "Glufs-glufs" mine clearing drone experiments.
@@SonsOfLorgar Interesting thought and being turretless, they would probably have been easier to control remotely than a conventional tank.
The chassi could have been used for building new tanks for roles like artillery, bridge laying, engineering, flame throwers, mine clearing etc. Otherwise could this tank have been sold off to foreign countries like South America or India or something where the demands of the newest technology isn't as large.
@@nattygsbord Sweden has a law against exporting military equipment to people who might use them in aggressive wars and has previously had a scandal for selling artillery to India (due to their on and off wars with Pakistan).
@@SonsOfLorgar Funny that you mention that, for there were indeed attemps to create remote control systems for the 103D prototypes. Yup. RC wedges of doom.
"it's not a tank if it doesn't have a turret"
*laughs in Mark 1 and A7V*
True. A main battle tank is defined by its main duty in a war, not how it looks.
@@dan-oh7jo I remember talking to a mate about this whilst in the pub, I say talk, it turned into a full blown hugely sarcastic argument that mates have. stand out points were my impression of an infantry man saying " TANK!!..oh wait dont worry, it's not a real one, just a tracked thing pointing a huge gun at us, it's all fine carry on about your business." this carried on for hours
" your not sitting on a real chair!" ( it was a stool)
" your parents arnt really yours, your adopted, but only just"
eventully the land lord came over to see what the fuss was about... he was ex army and very straight forward. we had a dressing down and were told to drink up. 😂😂
@@dan-oh7jo yes its a tank, a tank destroyer
@@kthec1298 no its not
@@l.h.9747 it is, look at it
Surprised that you didn’t mention the external fuel tanks on the sides of the tank were effective add-on armor
Fuel tanks? I thought the eco friendly Swedish modified the tank to run off geo-thermal power. Quite simply, converting heat into electricity. 😁
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 Nah, we converted oil into noise instead :D
@@lillyanneserrelio2187
It was built in the 60s and 70s, before the end of the cold war. Sweden didn't get stupid until after the cold war when someone decided to completely dismantle all the psychological defenses and no longer kept tab on the people who wanted to destroy Sweden and made sure that they didn't get a chance to do that.
So now we got those very people in positions of power, which they use to try and destroy Sweden as a nation.
That's what you get when you decide that nationalism and patriotism is bad and evil.
I'm sad that in World of Tanks they aren't modeled, but that might be for balance purposes.
Once I built a plastic model kit of the 103C, in 1/35 scale. The one with the four color camouflage pattern. At least I wanted to make one with that camouflage pattern. Applying the camouflage was a bit of a nightmare. The kit I had bought didn't show a pattern that was even halfway decent. I had to find one on the internet. Finally I found one showing all sides that looked right, compared to real pictures. Second part of the nightmare was painting the pattern, the 103C has a lot of details on its hull. The kit also didn't have the anti-HEAT fence but I built one myself with some 1 mm styrene rods I'd bought. It was my first ever attempt with extra styrene. The fence was far from perfect - but at least I had a anti-HEAT fence on my 103C.
It takes a special kind of stupid to argue that money spent on defense is wasted if no one attacks.
Hence why the Swedish military forces are now anemic, and Sweden is looking to spend a lot of money on remarming and expanding. Putins Ukraine “adventure” made them sit up and rethink some things.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha
That’s why I figure, it’s way better to spend money on attack.
@@pointdironie5832 We have defence pacts with all our nordic neighbours.
@@pointdironie5832 they are integrating in an equipment and tactics compatibility context through joint exercises every other year or so, and a lot of less spectacular experience exchange, even on defense militia level.
whether s-tank would be used aggressively or defensively depends on the regiment where the tank and tank crew in question were stationed. In some parts of Sweden, one tactic worked better than the other depending on the terrain in the area.
One of my top favorite tanks of the post-WWII era.
S Tank: Half cover counts as full cover - also win friends and terrify enemies with your sick 180's
One aspect that's rarely mentioned is the excellent commanders cupola. Rotating, gyro-stabilised, with sights/rangefinders (and the already mentioned doubled gunners AND drivers controls) etc and a machine gun, givin it a hunter-killer capacity and close defense.
Also the fuel containers on the side as spaced armour, it has some amazing features.
No, it was a dead horse cause it can not drive and shoot ... so how can they retreat in case they are surprised or outflanked. Retreat in panic.
Unstabilized gun.
@@typxxilps oh your one of those people that think they know tank design from a bit of warthunder\WOT shut up
@@typxxilps STABILIZED CUPOLA YOU SODDIBG TIC TAC
@@typxxilps
At the time of production, no tank in the world could drive and shoot at the same time, so the time it took for the S Tank to drift around to sight in on something wasn’t seen as that big a deal. Also, it can drive backwards at the same speed forwards.
As a Seargent and team leader for 8 men with the task to fight tanks with our two Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless anti-tank guns back in 1984 (lol) I was really impressed how good the "Stridsvagn S" was.
I am a simple man. I see a Swedish tank I click like.
The Tank Museum rn is probably my fav youtube channel atm
Thanks Eren!
Tack för en mycket bra o saklig presentation hälsningar från Mariestad Sverige
A really nice "tank chat", well reviewed!
From a personal perspective as a swede.
What most people must understand is it is ALL about Swedish doctrine. I can honestly not think about any other country that has the same amount of "work" behind it's doctrine. Since Sweden is a "peaceful" country, the doctrine focuses on defence not offence.
During the Cold War (and very long before that) absolutely everything was based on this "Swedish Doctrine". That meant that absolutely interlocks. By that i mean:
Infrastructure: Like many countries Sweden had eg. "bomb shelters", even in modern times you can find "hidden" bomb shelters in plain houses more or less everywhere (most are still in use). What looks like a normal house garage is at a closer look a modern bomb shelter with airfilters etc. But that is just the basics, like i said...most countries have them as well. But it goes so much deeper. Eg. all larger motorways have every here and there long straights, you won't see it if you don't pay attention. But the surrounding area is actually made for temporary airbases = aircrafts rely on these instead of obvious airbases.
Important roads, airstrips, bridges etc. has built in constructions so that you can easily destroy them.
Defensive structure: Sweden has several defensive territorial areas. Eg. "Kalix linjen" (north of Sweden. It's on youtube as well) several very large defensive lines are hidden in the terrain (from old tank barriers to trenches, gun positions, supply points and bunkers etc.). Not to mention massive forts, all more or less hidden. Everything from underground navalbases to artilleryforts etc.
Armament: As in the S-tank, it was designed to position itself into a dug-down ready position in one of those hidden lines. As soon as tanks show up, they fire as much as they can...almost impossible to spot because they are "dug down" (later versions had a caterpillar blades), then they quickly drove back at full speed towards next defensive position. This is also the very reason for why the S-tank actually could drive as fast backwards as forwards.
Or take the Bandkanon 1 (armored autoloading 155mm SPG), for it's time it was a beast. Not even todays modern SPGs have a faster RoF, it still has the world record for that (14 shells in 45s). Imagine the same battle as the S-tank. A battery of eg. 6 Bandkanon 1 fires 84(!) 155mm shells in 45s towards an advancing flank, then quickly drives back to their supply position farther back. Rinse and repeat.
Same thing with the JA37 Viggen (fighter/attack/reconnaissance). Probably one of the best aircrafts for its time (far ahead of it's time in design, eg. delta wings). But what stands out is the very design concept. One of the requirements was that it had to have a very short start/stop ability (less than 1500ft), which goes back to what i wrote above about motorway straights. Even the modern current JAS 39 (4.5 generation) has the same requirements for easy/fast maintenance, start/stop etc.
Submarines were specifically designed to operate in the gulf of bothnia and the baltic sea. The modern Gotland class was so silent it "sunk" US carriers several times during an excercise, which lead to that the US "hired" the swedish sub to operate in the US and conduct naval excercises for a couple of years.
Last but not least infantry weapons. As in the world famous AT-4 and Carl Gustav Recoilless rife, still today very powerful weapons. During the Cold War they could stop even MBTs.
An enemy force was supposed to be halted for as long as possible. Ranger units are designed to conduct Direct Action missions behind enemy lines, disrupting eg. supply lines etc. Hitting high value targets, reconaissance and so on. Also most of the demolition works written above about the infrastructure was done by rangers. Then all those defensive lines were designed to as i said halt the enemies. Never stay in a long battle. Just hit them hard, then regroup...rinse and repeat.
Finally, imagine another picture as whole. A large enemy advance is detected. All of a sudden the first vehicles drives into a mined area. At the same time the road- or bridge is being blown behind them. Separating the front troops from the rest, because the surrounding area is rugged terrain (marshes, dense forrest, mountains etc.). Then comes a hailstorm of artillery, aircrafts, infantry and tanks firing. When the smoke clears noone is left to fight.
In the 1960s, my Swedish grandmother remarked about how when she was little, her grandmother had been afraid that the russians would return to Sweden. Nice video. Good Luck, Rick
Russia under Tsar Peter sacked and pillaged the coastal region in 1719, destroying farms and burning cities, but weren't able to penetrate the archipelago allthe way in to the capital. Many of the thousands of islands on the coast were burned clean of all vegetation. People got their livliehood destroyed, with famine as result, many turned to refugees, people living on the islands were often isolated with no means of escaping to the mainland, after having their boats destroyed or stolen by the russian soldiers. The scars of that sacking remains, with many villages and towns having no buildings older than that year (exept the churhes that was usually spared) Espesially among people living in the archipelagos, the fear and hatred of Russia is strong to this day.
We have to give some credit to Tsar Peter though, being a man of the enlightenment (and one of the most interesting historical actors of his time), he explicitly forbade the worst atrocities against civilians. Actually controlling the actions of russian sailors and marines in an age before modern communications, is of course another thing.
Interesting to hear of your grandmother, Rick. Even if it is such a long time ago, those events has really resonated through history.
@@JH-lo9ut Nana was from a coastal region. She and her lineage usually lived about 100 years. Thanks for the info.
I grew up in the best time to be a kid interested in history. My Dad and most of the other Dads were WWII vets. Four neighbors and many friends were WWI vets, including the first American trained Ace.
One of our school bus drivers had been with Perry. Two had been POWs. One Dad flew the Burma Hump. One of my Dad's employees(and friend) was a Bataan Death March Survivor. I got to hear a lot of first hand history. I also lived through very interesting times. If you ever watch the WWII series with Indy Neidell, the landing craft in the intro was one of my father's boats. He was the damage control officer for the USS Chase, APA-26. Good Luck, Rick
@@richardross7219 daamn that's some heavy stories, glad they talked about their experiences, for those who didn't, it often made their ptsd unintentionally worse.
My spouses grandfathers both had ww2 experiences they never mentioned, one from serving in the Finnish navy and loosing his childhood home to Soviet air raids, the other from serving as a tank driver in the Wehrmacht and possibly some time as a PoW.
@@SonsOfLorgar I think that you are correct. When my Dad and other WWII vets had a commiseration session, he was in a better mood for days after. Good Luck, Rick
I think the blade to dig it in is genius
Create your own hull down position anywhere (off road) =)
@@lavrentivs9891 and wreck the road for the enemy column you intend to ambush...
@@SonsOfLorgar That might give the enemy a hint of an imminent ambush though ;)
Genius, but not unique in any way
To be correct Sweden is a coastal nation and whilst its East coast traditionally traded with the Baltic nations, its West Coast traditionally traded with Britain, this continued during the war with Swedish ships sailing in British convoys, Bofors guns including the water cooled gyro stabilised mounts being sold and licensed to Britain and the greater part of SKF's production.
Also; while people often talk about what Sweden sold to Germany; the fact that Sweden depended on Germany for essential goods to survive is overlooked. Especially coal, which before the war was mainly imported from the UK.
@@am17frans i was led to belive that sweden got most of its coal from Poland before the war, wich is why the german invasion of said country gave them so much leaverage over sweden, since we depended on our iron/steel exports so much (wich needed coal), that + taking Norway, wich was the main export route meant bad news for sweden. But i might be incorrect.
Think Germany needed Sweden more than Sweden needed Germany
@@demonprinces17 That point can be made either way. But I think it really depends on "when" one talk about. As the situation in say late 1940 was very different from early 1944. The later one get in the war the more reserves had been built up, arms made and indigenous replacements for imports created that there was much less dependency on germany.
@@MrBigCookieCrumble Narvik was the main export route specifically for iron ore, since the main iron mines in Sweden are in the very north and the closest swedish port, Luleå, is unavailable for much of the year as the northern half of the Baltic sea freezes solid.
Göteborg, Stockholm and Malmö were the major trading ports. Göteborg for trade with the west, primarily Britain, Malmö for continental trade and Stockholm for Baltic trade (though much of it had decreased after the creation of the Soviet union).
Sweden has the better of the defense philosophies to date. "We don't go looking for trouble, but we're ready when trouble comes knocking on our door."
@Pro Tengu Tell that to the 167,976(Russian State Military Archive-2013. Pavel Petrov) killed and missing Russians over a 105 day period when Stalin invaded Finland. Russia had one of the most technologically advanced and largest Armies in the world then also. They're not the only people made tough by hard, cold winters. And for all intents and purposes only gained territory that encapsulated half the country. It was truly a modern day pyrrhic victory at best.
@Pro Tengu Well, no it wouldn't unless nukes were used. And IF Russia would attack, Nato and different countrys would 100% aid Sweden.
@Pro Tengu This tank design whas intended for the 60:s 70:s and 80:s at that time Swedens defence whas no joke, the country culd defend itself for one week now but at that time period it would take mutch longer time, you understand that this is an old tank?
The U.S Government and EU Should Hire You For consultation.
@Wiegraf Sweden' isn't Look For Trouble With Russia. its its their Government that slaves to Brussels.
Doesnt matter how long or short a video is, it NEVER gets boring!
that curator is incredibly knowledgeable and eloquent.
Gotta admire the Swedish military's willingness to think outside the box.
3:37 is such a cool looking photograph
Aye
Never mind the jets guys, you need to look cool for this one... Just act like they are not there, OK?
Whether or not the Stridsvagn 103 is a Tank is answered by the fact that this is the channel for the TANK MUSEUM. We all know what is generally meant by a tank, even if some people enjoy getting worked up over the details
Are you calling a Bren carrier a tank as well? It is also on display in the tank museum... 😉
@@ulfjohnsen6203 That’s not meant to be an attack vehicle though. That’s mean to transport people.
@@KentuckyFriedChildren how does that change the statement that it is in a tank museum, thus it is a tank?
The British WW1 tanks had no turrets yet they were the vehicles that spawned the name tank.
@@ulfjohnsen6203 Is the ferret a tank? What about that armored car or hornsby tractor? Being in a tank museum doesn't make It a tank.
Cheiftion did a great inside the hatch on the 103.
And he got to drive it too.
The S-Tank from the first time I saw it in grade school in a book , at first and forever has me scratching my head .
I was trained on antitank-missiles ( TOW ) - the S tank was so much harder to find, then tanks like Centurion during feild training !..... that low profile !.
If the S-tank isn't a tank then neither are the Tanks MkI - MkVIII.
Well they certainly aren't tanks in the modern sense.
this post was made by FT gang
If a turret is what makes a vehicle into a tank, then AS-90 and Panzerhaubitze 2000 are tanks. And German A7 and Russian terminator are non-tanks.
Ah, but, you see, those were British. At least I think that's how the logic goes.
Frankly, if it cannot hold or store a large quantity of fluid I wouldn't consider it a tank.
@@HendrikTheThird Ahem blood and sweat
I think / remember that the main ideea behind it was this: Sweden have a lot of forests and a turret cannot turn among trees. But this tank can, as is just the hull, also that gun solid mounted into the body can knock down trees.
That does not explain the Leopard with its L44 or L55 gun in a turret.
Yes, there is a lot of forest in Sweden, however, 99 %of these forests are being used for logging, so there are roads criss-crossing them everywhere. All of these logging roads may not be passable by a standard road veichle, but should'nt be too much trouble for a tracked veichle.
A soviet invasion, if it had happened, would probably not be restricted to the land-link in the north but we would have seen surprize attacks on key locations, landings establishing beachheads along the baltic coast to funnel in forces and materiel. The Soviets would of course try to take control of the capital, Stockholm, but it is a city that because of the geography of the region that is probably pretty hard to take control of, but pretty easy to cut off, or bomb to pieces, causing a major inrastructure collapse.
They would ultimately need to take control of Göteborg on the west coast, as well as Malmö in the south, both of wich are important international ports, and the real link to the atlantic and rest of europe respectively.
So, in case of a soviet invasion, fighting would not primarily take place in the most remote forested regions, but more likely in and around the three largest cities, along the ports/beachheads on the baltic coast, and along the main roads. Fast-moving road veichles would likely play a more substantial role than off-road tracked veichles. The distances are too great and the terrain is simply to troublesome to be able to travel off-road for any greater distance, even with capable off-road veichles.
The defence doctrine as of the early eigthies was more or less to try and hold the soviets at bay for two-three weeks and hope that the western powers would come to our aid. To deny them the main roads, push back their beachheads and hope they don't get as far west and/or south as to take control of the ports of Göteborg and Malmö, in wich case a successful intervention by Nato would seem a lot less likely.
What was envisioned was a few weeks of extremely intense fighting, followed by either a total defeat and occupation, or a NATO intervention, resulting in a standoff, or a withdrawal by the soviets.
Pretty scary stuff.
@@JH-lo9ut it's not my ideea, it is from kind of official explanation. And I found it very good and realistic. Probably last resistance would have been in the mountains and forests. But your theory sound pretty reasonable too. Finally - thanks God nothing happened.
The main idea was based on simple statistics. Tanks where usually knocked out from hits to the turret, so they removed the turret.
The wedge shape make it easy to up-armour. There are no bullet traps. The second driver make it clear that it is likely that the tactic it would use is hit and run.
The shape worked well for the Germans in WW2. I've seen a claim that the average life for a German tank was 1 month. For sturmgescutz it was 7 months.
One benefit the 103 had with its long Bofors main gun was that it could open fire long before the T55, T64 and T72 could because of its range and accuracy. This is why this tank was one of the first to use a laser range finder and ballistic calculator for precision hits.
The fast auto loader made it possible to hit each target twice to inflict maximum damage before changing target.
It was a complex machine for its time, built for one thing, stopping a numerical superior Soviet tank force at the border.
A correction. 25 rounds were carried in one of the magazines and 20 in the other. The magazine you wanted was selected by the gunner/commander. 5 extra rounds, usually smoke, could manually be fed into the breech by the radio man by turning a handle until the round was loaded.
Absolutely first rate as usual David - thank you. I obviously love the witty chats with Mr Fletcher but I learn so much more from the length and detail of your chats - please give us 30 mins on every tank in the collection (not much to ask so just slot in amongst your other duties!)
I find Mr Willey much more clear and informative
At 0:55 I was ready to hear, "Sweden is basically a foreign country."
Spoiler alert: it's made up.
Would love a modern version of this concept if practical
Amazing lecture, the best one I've heard so far on this iconic tank.
I really like that Swedish ‘out of the box’ way of thinking. Brilliant vehicle/concept, well ahead of its time.
Love this video! Think I will buy something from your shop in return for your efforts :)
USA: M2 Bradley - "We know it's not a tank, but will the enemy".
Sweden: Stridsvagn 103 - "FFS THIS IS TANK!"
sweden: "we say it´s a tank, but will the enemy know it."
It is the result of some out-of-the-box thinking, and internet goes: IT HAS TO BE PUT IN A BOX OR HOW ELSE CAN I THINK ABOUT IT?
@@yt45204 Hehe. And there have been a plethora of tank destroyers with turrets! Oh noo. And will we consider the BKAN a tank as it do have a turret?
I don't see why its a waste of money if it never fired its gun in anger as some people might say. I think the design of this vehicle is really cool, great video as always!
Yes, the exact opposite is the case. A defensive system that never had to fire a shot in anger is actually a complete success. It's better to deter an enemy from attacking than actually having to fend him off.
I've watched many videos on this tank but I think your video has best described its attributes, oddities, and potential downfalls the best. Great video!
It's a really fascinating period in arms development, especially for less well-off nations who couldn't modernize every aspect of its armed forces rapidly. Sweden prioritized tanks and aircraft for most of the early Cold War and by the mid-60's had the J-35 Draken, one of the most advance jet fighters of its time, and the first turbine-powered tank, but the infantry were still running around with bolt-action Mausers. By the very late 60's, the G3 had been adopted and gone into production, of course, but there was still this time of technological transition were not every arm of the armed forces had reached the same new plateau.
My understanding is another reason for the turbine is that it is easier to start in very cold weather, compared to a standard Diesel engine. The S tank and the Merkava are my favorites, as they both demonstrate some unorthodox engineering.
Rather, it's more effective in cold weather. Has to do with the compression of cold air etc. Starting a turbine engine is a rather costly affair, which the S-tank avoids by having a 140hp starter engine...
The suspension /aiming system of this tank requires an engine that is at least idling, to pressurize the hydraulics. Having a turbine running at all times would be inpractical, since it makes so much noise and is quite ineffective at low power output. At high output it's quite effective thoug h, so it makes sence to combine the two types of engine.
I don't exactly know why they couldn't have gone with a more powerful piston engine instead of having the two, but there is some reason for sure.
The swedish army relied on a lot of other diesel-engine veichles besides the s-tank, so I don't think the cold-start thing is a main concern.
@@JH-lo9ut The main reason for the two engines coincide with the flotation bellows. Namely to make the tank self-sufficient to move around in a rather large country where there is a considerable risk that the enemy will take out bridges and roads.
The piston engine works while idling but it also works for moving on roads at a decent fuel efficency when you just want to get from point A to point B.
A more powerful piston engine would've screwed that fuel efficiency.
Doing a combination like that, with a gas turbine that is very efficient when you're going all out and a weak piston engine for idling and moving on a road means you're cutting down the need for specialized tank transports by quite a bit. Same thing with the amphibious capability, it's there to reduce the reliance on bridge-laying engineers.
And the dozer-blade cuts down on the need for specialized mine clearing vehicles.
Also, having two engines is good in case you get issues with one of your engines. Having a spare means you can get to the repair depot under your own power.
Weird but awesome. Great video thank you 😊
A fascinating piece of lateral and innovative thinking beautifully contextualised and summarised by Mr Willey. Bravo!
As a young teenager in the 60's interested in tanks I first thought that this was a dumb idea for a tank. Wow was I wrong but hey- I was a dumb teenager 🤪
Your profile Pic is spot on 😂👌
There are dumber adults
To be able look back, say that, realize you've grown, that's a rare thing.
If only politicians were capable of learning from their past. @Suryia you sound wise. You have my vote ..future tank leader 😁
There's so many neat features on this vehicle. It's interesting seeing just how many lessons were learned from WW2 and how much original research was done.
Certainly the stat that anti-tank guns caused a lot of losses shows that the idea of a turret being 'necessary' wasn't true, at least at that time. The Sturmgeschütz-type vehicles really punched above their weight too, especially when factoring in cost.
As best I can tell, the only thing that really killed this tank is the development of stabilised turrets. Everything else seems really great - speed, weight, cost, armour, firepower, etc.
I also think it's very fair to call it a tank, as that was exactly it's role - it just met it in an unconventional manner. Even in WW2 we had a whole bunch of ideas of what a tank even was (M3 Lee for example).
Yeah, they took a look at the latest stabilised turrets and thought it wasn't good enough to be a game-changer, and took a bet that it would stay that way for a generation of tanks. Not quite true, it turns out, but still a useful tank for quite a while.
I recall this tank as a scale model when I was a boy. I was fascinated by it's deign. Thank you TTM for this, finally now I know, decades later, interesting how life unfolds.
Another point with the dual engine setup - in cold climate gas turbines are typically easier to start. That means you could start the turbine and let it heat up the other engine, as well as providing power for starting it.
Sweden also imported the designer of the Lk2 tank and he designed the Landsverk L10 and L60 tanks.
The L60 being the most produced tank in Sweden during ww2 and it was exported to Hungary as the Toldi.
Sweden arguably had some of the best tanks in the world before 1941, and such tanks would have been useful in 1943 fighting off a German invasion attempt when used correctly (Germany could not have spared more than a company of Tigers, and anything else in the German arsenal could have been penetrated by the L60, who would have enjoyed good tactical mobility )
But it wasn't all that good by wartime standards.
@@secretbaguette The L60 would have been a good enough tank against the Germans until 1943 , the L60 had had a decent gun, good mobility, good maintenance, would run in winter: a solid tank for counter attacks against a german force coming through the forests and hills from Norway , or whatever light tanks or armored cars they would be able to send over by barge. The Swedish road system was very primitive by then, and the sparse road network against Norway quickly got mined and fortified. ua-cam.com/video/mX7oultgO4k/v-deo.html
Head on against T-34/85? Ouch.
@@mattiasdahlstrom2024 True, it would have at least held up, it had to survive our winters, so it was hardy by design, but from a doctrinal standpoint, having tanks didn't make sense for us. Sweden was a neutral country, so, unless it got attacked, it wasn't going to fight. This meant that the only war Sweden would be fighting would be a defensive war. Tanks are offensive weapons, which means Sweden having tanks didn't fit with the Neutral/Push-Shove Defense. Sweden was a country which was having a bit of a hard time trading, there being a war on and all, so she didn't have too much resources, which meant rescources needed to be budgeted better. For a defensive war, tanks don't make sense when you can just have AT guns. Tanks don't do well with winter, mud, lack of roads and excess of forest as shown by Germany's invasion of the USSR. Sweden, at that point, had badly developed roads, forests, and cold, all of which are the enemies of tanks, making building our own tanks extra laborious and time consuming to design, to hold up to the winters. The roads being badly developed at that point would also have worked in the favour of the defenders. Roads could be easily mined with shaped charges to tear through the bottom armour of a tank, with maybe some antipersonell mines in as well. The forests would have been a key factor in any defense of Sweden, Swedish troops would have been able to take up concealed positions in forests, to set up ambush sites in correspondece with minefields and AT guns. An effective use of these factors and defensive docrine would nullify any noteable effect of attacking tanks, while also proving that Swedish tanks are really just redundant. Not having to build tanks would also have taken some strain off of the Swedish wartime economy.
Fantastic video! Although, one thing David missed with the S-tank was that one design feature of the vehicle was copied and used in later tank designs of other nations: The interior layout. The S-tank was front engined, and placed its engine and transmission in front of the crew as an additional layer of protection. This was used by the Swedish again in the CV90 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and was also used by the Israelis in their very successful Merkava series of Main Battle Tanks. Both of these vehicles are still in service today, with the CV90 being exported to various other European nations. So in that respect, the S-tank did have a successful impact on future armoured vehicle design!
The merkava yes, the CV90 no.
The CV90 is an armored transport (IFV in modern lingo) and so has an open space in the back for troops, so the engine gets placed in the front. Not something that is in any way unique for the CV90.
It was hardly the first design to use that layout, though.
Also a note on Stridsvagn 103; It is the only Tank that can be driven, aimed, and fired by a single person.
So even if you lose two of the three people, it is still fully operational to fire back, and drive away.
Also I have gotten into arguments multiple times about what a Tank is.
"A tank is an armored fighting vehicle intended as a primary offensive weapon in front-line ground combat. Tank designs are a balance of heavy firepower, strong armor, and good battlefield mobility provided by tracks and a powerful engine; usually their main armament is mounted in a turret."
Basically the definition of a Tank.
So looking at 103; It is a Armoured Fighting Vehicle intended as a primary offensive weapon in Front-Line Ground Combat.
By the time, it had the heaviest firepower, had strong armour, and some of the best mobility you could find (At the time).
So by all means, it is a tank; And note the part where it says "Usually their main armament is mounted in a turret." literally states that not all tanks have turrets.
instantaneously became one of my favorite tanks
I always considered these to be basically a technologically more sophisticated version of the Sturmgeschutz tank destroyers rather than a proper tank. And given that the StuG III was, numerically, the most successful WWII German AFV, it was a pretty good idea to design it with this in mind.
The S-Tank is the best-looking tank ever.
Comparing it's height to t-62 is beside the point, those two correspond to completely different doctrine which is best illustrated by the ability to depress their gun. Our tanks are not built for passive defence, they are built with the idea of mobile counter attack as a difference and mass attack if the case of an offensive action. Best comparison would be to centurion or a chieftain and there is a lot of height difference there. I believe that the only reason there was no followup on the s tank is because gun stabilisation and aiming computers became a thing and that is hard to be done in it's configuration. In my, highly lay and dubious, opinion the S tank was probably the best fighting vehicle for it's intended purpose when it came out.
Fascinating insight into an unusual looking, non-mainstream armoured vehicle. Impressive up close.
One of those tanks are known as the "apple tank" due to in the British testing in a field exersice one 103 (Swedish crew) relocated down a slope and accidentally went through an orchard. Weeks later it was put in to maintanace in Sweden and there was lots of apple mush were it did not belong. So Apple tank it was. (Story told by mechanic deployed on site)(also, keep well known spare parts in a small tin box in left breast pocket) some small O-rings were a big factor to big problems. Small reminder: (as far as I know) the Brits invented the tank. Did that tank have a revolving turret?...
One of the most interesting tank designs of all time.
A few important notions:
1. At 8:30 the engine arrangement is explained. That's how the constructor envisioned the usage.
The reason for having two different engines to begin with was that a single diesel engine that could provide sufficient power wouldn't fit into the engine compartment and turbine engines use too much fuel when idling.
As one could expect the end result wasn't as good as hoped for. First there were teething problems making the two engines work well together, and then it was a flawed idea to "start the turbine when extra power was required" because starting the turbine takes half a minute or more and extra power is always needed NOW. Therefore in practice both engines were kept running while the tank was on duty.
2. At 20:00 minutes it's stated that the Chieftain had a gun sufficiently stabilised to shoot accurately on the move. This is (was?) the official stance of the British army. Then a test period in Germany is mentioned, but no details given, which is interesting. Those tests pitted Chieftain vs Strv 103 and were deliberately designed to prove that the Chieftain was superior, not least in its ability to fire on the move. The test results were interesting though: "We were unable to prove that strv 103 can't fire accuretly while moving." What actually happened was that they found the Chieftain (*defined* as capable of shooting while moving) unable to hit its intended targets while moving, and the strv 103 was able to match those results. (*)
The main problem with strv 103 was that it had too many bleeding edge technical innovations: The hydaulic suspension, the dual engine design and the autocannon (making it the highest rate of fire tank gun).
(*) It took another decade to figure out how to solve the problem of shooting while moving. The "old" way was to stabilise the gun and have the sight follow the gun barrel. The new solution was to make the gun sight computer controlled and independent of the gun barrel. Mirrors and prisms are used to keep the sight image stable, and then computer controlled hydraulic servo motors apply adjustment for range and lead before making the gun barrel play "catch up" with the gun sight. When the trigger is pressed and the swaying gun barrel is (temporarily) pointing close enough to the calculated direction the shot will go off.
Correction. The S-tank can not fire while moving. The conclusion the British came to was "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move."
I really enjoy listening to David Willey
Great video, I’ve been exposed to this vehicle due to the World of Tanks video game and I’ve been intrigued by it. You have answered all my questions and more. Thanks as always!
As a defensive weapon this is wonderful because you can hide it very easily. Remember that Sweden is a small country and they never intended to use this tank to invade other countries. I like it because it seems to say: "to defend and be invisible".
Is sweden a small country lol?
Its 11x bigger as my country the netherlands
Being a Swede, I've got a bit of a soft spot for the Stridsvagn S....
One of these days, I'll find my way down to the museum....
Most excellent video, as always!
Made my top 5 when I visited the museum a couple of days ago for the first time!
8:25 the S-tank was very stealthy, except... a falling tree which gives its position while the tank is aiming the gun
Absolutely fantastic tank.
Thank you for another great video!
And in the same spot no other tank would be able to traverse its turret at all because of the trees being in the way.
@@Merecir well, I'm afraid I can't agree with you. It the specific situation we see in the video there is plenty of room to traverse the turret before the gun stucks. But anyway, it does not really important, as any machine has its drawbacks. I believe what they tested in that video was the ability to cut trees while moving the tank))
@@TheKopalhemTraversing the whole tank is much more powerful than the power put into turning a turret.
@@Merecir but the tank is obviously much wider than the gun, isn't it? If your have to move the whole tank, you will meet this tree far earlier trying to aim the given spot
@@TheKopalhem I think that is more a comment about barrel length, a gun barrel can extend further than the tank itself and can easily snag on a tree next to the tank whilst traversing the turret
Regarding 25:25 : to be fair, the T-62 was quite low as well. The british Centurion was a whopping 87 cm (2'10") taller than the S-Tank!
T62 was also to my knowledge explicitly designed to be low profile, like many other soviet tanks.
@Not_Ambrose yes. And the point mr Willey was making was that the efforts of the Swedes didn't make much of a difference, "even with the allied tanks it was alongside". Which is just bananas, seeing how every single british, german, american, french tank of the period was significantly taller.
i want to visit this museum so badly, i'm sure i will visit in the future because tankfest is something on my bucketlist
Every human should be subscribed to this channel for life!
When I was in the Swedish army in the late 90's, I recall a captain telling us about how Sweden borrowed a bunch of Leopard 2's for evaluation, and how the S-tanks whooped the kitties' rears bigtime.
Anyone know more about that?
I served during the first evaluation the swedish army did of the Leo 2, Abrams and Leclerc. Those three tanks knocked out our tank battalion in a night skirmish at the Revinge training area. My Strv 103 got knocked out by the Abrams. Superior night vision FTW
In my opinion the S-Tank is a genius tank, Sure it became outdated relatively quickly as stabilisers became more refined, but for the information they had at the time this vehicle more than covered the needs of a vehicle. You could bury most of this tank beneath dirt and it would still work as long as the engine had ventilation, it was quick enough to manuever into positions, and once it was in there, so long as it kept its wits about it, it could maintain a strong position. Certainly, it had its weaknesses, but what vehicle doesn't? We're not looking for the perfect vehicle, we're looking for an operational vehicle that slots into doctrine.
Also, yes, it is a tank, not just because of its role, but because a tank simply needs tracks and guns. And all this hullabaloo over what is and isn't a tank distracts from the fact that vehicles of this sort are a wonder to behold.
This might be the coolest vehicle I have never heard of before.
Even though it was only 6cm shorter I don't think that was really an issue since it not having a turret was the entire purpose of the tank, it was the shape of the turret that was easy to spot and that was obviously not an issue with the S-103. I personally think it would have taken on the Soviet tanks extremely well since the Soviet tank design was mainly developed for central european warfare and the S-103 was designed for nordic warfare.
Either way nobody can deny it was a good tank for its purpose when they first built them, it was designed by looking at data from WW2, the Winter War and the Korean war, and by those standards it was fantastic. But technology advanced rapidly.
It's only during WW2 that 'tank' becomes a term over which people argue. The S-Tank was amazing in its functional use of pneumatic suspension and at a time when all tanks were bigger, this one went much smaller. Yes, it's sort of dead-end technology, with the complexity of the suspension and limitation to firing on the move, but it certainly was a successfully employed design. You can see some of its influence in the design of the Russian Armata.
Another detail packed video from David that illustrated many important aspects of tactics, role and adaptability of the S tank.
In my humble opinion a tank that would probably prove itself very difficult to defeat on the European battlefield.
Thank you David for another masterpiece.
Nice another video to lighten up my Friday afternoon
what a great vehicle - always reminds me of the Battletank from Gerry Anderson & Christopher Burr's Terrahawks.