When a machine takes a little blood or gives you a pinch, it's just the Machine Spirit giving you a Rockwell/Brinell Hardness test. It rates you as "Squishy and mostly harmless".
The universal tool or the "klant" is better translated to something like 'the clumsy one' or perhaps more accurately to english words like 'oaf' or 'fool'. Because when you do maintenence on the tank and drop the tool, it will make a loud noice for everyone to hear making the person dropping the tool into a "klant" =)
+Johan Karlsson We have a similar expression "dropping a klanger", 'klang' being the loud dull metal sound (like that cast iron makes) mixed with an original church bell ringing expression "dropping a clapper' - the clapper being the part inside a bell that swings and hits the bell to make the bells sound. Also, you could call someone a klanger/clanger if you have some industrial/engineering experience - where it could indicate too a dull person (empty head 'dull' sound), someone that drops things (a lot), ergo makes mistakes, all sort of similar to your nordic klant in usage/intention/meaning.
Cool! I've never heard the word before but as you say, they seem synonimous. It would not surprise me if the usage of the word has been inspired by the british army somehow (or vice versa, but I find that less likely). We used the name for our universal tool on my time on the CV90 atleast, but it seems far older than that. Cheers!
Piotwor it didn't had to be a dead end, one of the last Strv 103C's was used as a tank-drone concept test prototype. Unfortunately, the concept was a bit too ahead of the reliability and abilities of the avaliable electronics in the late 1990'ies and thus it was discontinued. I personally would like to se a renewed attempt at it with current tech, including a rudimentary AI capable of taking over for up to a minute in case of communication breakdowns using a hardware cut-off timer and an IFF system separate from the remote control thar physically prevents the drone tank from attacking friendly assets in case of hacking or hostile spy infiltration of a control center. Oh, and a larger hull with a 140mm cannon.
@@SonsOfLorgar , as a tank, it is certainly a dead end with less it can be made to accurately fire on the move outside the centreline... which invalidates the whole concept.
You used to see people cruise around in these, picking up women along the way and letting them aim the gun. Even today you might occasionally find on on the E22 (highway) here in Sweden.
When discussing how the S-tank came about one should not forget the Swedish defensive doctrine. This means that Swedes will always know the terrain in which they will fight. If you look around the Swedish country side it is quite hilly and there are lakes and forests everywhere. For tank warfare this has huge implications. First the hills provide lots of natural covers. The S-tank was specifically designed with this in mind, to just show the gun and the sight above the crest of a hill and use the rocks and dirt of the hill as its primary protection. Remember the high depression angle of other Swedish more conventional tanks that lets them make the most of this as well. Secondly, the hills together with the forest mean that you can’t see your target until they are quite close. Really long shots are rare. Thirdly, the lakes together with the forests channels an advancing army to areas in nature where it is convenient (possible) to advance e.g. the narrows between two lakes. Usually it’s not too difficult to find a good protective hill at a convenient distance from that narrow where you can just lay low and wait for the enemy to come. The point I want to make is that when comparing tanks we all know about the importance of mobility, armor and armament. To this I would like to add tactics.
Well, too fair. I will always say that tanks, no matter where they where made, had been made with the country (Which they might need to defend) in mind. Like the Korean K2 Black Panther (Think that was the name of it) was made for the South Korean hilly country side. The Leopard 2 was highly made for the foresty and hilly, as well low land arears that Germany has. That leads to that I always saying too. A defending country always have a better advantage, because they know their country, and where they can go and not.
Hans Dampf not really true though. The Swedish doctrine definitely called for counter attacks aswell as Finnish style motti tactics and semi mechanised guerilla warfare. Only the counter attack role was supposed to be conducted by the Strv 83/101/102/104/(105) Centurion tanks bought from the Brittish and domestically improved and modified. The 105 was only an experimental prototype upgrade that was canceled in favour of leasing a significant number of Leopard 2A4's designated Strv 121 finally replaced by Leopard 2S's designated Strv 122 which combined heavily improved domestically produced armor, mine protection, electronics and a different smoke launcher system over a Leo2A5 baseline design.
Sorry mate, this is all wrong. This: www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/d29mf0b/ Is a reddit comment answering to this myth that is so prevalent. The Strv-103 was estimated to be just as effective on the move or in attack as any other MBT of the era.
The S-Tank was designed to deal with entrenched infantry. Its an MBT and all of this "defense" nonsense is annoying. Considering how modern MBTs are used these days... you don't really need a turret.
Hans Dampf eh, no. The S tank litterally makes a full stop and 90° on-the-spot turn in less time than a Leopard 2 turns it's turret to the same conditions. As for ditches, yes, they can be a problem. Other obstacles, not so much as the tank is light and powerful enough to push itself sideways around any obstacle too heavy to shift. Thus the only obstacles which would prevent an S-tank from engaging would be an obstacle like a wall or ridge too high and steep to get the gun over it, but such an obstacle will at the same time put the S-tank out of reach of the ambusher. As for entrenched/fortified infantry, the gun is accurate enough to snipe firing ports at decent range (a bit short of a km) and up to 20 105mm HEFRAG shells timed individually for contact or distance airburst in less than four minutes is going to end any infantry squad's day just as rightly as any thrown pommel. The only real downside compared to a turreted tank is that an S-tank is even more vulnerable in an urban area or around other tall, unsecured buildings. It's most definitely an exclusively countryside tank.
The engine opening system was pretty slick. Not as fast as just un-doing a few latches like on some tanks, but considering it is also the frontal armor it's pretty darn efficient. All the special tools to make it easier, like the winch system, are cool. Watching that definitely drives home how useful it must be to have the 3rd crewman over the theoretical 2-person crewing potential.
yeah just like in Wourld of Tanks. you are the driver, gunner, commander, and loader all in one. I know we can make a tank with a one manned crew like the scorpion tank from Halo
I'll bet the crews loved not having to fiddle with track tension. Liquid fuel doesn't like to burn very much. It's fuel vapor once it's out in the air that's the problem. Props to the Swedish for making such a revolutionary design and getting so many things right. New designs aren't always easy. Thank you for another amazing video! Looking forward to part two.
Chieftain, I have to say... Your translation of "Klant" is the most accurate translation that conveys the dry poetic humor in Swedish language. I also love the wording on the warning labels on the engines. "Trampa inte här" is a very blunt and kind of aggressive way of saying "Don't step here." It could have been polite language such as "Kliv ej här" which would directly translate to "Do not step here" But the wording used conveys more of "Don't clomp your feet here, dipshit!" which is a hilarious way to emphasize that you really shouldn't step in the engine bay. Like it's annoyingly blunt.
Given the unusual turretless design of this tank with a gun that is completely fixed to the hull, I did not expect this tank to be so well-thought-out.
The Strv 103 used starlight scopes for night fighting later in it's career. Thermal sights where introduced on Swedish AFV's until the CV90 and the Leopard 2A4
He was probably on roller skis, a bit longer than roller blades, with only 2 wheels each, but they got an automatic stop when you push forward so you can use your legs to get speed the same way you do on skis. And you use things similar to ski sticks to get speed with your arms. Quite common to see in Sweden and gives about the same workout as skiing.
Rare thing here, The Chieftain referred to miles when addressing the consumption even though I believe it is in kilometres in Sweden! Still, as usual, a thorough and a quality review!
TheChieftainWoT his full name is Ian McCallum and he runs the educational youtube channel named Forgotten Weapons and together with a co-host named Karl Casarda he also runs the channel called In range TV. The forgotten weapons channel is focused on exploring and explaining the inventions and technical lineage of various rare and notable weapons, from flintlock blackpowder revolver rifles through m3 grease guns with silenced barrel option and booby trap device to Japanese knee mortars, the chauchat SAW and the only remaining Pancor Jackhammer working prototype and a restored live firing Pak40... The in range channel mainly focuses on comparative testing and competitions using various military issue guns of different eras and nationality.
If that gun is anything like the L7 / M68, pulling the tube is quite easy, easier than pulling the pack. Unscrew a plug on the breech end, unscrew a pin beneath the plug, give the tube a 1/4 turn with a big ass band wrench, and then slide the tube out with a hoist. Had to let the turbine cool down before pulling the pack, so there wouldn't have been any lost time because of pulling the gun.
The squeak of left upper hatch nut on the left ammunition cover panel, as it is being undone, sounds like a squeaking whiffter at about 14:23 Crouched, exerting and upwards force, (with meatballs for lunch?,) could produce an opposite directional re-action perhaps.
Great segment Nick, been looking forward to seeing this AFV for quite some time can't' wait to see the interior. Oh and thanks for continuing to include the out takes, have you put together a blooper real of all of them?
At 23:33 is the best presentation of the Strv103 drivetrain, at least on Google I can't find pictures that show that much of it. By the way I was surprised how big is it, in such a small tank, a modern Euro Power Pack could fit inside it or any Russian transverse engine drivetrain, those are extremely compact but at the expense of the transmission
What do you think about the sleeping space on this one? Seems like it has a good amount of real estate, the ridges might be a bit annoying though. Fantastic video as always ,can't wait for part 2!
Well the impression I'm getting from this machine is that it has very low silhouette which is great because can hide in every place so easily then the commander can survey any narrow area then wait until something comes his way & then strike hard with everything he have & I'm sure the enemy won't expecting that .
Much easier keeping tracks on a shorter vehicle too :-) And quite right - diesel doesn't burn too easily and dealing with fire outside the armour (rather than in the engine or fighting compartment is something tanks, being huge lumps of metal, are great at)
William Fitzgerald um... no, the Strv 103 was designed and used as an MBT, thus it is an MBT even if it does have some features more common with tank destroyers. Or do you call the american M10, M18, T49 etc. tanks just because they have turrets?
Cool. Liked. Always fascinated by this. Given the cold war politics at the time a country like Sweden had to think hard about their own defence, and they did for sure. It is original and has a logic to it. Also I see like many Swedish products (IKEA etc.) It requires a kind of Allen key to work on it! :)
I like that the engine and tranny are in the front. Makes more sense. An engine in the rear that's still pristine is of no use if the crew have been obliterated.
Thanks Chieftain for another excellent video. I have a question for you, out of all of the tanks that you have seen which is your favorite? I've been trying to figure out what it could be, but I truly have no idea what it could be at all.
Great video. Cannot wait to see part 2! Swedish originality coupled with some tricky native shrooms gave birth to this machine. Safety features do look rather impressive for the time. Crew survive ability was probably quite high. Complexity required to make a simple design work, it seems, outdid most of the practical advantages. Compared to this, MBT-70 would look a rather conservative and simple tank.
Such an interesting and well presented video, as always. However, there is a special place in hell where the background music from this vid will never be turned off. Did this tank ever see combat?
So, if the diesel smokes so much -- which I don't understand, since the engine is small for a regular farm truck, and those don't smoke badly -- does the turbine somehow burn the same diesel or kerosene fuel so much more cleanly? And can that therefore be used to sneak around? Is the S-tank significantly more quiet at a low-crawl reconnaissance speed and running just on the turbine, and how bad is the fuel consumption -- in hours, rather than distance -- if that was done? It seems to me that diesels are usually smokey when they start before warming up, and then put out a puffing burst of smoke and noise when they accelerate. With a good exhaust system, they put out very little visible exhaust in the form of unburnt fuel when running at a steady pace, whether idling or running down the road or crawling across a field. What is most striking to me is the massive weight of the S-tank for the thickness of the armor. It drove home to me how heavy steel is, that the thin 4mm steel hull plates on the front are that heavy when they were raised for service! The armor of the Sherman is much, much, thicker all of the way around and even on top; its engine power is about the same or weaker, its track length looks about the same, and it has about the same speed! The S-tank appears to rely on pre-detonating HEAT rounds or destabilizing APDS, through external measures, and uses two or three skins of 3 or 4 millimeters of armor as splinter protection from artillery and mortar shells and rockets bursting nearby, since any single layer isn't even enough to stop rifle fire if hitting square-on! Crew protection appears to be the highest priority, but there's no wet-storage of the ammunition. That would be awkward to arrange, but potentially important since protection from indirect fire seems such a priority. One of my favorite model tanks since childhood, thanks for filling in so much of what I didn't really know or understand. I do have to think that associated vehicles -- a maintenance and recovery vehicle that can also push up berms and do mine clearance, -- should be covered in the same or linked series of videos as the tanks that rely on them is another point this video really drives home!
Not to get nit picky but if the diesel in the C model is an inline 6 then it would just be a Detroit 6-53T not a 6V. If it was a 6V-53T that would make it a V6 not an inline. With Detroits the V designates the cylinder configuration and T designates that its turbocharged.
correction. the centurion didnt enter service in the late 50,s. it was in service in 1944. it arrived on the front line 2 days after Germany surrendered so didnt see combat till korea. in korea they used mk 5,s with a 90mm rifled barrel. the mk 13 had a 120mm rifled barrel. Same gun as the cheiftain and challengers use. a challenger holds the world record of tank on tank kill of 5 miles. best the M1A1 has managed was 1 mile. Even the centurion with a WWII 17pdr with modern optics can take out a tank at 2 miles. My foster dad was a tanky during WWII and his unit was the 1st to get the centurion. Cause of the new tech like a stabalised gun the 1st tank to have it they had to learn how to use it along with all the other new stuff fitted to it. He got his centurion late november 1944. spent several months training on it before being shipped to the front line. it had a 17pdr gun and could take out a tiger II front armour at 1000 yds. He was in a sherman before that and that had to be 100 yds behind the tigers to take it out in the rear armour. when he upgraded to the firefly with a 17pdr he could take out a tiger front armour at 800 yds. My old artillery battery had a mk 13 centurion minus the gun to use as an armoured scout to find targets for us as it was manned by artillery spotters. We rarely used it though cause it was too heavy to drop by parachute like r artillry guns could as we were trained to support the paras and royal marine commandos. Centurions got replaced by cheiftians in the early 70,s which is why some artillery units had centurions as armoured mobile observation posts. We had 105mm light guns and could take out an M1 abrahams at 3 mile range. but we couldnt even dent a centurion. Some countries still use centurions now. IE Isreal still use them but r called bengurions. South Africa call them oliphants and still use them as their main tank.
Maybe at the time, the Detroit Diesel, it being a 2-stroke, offered the most power for a given size? 290hp out of 5,2 liters would be pretty good for a 4-stroke even today.
When a machine takes a little blood or gives you a pinch, it's just the Machine Spirit giving you a Rockwell/Brinell Hardness test. It rates you as "Squishy and mostly harmless".
And i think i have found the techpriest xD
Oh holly teach priest.
I ask You, what dose it mean when my toaster keeps burning my toast??
This makes me think a bit of Escaflowne.
Are you on drugs
It explains what my cars have been doing to me for years.
We can see Moran die inside when he say "there is no tension in this tank"
The universal tool or the "klant" is better translated to something like 'the clumsy one' or perhaps more accurately to english words like 'oaf' or 'fool'. Because when you do maintenence on the tank and drop the tool, it will make a loud noice for everyone to hear making the person dropping the tool into a "klant" =)
+Johan Karlsson We have a similar expression "dropping a klanger", 'klang' being the loud dull metal sound (like that cast iron makes) mixed with an original church bell ringing expression "dropping a clapper' - the clapper being the part inside a bell that swings and hits the bell to make the bells sound. Also, you could call someone a klanger/clanger if you have some industrial/engineering experience - where it could indicate too a dull person (empty head 'dull' sound), someone that drops things (a lot), ergo makes mistakes, all sort of similar to your nordic klant in usage/intention/meaning.
Cool! I've never heard the word before but as you say, they seem synonimous. It would not surprise me if the usage of the word has been inspired by the british army somehow (or vice versa, but I find that less likely). We used the name for our universal tool on my time on the CV90 atleast, but it seems far older than that. Cheers!
One might even say that the person dropping it would be a "tool".
:P
Someone who's an oxygen thief is someone who's too dumb to live. The idea being that he's a waste of air because he's dumber than a sack of rocks.
@@dethkon2284 , only because mispronunciation. The "a" in "klant" should be like in "appropriate", and the "l"- and "n"-sounds clearly audible.
I know it's an evolutionary dead-end, but I love the look of this tank. It's like a damn sportscar.
Piotwor it didn't had to be a dead end, one of the last Strv 103C's was used as a tank-drone concept test prototype. Unfortunately, the concept was a bit too ahead of the reliability and abilities of the avaliable electronics in the late 1990'ies and thus it was discontinued.
I personally would like to se a renewed attempt at it with current tech, including a rudimentary AI capable of taking over for up to a minute in case of communication breakdowns using a hardware cut-off timer and an IFF system separate from the remote control thar physically prevents the drone tank from attacking friendly assets in case of hacking or hostile spy infiltration of a control center.
Oh, and a larger hull with a 140mm cannon.
@@SonsOfLorgar , as a tank, it is certainly a dead end with less it can be made to accurately fire on the move outside the centreline... which invalidates the whole concept.
You used to see people cruise around in these, picking up women along the way and letting them aim the gun. Even today you might occasionally find on on the E22 (highway) here in Sweden.
@@SonsOfLorgar *generation zero intensifies*
Actually it’s the best defensive tank you can get. Problem was they weren’t a great offensive tank.
When discussing how the S-tank came about one should not forget the Swedish defensive doctrine. This means that Swedes will always know the terrain in which they will fight. If you look around the Swedish country side it is quite hilly and there are lakes and forests everywhere. For tank warfare this has huge implications. First the hills provide lots of natural covers. The S-tank was specifically designed with this in mind, to just show the gun and the sight above the crest of a hill and use the rocks and dirt of the hill as its primary protection. Remember the high depression angle of other Swedish more conventional tanks that lets them make the most of this as well. Secondly, the hills together with the forest mean that you can’t see your target until they are quite close. Really long shots are rare. Thirdly, the lakes together with the forests channels an advancing army to areas in nature where it is convenient (possible) to advance e.g. the narrows between two lakes. Usually it’s not too difficult to find a good protective hill at a convenient distance from that narrow where you can just lay low and wait for the enemy to come.
The point I want to make is that when comparing tanks we all know about the importance of mobility, armor and armament. To this I would like to add tactics.
Well, too fair. I will always say that tanks, no matter where they where made, had been made with the country (Which they might need to defend) in mind. Like the Korean K2 Black Panther (Think that was the name of it) was made for the South Korean hilly country side. The Leopard 2 was highly made for the foresty and hilly, as well low land arears that Germany has. That leads to that I always saying too. A defending country always have a better advantage, because they know their country, and where they can go and not.
Hans Dampf not really true though. The Swedish doctrine definitely called for counter attacks aswell as Finnish style motti tactics and semi mechanised guerilla warfare.
Only the counter attack role was supposed to be conducted by the Strv 83/101/102/104/(105) Centurion tanks bought from the Brittish and domestically improved and modified.
The 105 was only an experimental prototype upgrade that was canceled in favour of leasing a significant number of Leopard 2A4's designated Strv 121 finally replaced by Leopard 2S's designated Strv 122 which combined heavily improved domestically produced armor, mine protection, electronics and a different smoke launcher system over a Leo2A5 baseline design.
Sorry mate, this is all wrong.
This: www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/d29mf0b/
Is a reddit comment answering to this myth that is so prevalent. The Strv-103 was estimated to be just as effective on the move or in attack as any other MBT of the era.
The S-Tank was designed to deal with entrenched infantry. Its an MBT and all of this "defense" nonsense is annoying.
Considering how modern MBTs are used these days... you don't really need a turret.
Hans Dampf eh, no. The S tank litterally makes a full stop and 90° on-the-spot turn in less time than a Leopard 2 turns it's turret to the same conditions.
As for ditches, yes, they can be a problem. Other obstacles, not so much as the tank is light and powerful enough to push itself sideways around any obstacle too heavy to shift. Thus the only obstacles which would prevent an S-tank from engaging would be an obstacle like a wall or ridge too high and steep to get the gun over it, but such an obstacle will at the same time put the S-tank out of reach of the ambusher.
As for entrenched/fortified infantry, the gun is accurate enough to snipe firing ports at decent range (a bit short of a km) and up to 20 105mm HEFRAG shells timed individually for contact or distance airburst in less than four minutes is going to end any infantry squad's day just as rightly as any thrown pommel.
The only real downside compared to a turreted tank is that an S-tank is even more vulnerable in an urban area or around other tall, unsecured buildings.
It's most definitely an exclusively countryside tank.
When I was a kid, the S-Tank was one of the coolest things I'd ever seen. Part 2 cannot come soon enough.
The engine opening system was pretty slick. Not as fast as just un-doing a few latches like on some tanks, but considering it is also the frontal armor it's pretty darn efficient. All the special tools to make it easier, like the winch system, are cool. Watching that definitely drives home how useful it must be to have the 3rd crewman over the theoretical 2-person crewing potential.
Best tank to own as a single collector: only tank you can drive and fire from the same seat. You will need a crew for any other tank.
well, I don't think most collectors get the opportunity to fire their guns anyway
@@Shorjok I realise this is a year old comment but so would be pretty content to just point the gun at something, pull the trigger and go pew.
yeah just like in Wourld of Tanks. you are the driver, gunner, commander, and loader all in one. I know we can make a tank with a one manned crew like the scorpion tank from Halo
I'll bet the crews loved not having to fiddle with track tension.
Liquid fuel doesn't like to burn very much. It's fuel vapor once it's out in the air that's the problem.
Props to the Swedish for making such a revolutionary design and getting so many things right. New designs aren't always easy.
Thank you for another amazing video! Looking forward to part two.
Vnx and there is a prototype for a drone version...
I have my coffee, its my vacation, and now I have a new episode of inside the hatch? Can this be any better?! Only if gun jesus uploads a new video!
Gun jesus? Oh, you mean Ian. For sure.
Derek Frankovich oh boy, you'll be happy. Check his Facebook page, XL60 individual weapon...
Oh my goodness you watch gun historian jesus too!!!
We really are getting spoiled by gun and tank jesuses!
indeed ...FW/IRTV, Chiefy, Matilda Dairies and a few others are the best parts of informative online viewing.
I've been waiting for this tank to be on your channel for some time. Thank you Chieftain for bringing us this rare opportunity.
You forgot the TELEFON boks at the end of the tank. Very important boks.
When you want to call someone important.
Lennart Jensen yeah, like the backward driver/radio operator about to run you over XD
Perfect for notifying next of kin!
Chieftain, I have to say... Your translation of "Klant" is the most accurate translation that conveys the dry poetic humor in Swedish language.
I also love the wording on the warning labels on the engines. "Trampa inte här" is a very blunt and kind of aggressive way of saying "Don't step here."
It could have been polite language such as "Kliv ej här" which would directly translate to "Do not step here"
But the wording used conveys more of "Don't clomp your feet here, dipshit!" which is a hilarious way to emphasize that you really shouldn't step in the engine bay. Like it's annoyingly blunt.
Swedish humour? DET ER FANDEME LØGN! 🤣😂😅
I am a simple man, i see a chieftain video, i smash the like button.
agreed
Given the unusual turretless design of this tank with a gun that is completely fixed to the hull, I did not expect this tank to be so well-thought-out.
A far more practical tank than I had expected. Especially considering the heavily forested terrain and the defensive war it was designed to fight in.
now the real wait begins ... part 2 cant come soon enough haha
Yep.
3 months later...
The Strv 103 used starlight scopes for night fighting later in it's career. Thermal sights where introduced on Swedish AFV's until the CV90 and the Leopard 2A4
I don't fall asleep when Nich talks about track tension. I find it very interesting.
Really appreciate your work! Can't wait to see the inside. This is going to be the most unconventional look in the inside of tanks.
The strv will always be the tank of my heart
Loved the bloopers..... i wanna see this loading sausage. and the guy skiing on roller skates
He was probably on roller skis, a bit longer than roller blades, with only 2 wheels each, but they got an automatic stop when you push forward so you can use your legs to get speed the same way you do on skis. And you use things similar to ski sticks to get speed with your arms. Quite common to see in Sweden and gives about the same workout as skiing.
cool... i go skiiing as well i should look into that so i can ski in mid summer
Nicholas Moran is the hero we deserve.
"Hey everybody, there's a tank hiding here!" This is me everytime I try passive scouting in my M41
A 6V53 Detroit isn’t an inline engine. 6 is number of cylinders, V is engine orientation, 53 is CI per cylinder.
Thanks for that, good point. I think he had the name wrong, since that looks like an inline, straight, engine.
Awesome as always, thanks! Always wanted to get a closer look at the S-Tank.
Rare thing here, The Chieftain referred to miles when addressing the consumption even though I believe it is in kilometres in Sweden!
Still, as usual, a thorough and a quality review!
Track tension is always my favourite part.
Yay! More Chieftain's hatch!
I'd love to get a video of The Chieftain with Ian from Forgotten Weapons.
You're not the first person to say this. I don't believe I know him (though I know of him). Anyone able to make introductions?
Only through an official channel email admin@forgottenweapons.com
I really think you two would get on like a house on fire.
TheChieftainWoT his full name is Ian McCallum and he runs the educational youtube channel named Forgotten Weapons and together with a co-host named Karl Casarda he also runs the channel called In range TV.
The forgotten weapons channel is focused on exploring and explaining the inventions and technical lineage of various rare and notable weapons, from flintlock blackpowder revolver rifles through m3 grease guns with silenced barrel option and booby trap device to Japanese knee mortars, the chauchat SAW and the only remaining Pancor Jackhammer working prototype and a restored live firing Pak40...
The in range channel mainly focuses on comparative testing and competitions using various military issue guns of different eras and nationality.
M McLaurin80 Ian has done some work on anti tank guns, in addition to the more channel appropriate anti tank rifles.
I have seen his videos. I just don't know him or have his contact info, beyond the generic channel... I'll try McLaurin's provided email.
If that gun is anything like the L7 / M68, pulling the tube is quite easy, easier than pulling the pack. Unscrew a plug on the breech end, unscrew a pin beneath the plug, give the tube a 1/4 turn with a big ass band wrench, and then slide the tube out with a hoist.
Had to let the turbine cool down before pulling the pack, so there wouldn't have been any lost time because of pulling the gun.
Notice the pin on his jacket, it's the Swedish armoured regiment sign.
Can't wait to see the inside of this unique tank
"all these boly holes would be occupied by bolts" I love that.
I don't know why, but i think this is the most Beatiful Warmaschine i ever saw
Fascinating design.
10:16 There are some good videos of Strv 103 live fire tests where they napalm the tank for two minutes and it is completely unscathed.
Can't wait to see the interior!
The squeak of left upper hatch nut on the left ammunition cover panel, as it is being undone, sounds like a squeaking whiffter at about 14:23 Crouched, exerting and upwards force, (with meatballs for lunch?,) could produce an opposite directional re-action perhaps.
Love this series Awesome job Chieftain , thank you :) now for part 2 :) please don't be long
Great segment Nick, been looking forward to seeing this AFV for quite some time can't' wait to see the interior. Oh and thanks for continuing to include the out takes, have you put together a blooper real of all of them?
At 23:33 is the best presentation of the Strv103 drivetrain, at least on Google I can't find pictures that show that much of it. By the way I was surprised how big is it, in such a small tank, a modern Euro Power Pack could fit inside it or any Russian transverse engine drivetrain, those are extremely compact but at the expense of the transmission
8:35, no track tension? What is this heresy? :P
This is the best channel ever!!!
What do you think about the sleeping space on this one? Seems like it has a good amount of real estate, the ridges might be a bit annoying though. Fantastic video as always ,can't wait for part 2!
Henry Leighton Fulmer the ridges wera actually added to prevent the air mattresses from sliding off ;)
Nice touch with the pin, "Truppslagstecken m/1963 för pansartrupperna", i.e. the insignia for the armored troops of Sweden.
Well the impression I'm getting from this machine is that it has very low silhouette which is great because can hide in every place so easily then the commander can survey any narrow area then wait until something comes his way & then strike hard with everything he have & I'm sure the enemy won't expecting that .
such a silly design but damn it's gorgeous. Watching this video again a year later!
I thank you and God bless!!
Much easier keeping tracks on a shorter vehicle too :-)
And quite right - diesel doesn't burn too easily and dealing with fire outside the armour (rather than in the engine or fighting compartment is something tanks, being huge lumps of metal, are great at)
I have been waiting months for strv 103 inside the chieftain's hatch
Thank you Chieftain.
ELC AMX please ! x)
cant wait for part 2 of this
25 minute part one ... nice
@TheChieftainWoT sometime please talk about the benefits/drawbacks of single-pin vs. dual-pin tracks.
I feel strangely happy after seeing this episode...
14:28 "Holy Fuck moment, Tank God i still have my head on"
Those tiny little wipers on the vision ports XD
Those Swedes love their tiny wipers just look at older Volvos
Thank for film
How do you piss of a Swede?
Call the Strv 103 a tank destroyer xD
-.- don't push it :P
Well it is not a tank, if it is a tank then the su100 is a tank, the Hetzer is a tank. Being honest it is a tank destroyer.
William Fitzgerald um... no, the Strv 103 was designed and used as an MBT, thus it is an MBT even if it does have some features more common with tank destroyers.
Or do you call the american M10, M18, T49 etc. tanks just because they have turrets?
Finsk Barbar all tanks are tank destroyers because they destroy tanks, problem solved
Better yet, say it wasn't supposed to be used in an offensive role!
Cool. Liked. Always fascinated by this. Given the cold war politics at the time a country like Sweden had to think hard about their own defence, and they did for sure. It is original and has a logic to it. Also I see like many Swedish products (IKEA etc.) It requires a kind of Allen key to work on it! :)
Why is the bass so high in the audio?
I like how you're wearing the insigna of the Swedish armoured troops.
I like that the engine and tranny are in the front. Makes more sense. An engine in the rear that's still pristine is of no use if the crew have been obliterated.
Americans, British, Germans: ugh i hate track tension
Swedish s tank drivers: "you guys get track tension"
Thanks Chieftain for another excellent video. I have a question for you, out of all of the tanks that you have seen which is your favorite? I've been trying to figure out what it could be, but I truly have no idea what it could be at all.
quintonhas. Centurion is my guess.
TOG II.
:-)
That looks so cool
Sweden loves universally applicable tools
Great video. Cannot wait to see part 2!
Swedish originality coupled with some tricky native shrooms gave birth to this machine.
Safety features do look rather impressive for the time. Crew survive ability was probably quite high.
Complexity required to make a simple design work, it seems, outdid most of the practical advantages. Compared to this, MBT-70 would look a rather conservative and simple tank.
Such an interesting and well presented video, as always. However, there is a special place in hell where the background music from this vid will never be turned off.
Did this tank ever see combat?
It did not, no.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for the reply! :) Really appreciate your videos.
Wait there's no track tension? So no pumping grease into an idler arm until your arms are completely dead? I already love this tank.
As someone who was always interested in tanks but never went in depth I really have to use Google a lot while watching this.
FYI a 6V53 is a V-type engine, not an inline (hence the "V" in the designation).
Very informative.
Lol - they must like their skiing there so much that he just said to himself "no snow, no problem.." :-)
That road wheel in the first clip is bent real bad.
always amazing
I wish someone would probe Nicholas in his rear hatch and film while they are doing it. Then post it on UA-cam.
Finally =>.
Have really been waiting for this one, very good job
Tier 10 Swedish tank destroyer and for it's Russian equivalents they obj 263 & 268 they might be in the tank museum at Kubinka.
" Hey Toots....where's the rest of your tank? "
Just a small point,6v53 denotes a V6 engine and that one is obviously an inline 6 as you said.
Soon console, soon.. I want this line so badly.
The Detroit 6V53 is a V6. The 6-53 is the inline 6. Other than that, great video.
The S tank is the best protection you can get in a 2:nd generation MBT !
Looks like the gun is mounted upsides down, compared to the mounting in the M60.
Didn't I watch this yesterday - ?
I can't believe tanks can float
nice, waiting part 2, please make a leopard video next
So, if the diesel smokes so much -- which I don't understand, since the engine is small for a regular farm truck, and those don't smoke badly -- does the turbine somehow burn the same diesel or kerosene fuel so much more cleanly? And can that therefore be used to sneak around? Is the S-tank significantly more quiet at a low-crawl reconnaissance speed and running just on the turbine, and how bad is the fuel consumption -- in hours, rather than distance -- if that was done?
It seems to me that diesels are usually smokey when they start before warming up, and then put out a puffing burst of smoke and noise when they accelerate. With a good exhaust system, they put out very little visible exhaust in the form of unburnt fuel when running at a steady pace, whether idling or running down the road or crawling across a field.
What is most striking to me is the massive weight of the S-tank for the thickness of the armor. It drove home to me how heavy steel is, that the thin 4mm steel hull plates on the front are that heavy when they were raised for service! The armor of the Sherman is much, much, thicker all of the way around and even on top; its engine power is about the same or weaker, its track length looks about the same, and it has about the same speed! The S-tank appears to rely on pre-detonating HEAT rounds or destabilizing APDS, through external measures, and uses two or three skins of 3 or 4 millimeters of armor as splinter protection from artillery and mortar shells and rockets bursting nearby, since any single layer isn't even enough to stop rifle fire if hitting square-on!
Crew protection appears to be the highest priority, but there's no wet-storage of the ammunition. That would be awkward to arrange, but potentially important since protection from indirect fire seems such a priority.
One of my favorite model tanks since childhood, thanks for filling in so much of what I didn't really know or understand. I do have to think that associated vehicles -- a maintenance and recovery vehicle that can also push up berms and do mine clearance, -- should be covered in the same or linked series of videos as the tanks that rely on them is another point this video really drives home!
Great video can you do one of the T-72
WHY NO FOOTAGE OF THE ROLLER SKATES SKIER?
play time 0.0001s, upthumbed
We did have a pretty cool tank I say.
Interesting video. btw- What type of jacket are you wearing in this video? What's the insignia on the jacket? It looks like Gary Owen- US 7th Cavalry.
Not to get nit picky but if the diesel in the C model is an inline 6 then it would just be a Detroit 6-53T not a 6V. If it was a 6V-53T that would make it a V6 not an inline. With Detroits the V designates the cylinder configuration and T designates that its turbocharged.
correction. the centurion didnt enter service in the late 50,s. it was in service in 1944. it arrived on the front line 2 days after Germany surrendered so didnt see combat till korea. in korea they used mk 5,s with a 90mm rifled barrel. the mk 13 had a 120mm rifled barrel. Same gun as the cheiftain and challengers use. a challenger holds the world record of tank on tank kill of 5 miles. best the M1A1 has managed was 1 mile. Even the centurion with a WWII 17pdr with modern optics can take out a tank at 2 miles.
My foster dad was a tanky during WWII and his unit was the 1st to get the centurion. Cause of the new tech like a stabalised gun the 1st tank to have it they had to learn how to use it along with all the other new stuff fitted to it. He got his centurion late november 1944. spent several months training on it before being shipped to the front line. it had a 17pdr gun and could take out a tiger II front armour at 1000 yds. He was in a sherman before that and that had to be 100 yds behind the tigers to take it out in the rear armour. when he upgraded to the firefly with a 17pdr he could take out a tiger front armour at 800 yds.
My old artillery battery had a mk 13 centurion minus the gun to use as an armoured scout to find targets for us as it was manned by artillery spotters. We rarely used it though cause it was too heavy to drop by parachute like r artillry guns could as we were trained to support the paras and royal marine commandos. Centurions got replaced by cheiftians in the early 70,s which is why some artillery units had centurions as armoured mobile observation posts. We had 105mm light guns and could take out an M1 abrahams at 3 mile range. but we couldnt even dent a centurion.
Some countries still use centurions now. IE Isreal still use them but r called bengurions. South Africa call them oliphants and still use them as their main tank.
Was surprised they went for a Detroit engine and not a Scania one, Scania being Swedish and all that.
Scania is known for their V8:s so might be because of available space. However Volvo has inline 6 diesels so it might have to do with performance.
Maybe at the time, the Detroit Diesel, it being a 2-stroke, offered the most power for a given size?
290hp out of 5,2 liters would be pretty good for a 4-stroke even today.