"On this tank you have fuel tanks on the sides, for extra protection. Diesel is one of the most effective protections..." This is somehow very crazy and very clever at the same time. Which you could say about the whole tank as well, I guess...
The rear doors of the early (not sure about current) russian BMPs were big and hollow and filled with fuel. Which may (MAY!) be ok if hit and they contained diesel, but they also could run on Kerosene (not sure about petrol). I wouldn't want to be in an armoured personel carrier with the exit doors filled with a highly flammable fuel if they were shot, as they weren't that hard to penetrate apparently. (Just checked BMP 2 had same doors, BMP 3 doesn't appear to).
People not interested in watching you go around the S-Tank for 45 minutes? Not interested? _Not_ interested? These words sounded like English, but they make no sense!
I think that the German Stug vehicles do give us some idea as to its capabilities in combat up to a point, but it will remain a great unknown thankfully.
Thats what exercises and trials are for. I get your meaning though. But simulating "combat" or more specifically the conditions the crew, mechanics and tank have to put up with during fatigue, limited matinance and limited everything really, is what makes a tank or what not, good or bad. Being actually shot at by an agressor is the least of the problems when considering if it can preform or not in "real combat".
If you think about it, since WW2, no western tank has really been in battle. No, Iraq doesn't count. Shooting 40 year old T-72s is not something you put on your CV. My point it, none of the modern tanks has really been tested in combat.
Mark Fryer, they are similar visually but apart from that, they share nothing. This was a ultra modern tank in it's day and the StUG was designed for infantry support (Sturmgeschutz) but was hijacked to deal with Russian tanks. An S-tank would have been able to single-handedly stop a Waffen-SS tank division without breaking a sweat. Given that it had enough ammo of course. It's rounds would go straight through even a Tiger II at 2km.
Israel used the Centurion with searchlights against T62s with night vision in the Golan, 1973. Lots of other post-WW2 tanks were used by Israel and the Arabs in the 1967 and 73 wars, including IS3, T54, T55, M50 Super Sherman, AMX 13, and M48/M60 Patton.
My brother's best friend was a ranger when doing his military service back in the early nineties. They did a surprise attack on a platoon of S-tanks on a gravel road deep in the forest. They chose the place for the attack very carefully, making sure there was a big trench in between them and the tanks. After firing their first rounds they had to run for their lives as the S-tanks backed up, turned towards them and jumped the trench at full speed. He said he had never been so scared for his life as when those tanks came crashing through their ranks, people running in all directions.
Not that I'm complaining. Chieftain's vids would be perfect if they would add another part for interview with veteran crew telling how it was in the long haul. Now I will crave extra like this for ALL his vids.
Well you do happen to build a lot of other stuff that lots of people want to buy like your range of Oerlikon cannon, which were produced under licence by both sides during WW II by various manufacturers. Now that is what I call having a double bite of the cherry.
Agreed. It was merely my attempt at a generalizing joke. There's always the case that Sweden made just as many good stuff that has been an international succes just as those (like the S-Tank) were notP.S. Borde det vara Gevalia istället?
Interesting also to hear that the barrel needed to be removed for a pack change/remove and replace engine. Estimated time for repairs being one day. I think about 30 mins is the aim now? Big difference. Cool tank and one with many well-meaning design elements. Funny what he says at end, if its a great tank or....useless ***!
I think that the Leopard 1 was possibly the first with the Power Pack Changeover concept. I could be wrong and will accept correction if proven. Prior to Leopard 1, changing the engine and transmission in a tank was a really labour intensive process, in skilled manpower and time. Now if a tank is developed without such a feature it is doomed.
The long version was not unneccessary for me. But the more material, the better! Also finally someone pointing out that the outside Diesel tanks indeed are very effective additional armor. And that they are disigned for that purpose, too.
I feel as weary as the shriveled blues-singing cotton picker, going from one audio extreme to another. One video has the sound cranked up so high you can obliterate a T-72 at a thousand meters with it, even if you dare to move the sound volume slider more than a single planck space from "off", and in the next you have to crank it all the way up and still hold a stethoscope to the speaker to hear little more than the equivalent of a very quiet ant breathing ... Sorry Chieftain not your fault, love your channel, but sound quality in videos is so volatile ... sigh.
Also, you had to be short to be assigned to the S-tank. I think 175 cm was the maximum height. Since Sweden had a concript army, there were plenty of guys to choose from. A tall guy like chieftain would have been sent to some other branch of the military.
considering what this tank is capable of without a turret, and having been designed so soon after the war and a long service life, id say its the best in the world, if not joint best with some others like Centurion and AMX13
Once again Sir, you have given me something of interest to check my subscriptions for. Admittedly I much preferred your 45 min version however any opportunity to talk more about the S-tank is a welcome one indeed. My question is this Sir, were any of these fascinating vehicles sold to other countries, exported, after there stand down? Or are any being operated by any other countries at this time? Thank you again Sir, your video's continue to inform and educate even in an abridged version.
I think that you maybe on to something there, but would you really want to advance onto the other side of a water obstacle coming out bum first? Crossing any water obstacle is fraught with numerous complications, like current, water temperature, water buoyancy issues [refer plimsoll line on ships] , waves, shoreline gradient and material, defended or undefended crossing, man made hazards or as is the case in Northern Australia, native animal hazards like giant salt water crocodiles, "Salties" are big and dangerous every one a potential man eater. Not that other parts of the world dont have dangerous wild animals as well.
Mark Fryer well, as the swimming gear is the same basic design as the dd-shermans minus propellers, it's not advisable to cross a water feature under fire, even small arms fire is perfectly capable of turning the flotation screen into a siv with a few bursts. Also, the crew are standing on the tank roof while swimming and the underside is symetric up to the dozer blade in the front so the direction of travel wouldn't matter.
I think that the reason it would have difficulties coming out of the water would be if there's a somewhat steep slope as the back end of the floating screen could go under the water surface, thus quickly filling it with water. That problem would remain when going backwards. You would probably need to find a place where the bottom is flat enough that when you touch it the tank doesn't tilt too much.
Part of the problem with coming out of water forwards is the height and length of the gun barrel overhang, which would require a shallower exit angle than most other tanks. Altering the tanks hydraulic suspension to raise the gun barrel would improve the situation considerably, but it would still have limits. Coming out of the water in reverse would negate most of this problem if the exit angle is steeper, but even with this method there are limits due to the gun barrel overhang.
The S-tank... one of the best tanks in the world and the first tank with gas turbine, only tank where 1 person can do everything and so on, but as it was designed for Swedish terrain and doctrines (and too expensive) not a single tank was ever exported. Other Swedish arms: Bofors 40mm AA gun... initially designed 1930 and with upgrades it's still in active service today Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle... introduced 1948 and still going strong
Something that almost are never mentioned is that the Strv 103 wasn't the only tank in service at the time. Along side it, it had the Strv 104 which was a severely upgraded Centurion MBT with night fighting capabilities. So, together they certainly would cause problems for anyone getting in front of them. But, if you had listened, he explains that from travelling to first shot with a Strv 103 and a somewhat good crew, we are talking about 4-5 seconds. And that is as fast, if not even faster, than any turret can traverse. Edit: I've seen it do it when I was in the army so I know first hand how quick it was.
The technology that is incorporated in this vehicle is astounding. The obvious disadvantages are apparent. But I would like to see the auto loading mechanism in detail if possible. Is true this thing had only had 2".00 of frontal armor? Obviously at extreme angles it has a higher probability of a round glancing off the front glacial, but holy cow that is pretty bloody thin! I am an armor advocate and would liked to see thicker as well as spaced armor.
Can’t remember the specifications of the top of my head but remember that in the 1970’s it had the best frontal protection of any tank. Frontal armour was immune to everything the Soviets had at the time. The fixed gun meant it was also possible to have a protective fence in the front.
I bet one of the best things about the S tank was that if you were advancing, you would think its just an APC and not expect it to shoot at you with a 105 gun.
Is the S-Tank based on the German ww2 concept E-10? The E-10 looks alot like it and was supposed to be equipped with actuators to influence the hight of the vehicle, it did not have a fixed gun tough.
And he has a point, the role of the vehicle comes before the hardware provided the vehicle can fulfill that role of course a vehicle could have rotating turret but still wasn't designed to fulfill the role of a tank and isn't good at doing that role (*cough cough... i am looking at you hellcat, wolverine) and vice versa
I watched both versions. I want perks . . . how about an EWO Medal? "In 1997 Bolivian Tank Crewman Fernando Estevez binge-watched all episodes of Little House on the Prairie, while operating his TAM as a portable Broadcast Tower."
I have to admit. I got the Strv S1 in WoT and find it interesting. As a long range sniper it's amazing but it's a crap assault gun. It is also very maneuverable. I just love how it drives as fast in reverse and driving forward and the has save my ass a few times. I would really imagine that it's very much the same in real life. Looking at the design and specs of the vehicle, makes it seem as more as a defensive vehicle. I wonder what Sweden is using now. I'd guess the Leopard 2 or Challenger.
If its gun were realistic, it would have a 50 shot (?) autoloader with 3 second reload. OP as it gets. The Swedes are using a Leopard 2 variant similar to the Leopard 2A5 with local upgrades; they call it the Strv 122.
Looks like they still have the Centurion in service but only in secondary roles. Anyway I'm sure the Strv autoloader has been upgraded over the years. I guess the 103b in WoT has about a 7 second reload. So I guess thats as good as it gets.
I dont know if we got the same tank, or if it is me that cant drive it. But it doesnt look like my S1 can reverse fast. I mean for me it is like a normal tank reversing. Im happy for the armour throught! That had really saved me from time to time when I just change the angel of the armour for abit, then bounce an AP
In reality is does feel a little slower driving in reverse but I've topped out at 40 driving in reverse. I think I've topped out a 46-47 forward going down a hill.
That's a great video, very interesting material. Though I had to turn volume all the way up to be able to catch the talk. I'd like to see more of that on other machines too. I'm wondering, how many tanks did they drown while exercising water obstacle crossing? :)
This is a purpose built tank. It was perfect for the task it was designed for. (Protecting Sweden from an invasion from the north in dense forest) But it was useless to do anything else (For which it was not designed) Whether it is good or bad depends on your perspective, what you think is the purpose of a tank.
I wouldn't want to face off with it in an open area like a dessert either. But hull down, dug in a Swedish pine tree forest waiting in ambush it is deadly still today.
This should have been a prologue to the 45min video...To make it 55min video. And people would have watched it regardless. S-Tank showcase is so far the best one. By the way, there may be a running Konig Tiger in Saumur...Do that video even if you have to steal the thing :-D
Pretty scary on the offence too for it´s time. Sure, firing on the move isn´t really an option. But most tanks back then had really rudimentary stabilisation and were not very effective at firing on the move at anything except point blank range anyways. And that thing accelerates and comes to a stop pretty well, so advancing, stopping to fire and continuing to advance would work pretty well. And as he said, detecting targets off to the side while on the move isn't a problem at all. The damned thing comes to a skidding stop, pointing the gun the right way faster than tanks of that time could turn their turrets anyway. :)
Indeed. It had an excellent gun as well which is very, very accurate. Together with a laser range finder and other stuff, I've seen it stop and shoot in 4-5 seconds (didn't time it.. but..). I dare to say that NONE of the other western tanks, or Soviet for that matter, could traverse the turret and shoot that fast.
At the time the S-tank was pretty much indestructible from the front. With the HEAT-fences mounted there was pretty much nothing that could defeat that insanely sloped frontal armour.
Kenneth André Hansen The front is very soft to 115mm APFSDS and 125mm APFSDS can go through like paper from any practical distance. It was only enough for 100mm AP and APDS. Against HEAT, the success rate of the fences would not be very high.
It just uses its tracks, like a number of other such floating vehicles. The water pressure at the bottom is denser that the water up top, which I presume gives iit the ‘grip’ and propulsion.
At it's time, I think it was the most innovative tank designed to thwart an advancing Russian tank attack while the S-Tank would be dug in and picking off Russian T-62's and T-64's with ease.
There are a couple of Russian videos here on YT where they explain that they had the deepest respect for this tank. Fortunately, we never had to try it in combat.
Most likely they would have never seen any T-62s or 64s, but rather the more common T-55s of Soviet Motor Rifle divisions. As far as i understand the heavy artillery so to speak was almost exclusively reserved for the central European front.
English speaking people aren't that surprised anymore since they are aware of that the english level is top notch in the whole of Scandinavia (except Finland).
S-tank is not a tank. It is an SPG / tank destroyer. Why it is not a tank? It is not a tank because it fails to fit the definition, it cannot perform the FUNCTION of a tank. It is only a "tank" as in a "specialized tank" - but bridge-layers and ARV are such "tanks" too. A tank is an armored combat vehicle that: - intended to fight in direct contact with the enemy, in offense and defense; - combines protection, firepower and mobility; - is capable of engaging multiple targets of multiple types at varied ranges and directions, in quick succession, while being highly mobile. Having tracks, thick armor, 360 rotating turret and gun stabilizer providing fire-on-the-move capability etc. are all derived from that. S-tank's firepower and mobility are mutually compromised. Therefore, it is not a tank.
There was a post I saw on FB by the director in which he was expressing amusement that folks on the Internet are saying it's not a tank, but the folks who actually designed and used it say it is... It's worth noting that in testing against conventionally turreted vehicles such as Chieftain, not particular disadvantage was noted.
@@TheChieftainsHatch _> the folks who actually designed and used it say it is_ And that's okay, but it's just their opinion - and opinions are unscientific. Some people in the Middle Ages referred to their swords as "big knives" or even simply "knives", but modern historians don't do that. Likewise, we don't call MP-43 a "submachinegun" either. We stick to definitions. If it is a tank, then Hetzer or SU-85 are also tanks - no way around that. Same folks who designed it also say it was designed to fill the role of a tank - but a tank _within Swedish defensive doctrine._ _> in testing against conventionally turreted vehicles_ Was demonstrated that it can't fire on the move, period. And unlike other obsolete stab-lacking tanks of the period (like M60 and Leopard 1) it fundamentally cannot be fixed by upgrades. Also, it cannot fight if immobilized. It cannot deal with two non-unidirectional threats (engage one, present frontal armor to another). The list goes on and on.
@@Conserpov Not really important to the original point but calling these swords knives is still done by historians, they normaly use the german word "Messer".
It is a tank. Designed as a tank, operated as a tank, with offensive tactic as deployed with tanks. If it walks talks and acts like a tank, it’s a tank. The Stridsvagn 103 (which literally means “tank 103”) was used just as offensively as any turreted tank in the Swedish arsenal. During advance was capable of targeting and firing on a target faster than the turreted Centurion, because the 103 could bring its gun to bear much faster than any turret with the clutch and break manoeuvre.
It's not really until the modern tanks of today that they can fire effectively on the move. You have to remember that this tank is contemporary with Centurion, Chieftain, M48, M60 and the T-55. Neither of which were accurate while moving.
No tanks contemporary with the S tank fired on the move. But sure, in the end when stabilised guns came into play it was at a disadvantage. The s tank still was capable of winning tank battles against the more advanced Leopard 2 in Swedish training exercises in the 1990’s.
Left ear is indeed satisfied
😂😂😂😂
I miss the mono-button on my old speakers :P
Chieftains videos are consistently good, but the s-tank ones are brilliant. Absolutely fascinating!
"On this tank you have fuel tanks on the sides, for extra protection. Diesel is one of the most effective protections..."
This is somehow very crazy and very clever at the same time. Which you could say about the whole tank as well, I guess...
The rear doors of the early (not sure about current) russian BMPs were big and hollow and filled with fuel. Which may (MAY!) be ok if hit and they contained diesel, but they also could run on Kerosene (not sure about petrol). I wouldn't want to be in an armoured personel carrier with the exit doors filled with a highly flammable fuel if they were shot, as they weren't that hard to penetrate apparently. (Just checked BMP 2 had same doors, BMP 3 doesn't appear to).
People not interested in watching you go around the S-Tank for 45 minutes? Not interested? _Not_ interested? These words sounded like English, but they make no sense!
Well they maybe interested, but just needing the abridged version for their "tank fix".
I'm glad they never had to, but it would have been really interesting to see how well the tank performed in actual combat.
I think that the German Stug vehicles do give us some idea as to its capabilities in combat up to a point, but it will remain a great unknown thankfully.
Thats what exercises and trials are for. I get your meaning though. But simulating "combat" or more specifically the conditions the crew, mechanics and tank have to put up with during fatigue, limited matinance and limited everything really, is what makes a tank or what not, good or bad. Being actually shot at by an agressor is the least of the problems when considering if it can preform or not in "real combat".
If you think about it, since WW2, no western tank has really been in battle. No, Iraq doesn't count. Shooting 40 year old T-72s is not something you put on your CV. My point it, none of the modern tanks has really been tested in combat.
Mark Fryer, they are similar visually but apart from that, they share nothing. This was a ultra modern tank in it's day and the StUG was designed for infantry support (Sturmgeschutz) but was hijacked to deal with Russian tanks. An S-tank would have been able to single-handedly stop a Waffen-SS tank division without breaking a sweat. Given that it had enough ammo of course. It's rounds would go straight through even a Tiger II at 2km.
Israel used the Centurion with searchlights against T62s with night vision in the Golan, 1973. Lots of other post-WW2 tanks were used by Israel and the Arabs in the 1967 and 73 wars, including IS3, T54, T55, M50 Super Sherman, AMX 13, and M48/M60 Patton.
My brother's best friend was a ranger when doing his military service back in the early nineties. They did a surprise attack on a platoon of S-tanks on a gravel road deep in the forest. They chose the place for the attack very carefully, making sure there was a big trench in between them and the tanks. After firing their first rounds they had to run for their lives as the S-tanks backed up, turned towards them and jumped the trench at full speed. He said he had never been so scared for his life as when those tanks came crashing through their ranks, people running in all directions.
Karlsson, Karlsson, världens bästa Karlsson
ishouldgetalif3 Vackra, snälla, lagomtjocka Karlsson
Excellent, can't wait for the 45min version!
That's already out in three separate episodes.
I first learned of the S-Tank when I was stationed in Berlin back in the late 1980's. Thanks again for providing some very interesting info about it
If he can fit inside the S tank, he can fit inside the M22 Locust
What does he mean with: "There are people who don't want to watch the 40 minute version"??? I am confused...
"5 minute version"
Well, that'll be 10 minutes, sir
Not that I'm complaining. Chieftain's vids would be perfect if they would add another part for interview with veteran crew telling how it was in the long haul. Now I will crave extra like this for ALL his vids.
Ask us Swedes to build something, as long as we get coffee (Löfbergs) & snus we will build awesome stuff which no one will buy except us.
"We build great stuff which nobody will buy" is pretty indicative of how great it is.
Well you do happen to build a lot of other stuff that lots of people want to buy like your range of Oerlikon cannon, which were produced under licence by both sides during WW II by various manufacturers. Now that is what I call having a double bite of the cherry.
Not to mention the Bofors 40mm and all it´s derivatives. Probably one of the best and most manufactured guns in it´s class.
Agreed. It was merely my attempt at a generalizing joke. There's always the case that Sweden made just as many good stuff that has been an international succes just as those (like the S-Tank) were notP.S. Borde det vara Gevalia istället?
Zoega Skånerost! x)
Very interesting interview, thank you! Liked.
Interesting also to hear that the barrel needed to be removed for a pack change/remove and replace engine. Estimated time for repairs being one day. I think about 30 mins is the aim now? Big difference. Cool tank and one with many well-meaning design elements. Funny what he says at end, if its a great tank or....useless ***!
I think that the Leopard 1 was possibly the first with the Power Pack Changeover concept. I could be wrong and will accept correction if proven. Prior to Leopard 1, changing the engine and transmission in a tank was a really labour intensive process, in skilled manpower and time. Now if a tank is developed without such a feature it is doomed.
The M18 was also pretty easy IIRC, since it could slide out the engine on rails.
The long version was not unneccessary for me. But the more material, the better! Also finally someone pointing out that the outside Diesel tanks indeed are very effective additional armor. And that they are disigned for that purpose, too.
He got me at the end! "Is it the best tank in the world, or the most useless shit we have ever seen?" Died laughing!
Not interested? Look at the darn thing! That thing is interesting without even trying!
I love the Museum director's emotional outbursts :P
I feel as weary as the shriveled blues-singing cotton picker, going from one audio extreme to another. One video has the sound cranked up so high you can obliterate a T-72 at a thousand meters with it, even if you dare to move the sound volume slider more than a single planck space from "off", and in the next you have to crank it all the way up and still hold a stethoscope to the speaker to hear little more than the equivalent of a very quiet ant breathing ... Sorry Chieftain not your fault, love your channel, but sound quality in videos is so volatile ... sigh.
Sounds >>>>>> Loudness Equalization
Lmao the size difference,
No wonder why you can barely fit in most tanks XD
He is around 2 Meters ;)
Neo Plan 6"5
Also, you had to be short to be assigned to the S-tank. I think 175 cm was the maximum height.
Since Sweden had a concript army, there were plenty of guys to choose from.
A tall guy like chieftain would have been sent to some other branch of the military.
J H or to drive the Centurion
A very interesting tank, love it
Great job keep them coming. And a 45 min video would be awesome.
the most sweedish conversation ever to the point haha
Now we have 55 minutes, very nice, enjoyed every single one! ;) :D
considering what this tank is capable of without a turret, and having been designed so soon after the war and a long service life, id say its the best in the world, if not joint best with some others like Centurion and AMX13
Once again Sir, you have given me something of interest to check my subscriptions for. Admittedly I much preferred your 45 min version however any opportunity to talk more about the S-tank is a welcome one indeed. My question is this Sir, were any of these fascinating vehicles sold to other countries, exported, after there stand down? Or are any being operated by any other countries at this time? Thank you again Sir, your video's continue to inform and educate even in an abridged version.
You have an awesome hat.
A very well done interview
The crazy lovely søta bror what a fantastic tank. I seen this in Arsenalen. Just a hilarious deadly tank. Nothing like this thing in the world
He mentions it having a hard time climbing back onto land, it almost looks to me as though it would have an easier time doing it backwards
I think that you maybe on to something there, but would you really want to advance onto the other side of a water obstacle coming out bum first? Crossing any water obstacle is fraught with numerous complications, like current, water temperature, water buoyancy issues [refer plimsoll line on ships] , waves, shoreline gradient and material, defended or undefended crossing, man made hazards or as is the case in Northern Australia, native animal hazards like giant salt water crocodiles, "Salties" are big and dangerous every one a potential man eater. Not that other parts of the world dont have dangerous wild animals as well.
Mark Fryer well, as the swimming gear is the same basic design as the dd-shermans minus propellers, it's not advisable to cross a water feature under fire, even small arms fire is perfectly capable of turning the flotation screen into a siv with a few bursts.
Also, the crew are standing on the tank roof while swimming and the underside is symetric up to the dozer blade in the front so the direction of travel wouldn't matter.
Well spotted and very true. S tank submarine anyone?
I think that the reason it would have difficulties coming out of the water would be if there's a somewhat steep slope as the back end of the floating screen could go under the water surface, thus quickly filling it with water. That problem would remain when going backwards. You would probably need to find a place where the bottom is flat enough that when you touch it the tank doesn't tilt too much.
Part of the problem with coming out of water forwards is the height and length of the gun barrel overhang, which would require a shallower exit angle than most other tanks. Altering the tanks hydraulic suspension to raise the gun barrel would improve the situation considerably, but it would still have limits. Coming out of the water in reverse would negate most of this problem if the exit angle is steeper, but even with this method there are limits due to the gun barrel overhang.
The S-tank... one of the best tanks in the world and the first tank with gas turbine, only tank where 1 person can do everything and so on, but as it was designed for Swedish terrain and doctrines (and too expensive) not a single tank was ever exported.
Other Swedish arms:
Bofors 40mm AA gun... initially designed 1930 and with upgrades it's still in active service today
Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle... introduced 1948 and still going strong
More info, more better.
I loved hes answer a very interesting tank. Difficult question to answer by the way
Thumbs up
Videos about the S-Tank, places where you can easily trigger some Swedes with words like td or sentences like not effective in the offensive.
It's because we're tired of correcting people who don't know what they're talking about. ;-)
Something that almost are never mentioned is that the Strv 103 wasn't the only tank in service at the time. Along side it, it had the Strv 104 which was a severely upgraded Centurion MBT with night fighting capabilities. So, together they certainly would cause problems for anyone getting in front of them.
But, if you had listened, he explains that from travelling to first shot with a Strv 103 and a somewhat good crew, we are talking about 4-5 seconds. And that is as fast, if not even faster, than any turret can traverse.
Edit: I've seen it do it when I was in the army so I know first hand how quick it was.
love your vids! keep em rolling chief!
The technology that is incorporated in this vehicle is astounding.
The obvious disadvantages are apparent.
But I would like to see the auto loading mechanism in detail if possible.
Is true this thing had only had 2".00 of frontal armor?
Obviously at extreme angles it has a higher probability of a round glancing off the front glacial, but holy cow that is pretty bloody thin!
I am an armor advocate and would liked to see thicker as well as spaced armor.
Can’t remember the specifications of the top of my head but remember that in the 1970’s it had the best frontal protection of any tank. Frontal armour was immune to everything the Soviets had at the time. The fixed gun meant it was also possible to have a protective fence in the front.
The S-Tank is basically an MBT-70 distilled down to a turret on tracks.
Loved your three videos...well done. Problem is due to the limited attention span of viewers...sad.
Hand to your heart, you would have liked to work that tank more extensively in regular duty, don't you? :-) Very very interesting, swedish steel!
Warthunder's armor viewer makes me laugh at this thing. "Armor: 40mm RHA. Effective protection: 300mm+" rofl
You are a bit taller then him.
than*
Burak Keles Sry English isnt my first language
You're welcome
NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN nein.
nein.
Wait, what the fuck why am i comment to this?
well, kill me.
@@gamesghost2670 ok
I bet one of the best things about the S tank was that if you were advancing, you would think its just an APC and not expect it to shoot at you with a 105 gun.
Is the S-Tank based on the German ww2 concept E-10? The E-10 looks alot like it and was supposed to be equipped with actuators to influence the hight of the vehicle, it did not have a fixed gun tough.
And he has a point, the role of the vehicle comes before the hardware provided the vehicle can fulfill that role of course
a vehicle could have rotating turret but still wasn't designed to fulfill the role of a tank and isn't good at doing that role (*cough cough... i am looking at you hellcat, wolverine) and vice versa
I liked both versions top job NM
I watched both versions. I want perks . . . how about an EWO Medal?
"In 1997 Bolivian Tank Crewman Fernando Estevez binge-watched all episodes of Little House on the Prairie, while operating his TAM as a portable Broadcast Tower."
5, 10 minutes or 2 hours... so it be. Then again I was in the Ordinance Corps. and this is very interesting.
I have to admit. I got the Strv S1 in WoT and find it interesting. As a long range sniper it's amazing but it's a crap assault gun. It is also very maneuverable. I just love how it drives as fast in reverse and driving forward and the has save my ass a few times. I would really imagine that it's very much the same in real life. Looking at the design and specs of the vehicle, makes it seem as more as a defensive vehicle.
I wonder what Sweden is using now. I'd guess the Leopard 2 or Challenger.
Terry Aurand strv 112. modified leo2
If its gun were realistic, it would have a 50 shot (?) autoloader with 3 second reload. OP as it gets.
The Swedes are using a Leopard 2 variant similar to the Leopard 2A5 with local upgrades; they call it the Strv 122.
Looks like they still have the Centurion in service but only in secondary roles. Anyway I'm sure the Strv autoloader has been upgraded over the years. I guess the 103b in WoT has about a 7 second reload. So I guess thats as good as it gets.
I dont know if we got the same tank, or if it is me that cant drive it. But it doesnt look like my S1 can reverse fast. I mean for me it is like a normal tank reversing. Im happy for the armour throught! That had really saved me from time to time when I just change the angel of the armour for abit, then bounce an AP
In reality is does feel a little slower driving in reverse but I've topped out at 40 driving in reverse. I think I've topped out a 46-47 forward going down a hill.
Stefan Karlsson! Vilken lirare!
That's a great video, very interesting material.
Though I had to turn volume all the way up to be able to catch the talk.
I'd like to see more of that on other machines too.
I'm wondering, how many tanks did they drown while exercising water obstacle crossing? :)
Jag älskar S tanken
This is a purpose built tank. It was perfect for the task it was designed for. (Protecting Sweden from an invasion from the north in dense forest) But it was useless to do anything else (For which it was not designed) Whether it is good or bad depends on your perspective, what you think is the purpose of a tank.
So it was useless for making ice cream?
MaskinJunior It was built for one thing S(tug) Life...
I wouldn't want to face off with it in an open area like a dessert either. But hull down, dug in a Swedish pine tree forest waiting in ambush it is deadly still today.
Desert full of sand or dessert full of ice cream, strawberries and wafers?
Two very different kinds of ambush.
Mark Fryer Spelling is for us old world fellows who were successful in life
This should have been a prologue to the 45min video...To make it 55min video. And people would have watched it regardless. S-Tank showcase is so far the best one.
By the way, there may be a running Konig Tiger in Saumur...Do that video even if you have to steal the thing :-D
They missed a huge chance to get someone small enough to decently explore the tank.
Looking at the tank and the two people before it.
I want the 45 minute version
fires once every 3 seconds??!!! whoa.. as a defensive weapon the s-tank would have been scary!
Pretty scary on the offence too for it´s time. Sure, firing on the move isn´t really an option. But most tanks back then had really rudimentary stabilisation and were not very effective at firing on the move at anything except point blank range anyways. And that thing accelerates and comes to a stop pretty well, so advancing, stopping to fire and continuing to advance would work pretty well.
And as he said, detecting targets off to the side while on the move isn't a problem at all. The damned thing comes to a skidding stop, pointing the gun the right way faster than tanks of that time could turn their turrets anyway. :)
Indeed. It had an excellent gun as well which is very, very accurate. Together with a laser range finder and other stuff, I've seen it stop and shoot in 4-5 seconds (didn't time it.. but..). I dare to say that NONE of the other western tanks, or Soviet for that matter, could traverse the turret and shoot that fast.
Well, at least Mr Stefan was honest :)
whats the side armour like on her.. hitting it from the front the round could skim right off her.
At the time the S-tank was pretty much indestructible from the front. With the HEAT-fences mounted there was pretty much nothing that could defeat that insanely sloped frontal armour.
No tank is designed to be hit from the flank or be raped from behind. It's designed to take on other tanks head on.
Kenneth André Hansen The front is very soft to 115mm APFSDS and 125mm APFSDS can go through like paper from any practical distance. It was only enough for 100mm AP and APDS. Against HEAT, the success rate of the fences would not be very high.
Have there been tests to see what the effective armor of the frontal slope is?
Yes. There is a video on UA-cam about testing the tank against various threats from various directions.
WHERE IS THE 45 MINUTES VERSION
what I'm most interested about the s-tank is how the hell it can move in water without a proppeller like sherman DD
It just uses its tracks, like a number of other such floating vehicles. The water pressure at the bottom is denser that the water up top, which I presume gives iit the ‘grip’ and propulsion.
Thx for the info Chief.anyway the driver and commander,which position will you prefer if you alone in the tank and you want to drive and shoot
ya using tracks in water is enough to give some movement, a lot of amphibious tracked vehicles uses it and not a propeller
I prefer the long version
so how much would a simple tank cost?
i want the 90 min version....
At it's time, I think it was the most innovative tank designed to thwart an advancing Russian tank attack while the S-Tank would be dug in and picking off Russian T-62's and T-64's with ease.
There are a couple of Russian videos here on YT where they explain that they had the deepest respect for this tank. Fortunately, we never had to try it in combat.
Most likely they would have never seen any T-62s or 64s, but rather the more common T-55s of Soviet Motor Rifle divisions. As far as i understand the heavy artillery so to speak was almost exclusively reserved for the central European front.
Can anyone else not hear anything on the last half of the video?
This was almost as awkward as the M103 videos.
Tank cmndr: enemy on our left flank....!!! Turn turret and FIRE..!!
Gunner, loader n driver: WTF..!!!??
"most interesting" hhhmmmmm old chinese tanker proverb "may you serve in interesting tanks."
In World of Tanks, hits on Crew shouldn't have an effect
Where's the suggestion box? lol
little tall for a tanker, no?
... it's a tank ...........
+1
A tank designed for ambush followed immediately by a fighting retreat.
who here has stopped playing WoT and now play Battlefield 1
Just you evidently. Must be pretty boring.
barely hear it
No excuse for releasing a vid with on half the sound.
The guy he is interviewing is so awkward
we swedes have exelent english haha
English speaking people aren't that surprised anymore since they are aware of that the english level is top notch in the whole of Scandinavia (except Finland).
The S tank must by a Tank Destroyer Assault Gun
S-tank is not a tank. It is an SPG / tank destroyer. Why it is not a tank? It is not a tank because it fails to fit the definition, it cannot perform the FUNCTION of a tank.
It is only a "tank" as in a "specialized tank" - but bridge-layers and ARV are such "tanks" too.
A tank is an armored combat vehicle that:
- intended to fight in direct contact with the enemy, in offense and defense;
- combines protection, firepower and mobility;
- is capable of engaging multiple targets of multiple types at varied ranges and directions, in quick succession, while being highly mobile.
Having tracks, thick armor, 360 rotating turret and gun stabilizer providing fire-on-the-move capability etc. are all derived from that.
S-tank's firepower and mobility are mutually compromised. Therefore, it is not a tank.
There was a post I saw on FB by the director in which he was expressing amusement that folks on the Internet are saying it's not a tank, but the folks who actually designed and used it say it is...
It's worth noting that in testing against conventionally turreted vehicles such as Chieftain, not particular disadvantage was noted.
@@TheChieftainsHatch
_> the folks who actually designed and used it say it is_
And that's okay, but it's just their opinion - and opinions are unscientific. Some people in the Middle Ages referred to their swords as "big knives" or even simply "knives", but modern historians don't do that. Likewise, we don't call MP-43 a "submachinegun" either. We stick to definitions.
If it is a tank, then Hetzer or SU-85 are also tanks - no way around that.
Same folks who designed it also say it was designed to fill the role of a tank - but a tank _within Swedish defensive doctrine._
_> in testing against conventionally turreted vehicles_
Was demonstrated that it can't fire on the move, period.
And unlike other obsolete stab-lacking tanks of the period (like M60 and Leopard 1) it fundamentally cannot be fixed by upgrades.
Also, it cannot fight if immobilized. It cannot deal with two non-unidirectional threats (engage one, present frontal armor to another). The list goes on and on.
@@Conserpov Not really important to the original point but calling these swords knives is still done by historians, they normaly use the german word "Messer".
It is a tank. Designed as a tank, operated as a tank, with offensive tactic as deployed with tanks.
If it walks talks and acts like a tank, it’s a tank. The Stridsvagn 103 (which literally means “tank 103”) was used just as offensively as any turreted tank in the Swedish arsenal. During advance was capable of targeting and firing on a target faster than the turreted Centurion, because the 103 could bring its gun to bear much faster than any turret with the clutch and break manoeuvre.
If your audience lacks the attention span, then jettison your audience.
One disadvantage is that you can't fire while on the move, so it's more suited for a defensive role.
TBH firing on the move isn't something that is suggested really ever. As far as I know, it's strongly suggested to go full halt before firing.
It's not really until the modern tanks of today that they can fire effectively on the move. You have to remember that this tank is contemporary with Centurion, Chieftain, M48, M60 and the T-55. Neither of which were accurate while moving.
No tanks contemporary with the S tank fired on the move.
But sure, in the end when stabilised guns came into play it was at a disadvantage. The s tank still was capable of winning tank battles against the more advanced Leopard 2 in Swedish training exercises in the 1990’s.
*Not interested
I don't think you understand the kind of video that you are making here.
this is abuse...
Good audio...
NOT!