CAT Person T-Shirts here: everpress.com/mhv »» GET BOOKS«« » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de » Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
1972 I was a reverse driver on the 103 S! I drove back and hade the command of the radio communications ,there was a telephone outside the tank fore ho needed it!! I was educated paramedic!! On my right side there was an electric boiler where we could boild water and make coffee ☕️! The chef hade a machine gun that he could fire, and he had 360° vision!! The cannon man had two machine guns that he could shoot,these 2 could be dismantled and take with you on the ground!! Shooting was automatically and the shooter could those between different grenades!! On about 1600 meters you could hit a beer 🍺 bottle 😂 On a road 103 S could speed about 90km/tim° 2 engines, one to all the hydraulic about 250 horse power and a gas turbine to make the 103 S to go forward!! 103 S could go over floods, it took about 30 min to pull up the conwayerbelt and then get into the water, crawler make the tank go😂 I was 171 cm long, no problems with sitting in the tank😂 Shooting the 103S there was a little recoil, but you could feel it in your face 😂 That's what I remember 😂😂
Jag gjorde värnplikt som gruppchef på brobandvagn 941. Så vi brukade rulla över både Strv103 och Strv104 på olika övningar. Har själv bara kört 104'an dock, men suttit i en 103'a. Man är djupt imponerad över de svenska ingenjörer som snickrat ihop vårt försvarsmateriel. Strv103 var en fantastiskt kreativ maskin, speciellt för våra förutsättningar av försvar.
90km/h. And the S-Tank is said to be able to go as fast in reverse as forward.. Like even if in reality they only reached 80km/h on tarmac (remember this where the days before everyone carried a smartphone and able to get a GPS reading) Like.. 80-90km/h is the speed limit on most Swedish roads. Heavy lorries are still limited to 90km/h but only on highways. And with a trailer/wagon or just on a normal road? Top speed limit is 80km/h. So even before getting the engine improvements S-tank was doing the same speeds on roads as civilians do in modern cars. Most likely even able to keep up with a loaded lorry if so need be.
Man, I got very excited when I heard "This video (about the S-tank) contains Product Placement." For a moment, I wondered where exactly one would go to buy an S-tank!
Looks really sporty and a parking spot is with thing no problem! But as a German I have to refuse this vehicle! Not because it isn't german! But there is no room for 2 or more Beer Crates!
Its not big for being a post-WW2 tank so it can probably easily get a parking spot. And it is probably the closest thing to a post-war stug one could get, plus that it is over-engineered and expensive and overcomplicated design that did not attract any foreign buyers.
@@papaaaaaaa2625the front right stowing box can fit two 35 liter backpacks. So at least two big beer crates. The stowage for the lyran flare launcher on the gunner/backdriver hatch is perfect for cans. So even without the rear storage boxes there will be lot's of room for beer. Tried and tested.
There are somewhere between 20 and 30 of them on the civilian market floating around if you've got a hundred thousand dollars laying around you don't need.
With a “TrackPoint” style system, it could become a better shooter than gyro stabilized turrets. Keep the trigger pulled and it fires automatically only when it reaches the solution.
One hit to the tracks and rotation is not possible. With a turret you can at least defend yourself. And you are more flexible in aiming an firing. I guess this is why today every tank has a turret.
@@Piett_yes but you would need to shoot both before it can return fire. And that would be hard due to the targeting system/aim being suprisingly good better then most tanks with turrets. Also the s-tank is a defensiv vehicle = sniper and camper
Doctrialy the IKV 91 was more closer to a stug, IKV being infanterikanonvagn, the Swedish terminology for assault guns. And I guess German speakers will get a kick out of pretty easily being able to tell what infanterikanonvagn means.
@@Notmyname1593 "vagn" is more similair to "vehicle" in this context. It's a term that can be applied to anything from a pram to a railway car, depending on prefix.
If you happend to be in southern Sweden we probably can arrange a testdrive of the S-tank for you. The one you have in the thumbnail is our showtank and is located at my house. 😌 fully operational in good working condition
A Swedish friend has driven this tank in his military service. He told me, that there was always hydraulic oil flowing around or below your feet: obviously, the highly stressed tubing tended to leak a bit.
@@michaelpettersson4919in Sweden? Scandinavians are fairly tall in general. The guy Bernard brought (I forgot his name) is saying it is cramped for his 170, not that many Scandinavian men are under 170, even back then.
Its worth saying that all (or almost all, not the instructors) tank-drivers in Swedish army was conscripts. When they select people for position they considered physical attributes, mental attributes and experience. People that was really short was typically selected for tank duties. The tank was built with this in mind . Later (really very tale end with the S tank) when female conscripts was alowed, tank driver was quite common posting. Also a peculiarity with how the Swedish defense worked. If war ever broke out they would have 10-15 person on each post to choice from. For some post like guard or commando the division could easily be expanded. But with stuff like tank, artillery aircraft where there was a very specific amount of equipment. So the officers would choice who actually preformed the best to call in in case of war , having really skilled drivers and shooters. Not only that, they would have shift crew doing sort of a night/day shift thing where they could use well rested crews and do a 24/7 kind of operation. Suitability was there for top priority. If you lose one tank, you lose combat effectiveness of 2 or 3 crews. The ability to go into combat with two engines was vital. Because if there was a breakdown or a fail hit to a engine the other engine could limp the tank back. If either the guner or the comrade was hit, the other crew member could drive the tank back. This also solve the repair problem. While the tank was built to be able to be repaired by a crew of 3 (or even two people in a pinch). a double crew of 6 would do the work much more effectively. There was also the notion that there would not be able to get spare parts in time if something broke. So the diesel engine is the same as used in a popular tractor at the day (was later updated with a newer tractor diesel) And the gasturbine was the same as a popular helicopter. So if the engine broke down they could drive it up to a tractor repair shop and take the spare part from there, or in worst case just scavenge it of a tractor. This is a philosophy Swedish armed forces use to this day. For instance both the CV90 and the CB90 use a engine that is heavily based on a Scania truck engine. While its not 100% identical, most components are the same
The dual engines had many reasons. The most crucial one I have go guess is simply that without engine power the tank is completely useless for anything. It needs engine power to turn the hull and aim the guns! Like even the Mause/KV2 with a turret big and heavy enough to not be able to turn parked in the wrong place due to needing relatively level ground to rotate the turret. They still had a turret! But in the design of the S-Tank everything is built around the low profile hull traversal gun. It so happened to be the first masse produced turbine engine tank. It makes it able to operate on dual fuel sources. (multi-fuel that works) It has a diesel engine meant to run constantly. (most tanks end up needing to run some kind of engine for radio anyways) And the turbine engine to give as much power to weight as possible for maneuvering. But the tank was under powered and really needed the turbine running even at low speeds especially in case of being truly in combat. It also helped that the gun barrel is taking center stage splitting the engine space into two parts. So even if it had 2 diesel engines it would be for good reasons why it is dual engine. The tank truly is Swedish since it only fits for the Swedish needs. It was never used in real combat. It was obsoleted by stabilized on the move firing. It was under powered and very expensive. Cramp and specialized. But considering the culture and the time it was designed and used? The way it was meant to operate? Sure it was in many ways a failure since it proved to be under powered and advancements in gun/fire systems made the protection and no turret just not suitable for chaining combat/tech. It just was not going to fly building a new gen of them. It was a failure and change in times. But someone from Sweden having driven on older purpose built roads narrow and everything. Knowing the terrain and tactics the S-tanks where meant to operate? As a lorry driver imagining trying to advance into Sweden with a tank or just supply truck? The amount of places a S-Tank can poke up and lay in wait to fire 3 rounds in rapid succession (2sec reliable auto-loader or something crazy). Like I would not want to be in the lead position of a convoy. Let alone trying to cross in terrain where a S-Tank can sneak undetectable up from anywhere. Like imagine what a group S-tanks are able to do to a group of vehicles trying to take ground? Tactics aside of fire 3 and fall back. Given a chance a single S-tank had the fire rate, ammo and positioning for a single commander to level a platoon or a hole road convoy attempting to get passed it. Before any turret is able to find and start turning the right way the S-tank would be gone and finding a new place to set up. The S-tank fits the Swedish woods as much as the Swedish Moose! But it is not without flaws. The S-tank is a Swedish tank. It is not and never built to special operations or anything we imagine nowadays. It was meant to rapidly deploy and retreat with as little as possible to aim for. And if the S-tank was hit? It was meant to be able to take it. Even a freaking nuke blast. It was meant to defend the country even to the last person standing. But it never was used for what it was built to do. Only trained with. Like allot of Swedish military machines in the Swedish service. Outside of the first tanks Sweden owned. They where used agenst the civilians in the city XD Today Sweden has highways and older roads are almost not used. But the roads up in the north part of Sweden and said terrain was made for the S-tank. Or rather the S-tank was made with the roads to actually be effective. If not more effective then any other tank possible for the defensive role. Yet still able to serve as a main battle tank if need be. Just as long as gun stabilization was not a thing S-tank was just the right tank for the job.
@@TheDiner50 "The dual engines had many reasons. " I think that is asking the wrong question. Of cause there is a load of benefit of using two engines. But the real question is why no other tanks was doing that.... ... and when looking closer at it, that is sort of kind of not really true. A lot of medium and heavy tanks had electric battery operated tower servos. Its not universal, but pretty common. And that kind of gives us, at least part of the answer. The second engine was designed to be a stationary engine. It was really designed to aim the tank when the gas turbine was turned of. If we look at the fairly low power of it with a 240hp diesel engine compared to the similar weight AMX-50 with 680hp engine. To my understanding the diesel engine was originally even smaller. That is true for some older tanks, having a smaller motorcycle engine for stationary usage and a large V12 for moving. To my understanding it was designed as a smaller engine, but it was getting bigger and bigger untill the physcal volume of the engine was pretty much the same as the gas turbine. Still its a nice design with two equally sized engine compartments.
The yellow warning sign on the gun says "If the diesel engine (technically it says "piston engine" but I assume they mean the diesel engine) is shut down (or disabled, it doesn't specify, just says "stopped"), the tank cannot be braked using the brake pedal. And the lower text says "use the handbrake."
I've had the fortune of getting to drive our stridsvagn 103C at Hässleholms museum several times in the terrain. And it's absolutely great fun to drive! The controlls are very easy to learn, and the vehicle is alot more nimble than most people realize. It's a turret on tracks, not a tank without a turret to be honest. With a well traines crew you can drive, stop, accuire the target and fire very very quickly. And the strc 103 is perfectly suited to utilize the terrain perfectly both on the offensive aswell as on the defensive.
Also a requirement here was to be able to cross most bridges in sweden. Being almost 1/3 lighter than all opponent tanks one would have a tactical advantage where an enemy would be forces to use only sertain bridges or non at all even.
I'd like to say the soviets by the 1960s had worked out how to cross a river without having to worry about a bridge but we've seen Russia is still working on that...
@@AsbestosMuffins Deep wading is incredibly dependent on a couple of things; the depth of a river as one might guess, but also the type of riverbed, and the banks of the river. Crossing the river by driving ain't too great when you get stuck at the middle or can't climb up a steep bank. I'm not saying it's not doable, but just having a bridge tends to be much nicer.
Strid "streit" vagn "wagen". well basically streitswagen or kampfwagen. so i can see why people makes this error. But there is of course no "en" on the end of the word. I think its more annyoing how people butcher the name Gripen with "Grippen" (Greif, Griffin) or things like that. But on the other hand do I have no idea why we have to develop our own overcomplicated words for things. We could say "tanks" instead of "stridsvagn". And naming planes strange words that not even Swedes ever use (like "Viggen") is probably not so smart if one wants to export weapons.
First I want to comment before others do that MHV misspoke at the beginning when he said 1979. The correct date is 1997 as the text indicates. English dates seem very backwards to German speakers. Second, for those of you who use freedom units like me and not metric, Tobias is saying that he is about 5 foot seven inches tall, so indeed not a particularly tall person like a certain American tanker who speaks with an Irish accent. Third, Tobias' comments about the ergonomics are extremely interesting. It's one thing to get Chris from MAH to say that 1950s jets have "bits and bobs cluttering up the cockpit". It's another thing entirely to have a professional comment on layouts of these older pieces of military equipment.
As soon as I saw that date mixup, I looked at the comments and found what I had expected. It fascinates me how such simple things can be different in different languages, even different societies speaking the "same" language.
"English dates seem very backwards to German speakers." English dates are like the Freedom units incomprehensible to the rest of the world lol For what possible reason would the MONTH be the most important piece of information?
@@johanmetreus1268 Don't confuse MMDDYY with English. That's an Americanism; britain uses DDMMYY like normal people. When we're not using ISO standard YYYYMMDD.
I was a platoon leader on anti tank company on TOW2, the S tank was always very hard to find in the sights, that flat profile made it much harder to find the a conventional tank ... The year i did basic training was also the year Sweden had tryouts on what new tank to buy - M1, Leclerc and the Leopard 2 was there .... We guarded them at nights - with live ammo ...
This tank is SO much older than the tanks the driver is comparing to. It should perhaps be compared to a Leopard 1, also designed in the 50’s. During tests, the Strv 103 (Stridsvagn S) was however completely superior to the Leopard. It could detect more targets and come to shoot much faster. It was also tested in the US against the M60 and the 103 could fire a lot more accurate but was slightly slower to fire the first shot. In the last “battle” (exercise) the 103 fought, six 103’s went up against an equal number of Leopards. All leopards were knocked out but only one 103 was lost.
Really interesting look at the S-Tank from the perspective of a tanker siting in it. Thank you Tobias. It was good to hear about how it would have been used.
The Swedish car show praised those containers when they did "consumer testing" of the vehicle in 1986... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rYndemsemQ8.html
I really feel this form of tank is highly underrated. MBT's are big and impressive and take all the press photos but these vehicles are really hard to find and can hide in places tank stick out.
@@mats66 nope. Modern tanks have chanses to survive some shots, this tank - absolutely not. Even the worst modern tank - Merkava 4, in fact, an infantry fighting vehicle with a tank gun, takes a hit better.
Always been my favourite tank, all categories, hands down!!! Me being Swedish doesnt make me biast in any way. For real, its an amazing tank. Speaking of stabilized guns.. It cant BE MORE stable than on this tank. Its welded on the chassi lol
You should make a version where the whole tank is stabilized, and you can fire on the move by drifting. Or maybe combine tracks and mecanum wheels so that the tank can drive in any direction.
the point about the gas turbine is not really correct, the piston engine was used to run the hydraulics which allowed the gas turbine to idle and take less fuel but this was a combined powerpack with both engines running in unison for 90% of the time. While the two engines can to some extent operate independently they are still connected to the same gearbox (situated in front of the engine) so any hit to that area will mobility kill the tank regardless of one engine still working. So tldr thats probably an overstated point. Also the external stowage bins are missing from this vehicle so the storage isnt as bad as you make it out to be in the video.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized OP is wrong. The barrel splitting the engine compartment in two necessitated the dual engine. Just like with the M1 Abrams, the problem with gas turbines is that while very efficient at full throttle, they use almost as much fuel (~70%) when idle as they do under full load. Thus a diesel engine was selected to keep the systems running and the tank to move at "low speed" (exactly what that means isn't defined in the sources), with the gas turbine providing power when quick acceleration or high speed was needed. The problem here is that the turbine takes time to start and wind up to combat power, so whenever a state of readiness was needed, both engines were kept running regardless. The gearbox was located forward of the engines as stated, but lower in the hull making a hit there less likely. What makes it a bit of a moot point is that crews (like everywhere else) tend to leave the tank anyway if someone is poking holes in it,
I was hoping to visit the Australian Tank Museum & visit one of these yesterday. They're closed for refurbishment until late next year. Luckily, I visited a few years ago & got to see it.
I was surprised it was recoilless, so Iooked up the wiki. Seems being recoilless allowed it to shoot once every 3 seconds! Looks like the Ferrari of cold war tanks.
The recoiling part of the gun is at the very back of the tank, where the auto-loader sits. It is most definately not a recoilless gun. An autoloader fixed to the gun allows it to fire 3 shots in six seconds (ie, one shot every three seconds).
Task: "Okay, we need a light enough low profile tank with autoloader, ammo hidden somewhere out of the way and with good protection in prepared position. And let's show off our industrial knowhow a bit." Soviet answer: T-64/T-72 Swedish answer:
S-tank can be driven by just 1 person and can drive just as fast backwards as forward, and its rate of fire is 15 shots per minute compared to 8 for T-72 and 6 for T-64 and 4 shots per minute for T-62. Its sloping of its armor is unmatched. And it also contain many clever engineering solutions. I think it is smart to use jerry cans with fuel as extra side armor for example.
@@nattygsbordYet the 103 became obsolete with the invention of effective gun stabilization and long rod penetrators, where as the T-64 and T-72 are still in use.
@@lavrentivs9891 Because the Swedish army have scaled down its military and see no point in keeping museum pieces unlike russia which never throws away anything. It all reminds me of people with hoarding behaviour problems that keeps all kinds of junk and never throws anything away no matter how useless. Stridsvagn 103 was not replaced because it was bad. It was replaced because better tanks were available. The bolsheviks on the other hand have not built any modern tank as good as Leopard2 or M1 Abrams that is a good replacement for their old junk. Their military have been in a chronic lack of funds to modernize their military so they have been forced to keep old weapons in use. For the sake of argument, If the choice is between an upgraded Stridsvagn-103D or a Leopard 1 or a T62 - then I definatly prefer to sit in a Stridsvagn 103. It was taken out of service 25 years ago, but if the Swedes for some reason wanted to cling on to this tank for a strange reason, then I expect it to have a 120mm gun attached to it, extra armor + ERA, plus barracuda camouflage net that would make it a sneaky sniper with more survivability in this war. It would probably still be unwise to use it in frontal attacks. But it would be a good ambush tool, and it could offer much needed infantry support with its gun and high rate of fire - as it would do like most other tanks are doing in ukraine stay away from the frontline and fire some shots from over 1000 meters away from the enemy. In a way would it be used more than a StuG than as a tank. But on the other hand have this war not seen much succesful tank action. There are no big open areas without minefields and trenches that could be used for manouver warfare where tanks comes to their own right. The S-tank would come more to its own right in offensive warfare in such terrain, and probably even more so the Leopard-1.
With a StuG tatt on my arm, you know I made an Airfix or 2 as a kid of this bad boy. Going to grab another t-shit, thanks Herr Kast. The StuG life chose me.
So the gun DOES actually recoil, I have seen video footage of an S-tank firing and you can see a little bit of recoil. However I assume that the recoiling part of the gun and the entire recoil assembly is enclosed *inside* that white metal tube you see in the fighting compartment, so the crew is indeed safe from getting caught on it or anything
Yes I do think the gun did recoil, but not so it was noticeable inside the tank. I am not convinced that a gun without recoil is necessary for the high rate of fire as is stated in the English Wikipedia page. It is rather because the gun was fixed in elevation that made the auto loader so fast in comparison to let's say a T-72.
@@Svenmpa The gun recoils, but since the barrel is fixed in the chassis, the force is transmitted down through the suspension that absorbs it and returns the gun to position. The extremely high rate of fire (technically 2.5 s per round was possible) was due to the extremely effective autoloader system... which was only feasible if the gun breech could be kept in a fixed place in relation to the autoloader during the process.
S-tank was still in use well past '79. I saw one on the streets of Gothenburg during exercises in the mid 80's.The S-tank was outmoded by 1) stabilised guns allowing firing on the move (it was anticipated but computers were still in their infancy during the design stage, so it was incorrectly assumed to be a long way off) and 2) WP armour piercing rounds which would've defeated its sloped armour, 3) engine reliability. The installed engine was too weak for the vehicle weight. 4) size of the main gun. Developnent took too long. The autoloader was fantastic. During testing in the UK, it was apparently shown that the need to halt and shoot did not leave it disadvantaged against other tanks of the era. The performance of Israeli tanks vs Syrians in the Golans comes to mind....
I think that was a suggestion, not a fast rule. A lot of "regulations" and "rules" in armed forces are actually only guidelines subject to the discretion of the leadership, but become treated as sacrosanct by many over time for want of imagination. Also bear in mind, Sweden does have a taller-than-average population, while their AFVs tend to be smaller for economic reasons. Thus, it is not surprising that someone felt it wise to suggest, via the guidelines advising use of men of a lesser height, that commanders don't assume that just any man will comfortably fit into the AFVs.
Imagine sitting in this, hull down on high alert for a few days. Not much room to stretch your limbs, nowhere to lie down inside the tank that I can see to rotate crew sleep. Would be very tough.
The S-tank was actually a brilliant design for SWEDEN. It should be kept in mind that when the S-tank was being designed, outside the big cities like Stockholm and Goteburg, most Swedish "highways" were narrow, winding, two-lane roads through dense forests. Although not aligned formally with NATO, Sweden expected their likely opponent would be, of course, the Soviet Union, either making amphibious or even airborne landings across the Baltic from Estonia or Latvia, or going overland from the Soviet side of Lappland, probably through Finland, which also had pretty much all narrow two-lane roads through dense forests. Simply put, the typical MBT with a long "pecker" often didn't have a lot of "swinging room"! By dispensing with the turret altogether and making the S-tank able to readily aim its fixed gun, the resulting package was low and very well-protected. It was figured that a platoon of S-tanks would lie in wait for an advancing column of Soviet T-55s or T-62s, then, once they'd sighted their targets, unleash their 105 mm main guns on the hapless Soviet vehicles, then, with the secondary driver able to likewise drive the tank BACKWARDS, not unlike "Oddball's" (the recently-passed Donald Sutherland) Sherman that could go equally fast forwards OR backwards (that "Moriairty", the late Gavin McLeod, was indeed a "mechanical genius"), scooting out of range before any survivors of the ambushed Soviet column, if any, could retaliate! Although that's the classic role of a Tank DESTROYER, the Swedes insisted the Stridsvagn S-103 was indeed a "tank". However, all the upsides for the Swedish Army aside, this vehicle simply had no role outside its country of build. Sure, FINLAND could have used it, quite well, indeed, but the post-WWII "Finlandization" process meant that the Finns wouldn't do something like that, lest they give the Soviets a pretext to come stomping in. Whether Sweden would have formally come to Finland's aid in such a scenario is problematic; but like in the 1939-1940 Winter War, who's to say some "volunteers" wouldn't have come over, their S-tanks festooned with those Finnish swastikas?
I remember reading in a book about Swedish tanks (I'm a Swede) that STRV 103 (s-tank) was put up against the Strv 121 (leopard) in an exercise did their tactics prove successful, I am not sure if it was because we just got Leopard or if it was so that our tactics were good. but of 4 leopards the Strv 103 beat all of them with one lost.
I was fortunate enough to see one of these ina museum a while ago! I’m not really a tank nerd like I am a space nerd so I’m not sure what version it was but it did still look like a cheese wedge
I've heard tankers say the commander's cupola was excellent, even by today's standards in many ways. Maybe it was hard to assess without powering the tank up.
No need to insult either Stug or S-tank. Both were excellent vehicles of their time. StuG because of its simplistic design that allowed mass production of a vehicle with a mobile chassi with great traverse speed that could carry a big gun. It had excellent optics, low siluette and a good kill ratio and was a surprisingly good vehicle for its time. Definatly on my top 3 list of the best tanks of WW2. S-tank, was the best tank in the world when it entered service in 1967. It have many clever engineering solutions. Its fire power was without equal as it could target an enemy tank faster than any other tank of its day, its gun had ecellent penetration and its rate of fire per minute was twice that of other tanks of its day. Its armor was super sloped which gave it superior protection to other tanks. Its mobility was quite good as it could drive backwards just as fast as forward - something that no Soviet tanks from the cold war was ever able to do. It is also the only tank that could be driven by just 1 crew member.
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 tank that was most difficult to detect. Without turret 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 tank. 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 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 tank 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 / turret was developed so that it was possible to shoot during movement and that the commander could automatically send target indications to the gunner, 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 gunner 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. Do you guess what my nationality is?
dude, taking a former tanker with you to do walk arounds and sit ins in various museum pieces is gold. literal youtube gold. more of this, please. i don't care how much it costs me, just make more! with your knowledge on military history and a former tanker's views and knowledge on the practicallity and useability you have an amazing package.
One issue with this vehicle I've not seen discussed is mobility. It could only climb ca 80 cm high wall. Further, with a fixed gun overshooting the chassis by so much on a short wheel base traversing ditches becomes an issue,
The things with this tank is that it was designed mostly as a defensive weapon. Sweden was obviously worried about the possibility of a Soviet invasion, and the assumption was that the Ruskies would come by sea and deploy tanks at our very long shoreline to the baltic sea. The idea was to set the S-tanks up for ambush by hiding them ahead of the enemy invaders tanks. The S-tank could use its hydraulics to dig it self down, and also create a dirt wall to hide itself behind. They would fire at the enemy as described in the video, then reverse at max speed and set up another ambush.
It was actually designed to be used as offensive as any other tank. But over time, when other tanks developed better stabilizing systems for their guns, the preferred use changed to a more defensive one, leaving the offensive to the conventional Stridsvagn 104 (Centurion):
Really good point I wonder if the S-tank can handle Vladimir Putin's 2015 service entry T-14 Armata because it's deployed typically with the tanks that the S-tank was designed to go up against T-72 T-80 & T-90 tanks.
No, strv 103 can't stand up against discarding sabot projectiles. It was designed to resist hollow charge ammunition, and was invulnerable to all types existing at the time of introduction, in the front.
@@apersson850 You are ofc right, the tank was a tank and as such was designed to do tank stuff. It was later on deemed more fit to use in the way i described above. So in a way we are both correct.
Is firing on the move so important? The combat footage i've seen rarely shows tanks firing on the move, and when they do it's at low speed. Wouldn't you trade it for, say, 25% more protection?
Not only that, the turret could be swinged and engaged on move without much trouble. Each instance a tank need to stop to aim its gun was the most vulnerbale time of that tank. With turret stablization, that weakness was eliminated. Most of the time tank to be engaged, they should be on the move that drastically reduce the hit chace(remember the modern fcs and homing at missile were still not around tet) So, yes. The capability of engaging target on the move made tanks much better 25% more protection may not worth 70-80% harder to hit.
Being able to reverse at speed, like the S-tank (which the T-72 can't) is more important than fire on the move. It would be relatively easy to develop stabilized optics for the S-tank which would allow tracking of the target. Once a firing solution is found the 'auto shoot' command could be given. This would rapidly brake the tank and skid skid turn the tank and fire even before the tank had finished bouncing from the stop. Depending on speed it would only take 3 seconds.
@@williamzk9083 For TD like S-Tank, maybe. For MBT like T-72, it is important but not that important. The main defense are armor and forward mobility not backward. LOL, u are talking about 2000s kind of optics that required integration with its drive system. Not cheap or easy at all!!! S-Tank is a 60s tank. It is outdated already. Just buy new modern MBT.
@@huntermad5668 the innumerable failures of the t72 tank in the Ukraine conflict are very obvious. There are unable to reverse and find a favourable protected position so take up to 30 seconds to turn around and then get hit during the turn. They can’t hide or withdraw behind to terrain quickly so they get destroyed by ATGM. Agility is more important than armour. The carousel magazine for the Autoloader is open within the crew compartment and often causes turret tosses with death of the entire crew. The turret stabilisation system of the T 72 series is not even effective. Apart from the smoothbore gun which is now out of date and crude ceramic armour , there’s nothing much to be said for the T72. It’s gun elevation is even worse than the S tank. Would that the Russian system had of retired this flawed and dated weapon as Swedes had courage to do
I was there and remember when the swedish army tried out Abrams, Leopard and Leclerc. The officers were suddenly honest about what they thought about the S-tank: a band cannon!
Very interesting. I just want to point out one thing though when it comes to the comment that its only fired when standings still. As I have understood it was for a long time the fastest tank to aquire and hitting a target appearing on the side. As I understand it was the fastest untill the balanced turret guns came. To see a target on the side and then managong to hit it one need to beable to follow the target or quickly aquire it again when stationary. I dont remember the data but it was only maybe 3 or 4 seconds from sighting to fiering of the first round. Also interesting it was the first tank with alaser range finder installed ensuring first round hit.
It was supposed to have a laser range finder, but from what I can find out, it was not installed until the REMO (renovation/modification) to 103C, most likely due to cost cuts to fit the initial production into budget.
@@matso3856 reasonable thesis, but since it takes quite some effort to do the actual installation (this was long before plugandplay systems) I am more inclined to look at the CV9040 gun stabilisation system, that was already fully developed for the first generation, but rejected in favour of increasing the fleet by 15%
The S-tank is perhaps the best tank designed for the Swedish ( and Finnish) "defensiv" doctrine in said countrys plus Norway. For offensive action in say Germany or Ukraine not so much, but it wasn't made for that so moot point.
The Swedish armoured doctrine was fairly offensive. At a glance basically foot-infantry bogs down and contains the landing then the armoured brigades attack and throw them into the baltic. It was used in exactly the same doctrinal way as the centurion tanks Sweden had.
@@paulgoransson9489 I think this myth will live on in the english speaking world , they seem to just read half the doctrine , which is to engage and slow down the enemy , and then blissfully ignore the second half which is the counter offensive once the mobilization was complete
Yes, that might also be a reason for why it is so cramped for the driver but not the commander, because the reverse driver was added pretty late. Although technically the tank itself didn't need the third guy, he was added mainly for logistics reasons, a big one being so there would be three persons available if the tank threw a track and needed field repairs (since two people would be too few to do that effectively). (Also the third guy would help out somewhat with things like guard shifts, radio communication and suchlike, convincing those not affected enough by the field repair argument.)
Since the main feature was its ability to lay down a withering hail of fast fire and then reverse like a bat out of hell, I'd say it's more like a machinegun nest with legs.
Tank S has no turret. So it would be interesting to see a duel between Stridsvagn S and T72. The carriage was a passive weapon that would be buried so that only the barrel was visible, and then wait for enemy armor
The S tank turn the forest around when looking for a target. This is a very good tank to use in a forest. the barrel is mostly protected. @@P6009D the blade infront of the tank is for digging in and hide.
In Tanks, this thing is freakishly ridiculous when its set up in a great position that it takes about 3-5 shots before you seriously need to get the hell out of dodge to a new position to sit down and shoot at. I would really like to know if the Swedes trained all three on how to S tank solo when the need arises because that would be awesome. Accessing the engine on this tank though, as seen in Chieftain's vid, is less awesome.
If you had taking it out for a ride you could understand how great this tank are. Oh but you can’t because the panzerguys in Munster destroyed the drive train while towing the S because they lack knowlege about the tank.
A more accurate description is really that it's a hull less tank as it's more like the turret is driving around by itself. It's not like it's bad at turning and aiming, it's actually faster turn rate then even modern tanks got on the turret.
@@znail4675 I'd like to add that TD are only used on the defensive , and this one was made to go on the offensive after the mobilization was complete. It also had rounds to engage other targets then tanks unlike TD.
I always wondered why they didn't include some limited horizontal articulation for the gun. Then you could adjust the elevation (via the suspension) and attitude of the gun without starting the engine and driving the tank. The cramped interior space would make that completely impossible, though.
@@mats66 Exactly, the elevation is adjusted by the suspension, which is why you can adjust the elevation while standing still. But to do even the slightest sideways adjustments, you need to actually drive the tank (which always bothered me). Maybe the confusion comes from me using the term "horizontal articulation" and "attitude" in place of "left-to-right movement".
It's not needed. During American trials, it was observed that the Strv 103 was far more accurate than the M60A1E3, both from a stationary position and while having to stop before firing, but it did take on average 0.5 seconds longer before the target was engaged. On the other hand, Norwegian trials showed that the 103 was faster spot and engage targets compared to the Leopard 1, both when stationary and whilst moving and having to stop to fire.
@@ShermanStrike I didn't expect it to be only 0.5 seconds. I guess there really isn't much of a difference between the rotation speed that the tank tracks and the turret ring can get you. However, the noise of the engine is another factor I felt uncomfortable about. But then again, the Swedish doctrine was to book it backwards out of their firing position immediately after firing, and the shot itself is louder than the engine. So I guess noise is also only an issue a few short seconds before the shot is fired.
@@Pystro I'm not so sure that's a problem. During military games in Kvarn, 6 Leopard 2A4's were put up against 6 Strv 103's as a mockup defensive battle. The Leopard 2's only managed to identify and hit one 103 before all Leopards had been defeated. They failed to spot the 5 remaining 103's, despite having a technological advantage.
