4:07 That roar it makes sounds really menacing and cool. I love these old documentaries without stupid action music, special effects and frantic editing
In 1968, two 103s were tested at the British armour school in Bovington,which reported that "the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain tank. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." It has also been tested that it can fire more accurately than the Leo 1 and M60,but 0.5 sec slower
It summarizes everything in the end. It is not an offensive tank, it's a defensive tank. Essentially a movable cannon. A terrible tank, but a great movable cannon.
Egor Rorvik wrong. They Will perforate the UFP of the Strv 103 at combat ranges if it just has that angle but as the strv 103 can angle it's armor upwards so that the du apfsds ricochets
@@thurbine2411 i think that any armor today- M1a4 or T72b3, cannot withstand a shell. That is the reason every one is upgraiding with active protection, because pure thickness and composition of a material is not enough to stop a uranium shell that can melt over 4000mm of composit armor layers
Shells are made with stabilisatores - kinda lika an octopus that deploys its tenticals upon impact to normalize the impact to any slope, i think that manpowered vehicles are a thing of the past tbh
2. It can't fire in any other direction than forward, but it CAN turn the whole tank to get a bearing on target much faster than any other tank of that day could turn its turret! And when it does have the gun bearing towards the enemy - it also has it FRONT armour towards the enemy, which makes it even harder to defeat. Remember that the 105mm gun was 1,5 meters longer than any other tanks, it could hit a lot harder and more accurate!
I cant believe im answering to a 16 year old comment but i believe is a similar concept as a bullpup rifle. You can have a longer barrel in the same amount of space
@@ashmr.b3386 yes. I'm not know lot about tank. But, even with gyro, aim when move seems not worth it. If that 90 or Abrams should do that, keep working. Cuz S tank have small siluet. That will make this tank harder to aim. Especially when it is moving.
I had a good friend who was a crewman on a swedish S-tank, he liked it a lot and said that it was very accuarate. He did say that it was limited on occasion due to the lack of turret though.
This is the best situational and patriotic tank in the world! Made only for the conditions that its country required at a specific time and for a specific strategy. Spoiler: in the 1990´s when the Swedish army could purchase a few of the Soviet tanks the S-tank was supposed to counter, there was a rude awakening that any of those Soviet tanks could penetrate the tank from the front out the back, no matter the theoretical perfect angle the S-tank was designed with. But i stick to my love for this incredible tank anyway, especially for the great thinking, professionalism and intended functionality that was put into its design and construction.
The United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway have all evaluated Strv103 and their own main tanks. They all have good evaluations of this tank, and some performances are even better. If any soviet tank like you said could easily penetrate the Strv103, this tank would not have been built
@@artilleryarmorbeerThis tank predates APFSDS technologies and the powerful 120 and 125mm smoothbore cannons, so it is not at all surprising that it only serves as a target for duck shooting in conflicts against tanks more modern than it and with larger smoothbore cannons.
I fell in love with this tank when I was just a kid. It's still my favorite, just because it's so freakin' cool. But I'd never fight in it against a well-funded state of the art military. Almost any top-attacking AT weapon would obliterate the s-tank in one go. Reactive armor wouldn't even save you. If I can't attack first on the move, I'll die trying to ambush an invader, because if you can be seen before you attack, you are dead these days. But how cool is this machine?!
theres alot of tanks that are like that... and theres even tanks that are actual boats(amphibious armored vehicles) so yeah... swimming tanks are common
Being a Swedish-American, I'm almost required to love this tank! I never met a Minnesota Swede who didn't puff up with pride at this genius Swedish military science acheivement. (we still think of Sverige as the Home Country, US Patriots though we certainly are) The S Tank concept is still 100% valid; if I were the leader of some fictitional country, purchasing AFV's for the defensive role, I would pay Sweden to put the 103C back into FULL production!!!!
At the end of its lifetime, the Swedish army performed some tests with T-72s bought from GDR. Firing into the front, slat armor and all, the APDS went clean through the S-tank and hit the concrete behind it. Since the T-72 itself is obsolete today, I would _not_ recommend reviving the S-tank.
@CaptHawkeye We had conventional tanks in service alongside the S tanks that could have been used in more offensive roles if needed. We had some 350 Centurion tanks and 225 Strv m/74, which was a Strv m/42 upgraded with a new turret and a longer gun. So in total 865 tanks including the S tank.
Imagine the S tank coming back today...Composite armour too. The Swedish designed a gem with this vehicle, think of all the weight saved by not having a turret and all the armour with it. It had 40mm of armour at best but at the angle is was set it was like a battleship belt lol
I've designed a fictional tank which houses everything (crew and controls) in the turret and lacks a true "hull" minus the treads suspended below it. The engine is suspended in an armored compartment below it. To keep the driver from becoming confused if the turret is turned, his position is in the center located within the shaft where the turret revolves around so he always faces forward. I have a few blueprints of it if you people are interested.
people get so hung up on how sick it was on defense that they seem to overlook this: a vehicle this agile and with this level of protection and firepower and accuracy and observation would have been very nasty on offense as well
@Bullzeye95 Back in the days it must have been pretty hard to take out :) It´s still a impressive machine allthough it´s a 35 year old tech. With some upgrades it could, as you say, be a major force multiplier.
The Abrams had 120mm starting in the mid-80s. However, the older vehicles, probably in reserve formations, had 105mm. There are still some M1IPs in the National Guard that are only used for driver's training.
In It's last "war" the S-Tank fought, 6 of them stod against 6 Leopard Mk 1 and the 103 took out ALL of them and only lost one of there own. And yet Sweden decided to buy the "Leopard" from Germany. This "war" took place at "Kvarn" practice field in Sweden in 1997. Of the 302 "S-Tanks" ever made, 39 of them are preserved around the world.
yes we bought the Leopard 2, not Leopard 1, and that was only after testing one of our own designs first (search for project Stridsvagn 2000) but our government at the time said it was cheaper to buy Leo2's instead of building your own. i think that was the wrong move that we did that. but what can you do...
dont forget that the leopard 2s that was bought were also mounted with a shorter barrel for the purpose of mobility/turret traversing in forested areas. And by 1997 the S-tank was obsolete, leo 2s being purchased was also a show of good will since sweden is allied to NATO not a part of NATO.
These tanks are still valuable given Russian usage of T-64 reserves. Baltic countries can utilize this tank. This tank can be retrofitted with an anti-tank missile.
@TroubleEngineer85 Well the S tank presented a far lower profile while dug down or in hiding, plus, the T-72 had such a crammed interior that the maximum height of the crewmembers were set to 160 cm (5'2). A country with such a small population as Sweden could never afford excluding such a large portion of the annual conscripts to become tank crewmen.
The gun in the S tank is armed with a 105mm gun, probobly somewhat the same as the british L7. Since its rifled, the gun itself is probobly more accurate then the modern smoothbore 120mm guns, like the M1A2&Leopard2 series, but then they use more advanced aiming systems than the S. This vehicle is outdated as it is. But its a sweet concept. I surely hope to see more like this in the future. Assault guns have always worked out nice. Thanks a lot for the post btw.
While it is true that it can not fire on the move, i have heard said from guys who actualy crewed it that it was quite possible for a good crew to go from full spead ahead to rounds on target in 10-15 seconds. Or even less, depending on crew skill and terrain.
If you've ever played a tank simulator you would know all the benefits this tank would provide. Still the weakness was that it was hard to be offensive with it. But in any case that would rarely happen if an invasion would occur during the cold war.
No all tanks in the game are 1960s and before. No stab in any WW1 or WW2 tank. I joined the US Army in 1979 and they were still firing from the short halt technic.
And everything can pen your Strv 103 regardless of your armor slope. because nothing says realistic like a shell punching right through the thickness equivalent of 192-337mm.
@agustusson All 4 armored brigades were to mobilize assemble and go into position in southern sweden. There is a lot of forest there too. Though some S-tanks might have been stationed in northern sweden to reinforce there. the location of the armour regiments tell you where they planned to use them.
Sorry, I was referring to those tanks, that made up the front line tanks in the 2:nd and 7:th armoured brigades, back at the time when I myself served in the army (26:th armoured brigade). There are indeed some saved for historical reasons. At Pansarmuséet in Axvall they have Stridsvagn 103 on display, for example.
А долго не надо ...напомни ка, сколько танкам отведено жизни.....вооооттт...4-5 минут....так что пЭтЭшить он сможет от обороны, как и задумывалось....считай это не танк, а ПТ
Just a question, isn't the S-tank very innacurate at long range because it lacks precise aiming? I mean you can't aim very precisely with the entire hull, or has it a slight traverse for the tank?
@SgtDrDeath Actually no ballistic calculator on the 103c only a LASER,that we did not need, due to its fantastic gun L62. Politician´s decided that instead of stabilazing the tank it was to be equipped with LASER. Under 2000m you dont need a LASER on that tank. Battlefield ranges are rearly longer than that in Sweden
they wont add amphibious vehicles or at least wont make it so you can go through water, there are already amphibious vehicles in the game and still they drown when u drive them into water
they wont add amphibious vehicles or at least wont make it so you can go through water, there are already amphibious vehicles in the game and still they drown when u drive them into water
they wont add amphibious vehicles or at least wont make it so you can go through water, there are already amphibious vehicles in the game and still they drown when u drive them into water
the reason why the swedish army accepted this project was among other reasons that it was pretty cheap because it's lack a turret and such. but also it's effectiveness.
The idiot sewedes used only 40mm of front Armour, so even with that extreme angle the Armour will still be penetrated by the 120mm Russian guns because of overmatching
The “no turret, not a tank” argument is so silly. There are so many infamous examples of tanks that are turret-less; from the Jadgpanther to the Hetzer. Although these may typically be considered SPGs or Tank Destroyers, they still fulfill all of the requirements and duties that a frontline tank would.
Thats true, we currently use the German Leo 2, though modified tof it our needs. I Think we could dust of the 103S blueprints soon and correct our errors, and get it to a wider market.
Oh, we had the equivalent of StuGs as well: Sav (stormartillerivagn). One of them was in Saving Private Ryan, playing the Marder that takes down the clock tower.
@Bullzeye95 Yes, it was an amazing construction for its time, Today you can hit a tank from any direction, most commonly from the top and thru the roof :(
@MrBababbabaa doesn't matter if u have a turret or not, the gun could be alowed to swing a few degrees sideways and up and down without a turret. What u need is some form of hydraulics and some automatic gyro stabilated gun. It is the gyro and the hydraulcs that is completely missing in that tank. The Germans produced many tanks like this one called JagdPanzers. Maybe it is not such a bad idea after all.
