Tank Chats  

Still one of the coolest looking armor vehicles ever built.

Britain: We know about tanks, here try this Centurion Sweden: Ok, but what do you think about an armed doorstop

I really like David's assertion that this IS a tank because of its doctrinal use, not its features. After all, the first "tanks" all lacked turrets.

Sweden's best defence against Russia had traditionally been a horde of angry Finns.

ah yes, the legendary self-propelled turret

It's pretty mindblowing that you could pretty effectively operate this tank with just one man if you had to, especially considering when it was designed. A truly revolutionary and innovative design, even if similar tanks haven't been built since. A great example of starting almost from the beginning again with the design process with a specific goal in mind.

USA: Invents Lowrider cars Sweden: Invents Lowrider tanks

A massive gun mounted on a tracked wedge that looks like the back of an 80s lamborghini? Yes please.

I've been so blessed that I've never lived more than 30 minutes away from the museum

The S tank is always one of the things I have to see when I visit the museum

he saw that statistically so many tanks got hit in the turret, knocking them out, and did such a brilliant design that he basically took a turret and put it on tracks, and succeeded in making the statistic that if this tank were ever shot at, it would be hit 100% of the time on the turret

Always thought the lack of a turret comes back to a more defensive doctrine, so very suprised that this was not the case. Thanks for the interesting video!

As a swede I'm proud of this stridsvagn. 🇸🇪✌️

As a Finnish person I can safely attest the Swedes often come up with some ingenious stuff...

still looks modern in these days

scandinavians : "what if we put a an engineer-tankist from over here at the drawing board? instead of buying stuff made elsewhere by car manufacturers?" it's borderline obvious/genius

"Did it change the price of fish?" Great chat, as usual. And another British idiom score!

During my military service in the Swedish army during the 80s I come to witness how impressive the S103 was. The Centurions didn´t stand a chance. We had laser guidance so we could see directly if we were hitting other tanks. The S103 was primarily a defensive tank (but that is very important), but during the offensive we alternated so that some tanks protected the tanks going forward. This actually worked fine since it´s quit difficult to see from where the fire is coming from as you go forward. If you only have the role to protect (and you stand still) you can quickly observe fire and hit back.

I want to say that Sweden had the world's best tank in 1971, in the towerless Strv 103. Some claim it was a anti-tank vehicles but in the real world it was an MBT, Main Battle Tank. The Swedish Army's doctrine, tactics and exercise with the 103 was largely the same as with Centurion. That it was the best in the world for a period is about the fact that the technologies that made S-tank mediocre were not yet developed, good enough or did not exist in sufficient numbers with our imaginary enemy. In 1971, Strv 103 was the car that was most difficult to detect. Without towers and very low, the imaginary enemy had two problems. First, see it and once it has fired at them, identify the threat as a tank and not as an anti-tank cannon. That advantage disappeared when the Red Army introduced different types of gadgets that looked in the infrared spectrum. The S-tank turbine engine sent up a plume of heat above the wagon. So even if the 103 was hidden behind a crest, the Russian could not miss it. The cannon on Strv 103 was longer in 1971 than on comparable foreign tanks. It had two benefits. The exit velocity (and thus increased penetration at all distances) and a smaller dust cloud front tank (when the grenade travels longer in a cannon barrel reduces the pressure when the grenade leaves the muzzle). The recoil from a shot affected the 103 less as the unique design completely took care of that force and placed the cannon in exactly the same position as before the shot. Since the cannon and vtank did not move relative to each other during firing, a fast automatic lodder system could be designed. Which still today has a world record. One shot every three seconds! Since the enemy had a very hard time detecting, S-tank could shoot first. There is talk in the tank world about "Shot first-Kill first" and "Hunter-Killer" ability. Stabilization for the cannon / tower was developed so that it was possible to shoot during movement and that the commander could automatically send target indications to the shooter, which meant that the commander could more quickly concentrate on finding the next target, before the first was fought. In 1971, that technology was not good enough. "Hunter-Killer" ability had Strv 103 from the beginning when both commander and shooter could drive, aim and shoot. In 1971, there was no ammunition that could penetrate the S-tank from the front. A pretty good advantage, right? When the Soviets began manufacturing the T-62 and T-72, they developed a new type of arrow projectile with tungsten at the head. Tungsten is the metal with the highest melting point and an extreme tensile strength and very heavy, properties that prevent it from deforming when it hits steel armor but pushes it away. In 1994, the Swedish defense fired an S-tank with a T-72 loaded with an arrow projectile. The shot went straight through the tank. Not so good! The T-72's cannon has a caliber of 125 mm, 20% more powerful than the S-tank. Strv 103 came into service as early as 1968, but I still choose 1971. This is due to improvements in what is called sub-series B: Stronger engine, floating equipment, reinforcement plates in the rear, barrel protection and smoke throwers. Strv 103 B was finally delivered in 1971. I apologize for my poor English but I hope you still understand me

"Its not a tank if it doesn't have a turret!" so the British agree that the French invented the tank?

I've made the mistake to like the video 2 seconds in. Now that the video is over, how can I like it again...?

One Swede incorporated the first turret. John Ericsson for USS Monitor. Another Swede did away with it.

The S-tank: The heaviest armed bulldozer in the world. Or to put it another way: the only tank that acts like an infantryman, it digs its own foxhole.

Sweden did help with the Finnish war effort with equipment, manpower and a sanctuary for children.

When I did my military service in 00/01, dozens of 103s were parked near the army railway station, waiting to be shipped off and scrapped. Quite a sad sight, but they had outlived their usefulness, in part because it couldn't fire on the move, as mentioned in the video, but also because modern long penetrators didn't have the same issues penetrating it's very sloped armour.

My favorite tank in the world and HUGELY underappreciated.

"it's not a tank if it doesn't have a turret" *laughs in Mark 1 and A7V*

The downfall of this vehicle were those damn IKEA pictograph instructions.

It takes a special kind of stupid to argue that money spent on defense is wasted if no one attacks.

Surprised that you didn’t mention the external fuel tanks on the sides of the tank were effective add-on armor

I am a simple man. I see a Swedish tank I click like.

whether s-tank would be used aggressively or defensively depends on the regiment where the tank and tank crew in question were stationed. In some parts of Sweden, one tactic worked better than the other depending on the terrain in the area.

Once I built a plastic model kit of the 103C, in 1/35 scale. The one with the four color camouflage pattern. At least I wanted to make one with that camouflage pattern. Applying the camouflage was a bit of a nightmare. The kit I had bought didn't show a pattern that was even halfway decent. I had to find one on the internet. Finally I found one showing all sides that looked right, compared to real pictures. Second part of the nightmare was painting the pattern, the 103C has a lot of details on its hull. The kit also didn't have the anti-HEAT fence but I built one myself with some 1 mm styrene rods I'd bought. It was my first ever attempt with extra styrene. The fence was far from perfect - but at least I had a anti-HEAT fence on my 103C.

One of my top favorite tanks of the post-WWII era.

One aspect that's rarely mentioned is the excellent commanders cupola. Rotating, gyro-stabilised, with sights/rangefinders (and the already mentioned doubled gunners AND drivers controls) etc and a machine gun, givin it a hunter-killer capacity and close defense.

The Tank Museum rn is probably my fav youtube channel atm

A really nice "tank chat", well reviewed! From a personal perspective as a swede. What most people must understand is it is ALL about Swedish doctrine. I can honestly not think about any other country that has the same amount of "work" behind it's doctrine. Since Sweden is a "peaceful" country, the doctrine focuses on defence not offence. During the Cold War (and very long before that) absolutely everything was based on this "Swedish Doctrine". That meant that absolutely interlocks. By that i mean: Infrastructure: Like many countries Sweden had eg. "bomb shelters", even in modern times you can find "hidden" bomb shelters in plain houses more or less everywhere (most are still in use). What looks like a normal house garage is at a closer look a modern bomb shelter with airfilters etc. But that is just the basics, like i said...most countries have them as well. But it goes so much deeper. Eg. all larger motorways have every here and there long straights, you won't see it if you don't pay attention. But the surrounding area is actually made for temporary airbases = aircrafts rely on these instead of obvious airbases. Important roads, airstrips, bridges etc. has built in constructions so that you can easily destroy them. Defensive structure: Sweden has several defensive territorial areas. Eg. "Kalix linjen" (north of Sweden. It's on youtube as well) several very large defensive lines are hidden in the terrain (from old tank barriers to trenches, gun positions, supply points and bunkers etc.). Not to mention massive forts, all more or less hidden. Everything from underground navalbases to artilleryforts etc. Armament: As in the S-tank, it was designed to position itself into a dug-down ready position in one of those hidden lines. As soon as tanks show up, they fire as much as they can...almost impossible to spot because they are "dug down" (later versions had a caterpillar blades), then they quickly drove back at full speed towards next defensive position. This is also the very reason for why the S-tank actually could drive as fast backwards as forwards. Or take the Bandkanon 1 (armored autoloading 155mm SPG), for it's time it was a beast. Not even todays modern SPGs have a faster RoF, it still has the world record for that (14 shells in 45s). Imagine the same battle as the S-tank. A battery of eg. 6 Bandkanon 1 fires 84(!) 155mm shells in 45s towards an advancing flank, then quickly drives back to their supply position farther back. Rinse and repeat. Same thing with the JA37 Viggen (fighter/attack/reconnaissance). Probably one of the best aircrafts for its time (far ahead of it's time in design, eg. delta wings). But what stands out is the very design concept. One of the requirements was that it had to have a very short start/stop ability (less than 1500ft), which goes back to what i wrote above about motorway straights. Even the modern current JAS 39 (4.5 generation) has the same requirements for easy/fast maintenance, start/stop etc. Submarines were specifically designed to operate in the gulf of bothnia and the baltic sea. The modern Gotland class was so silent it "sunk" US carriers several times during an excercise, which lead to that the US "hired" the swedish sub to operate in the US and conduct naval excercises for a couple of years. Last but not least infantry weapons. As in the world famous AT-4 and Carl Gustav Recoilless rife, still today very powerful weapons. During the Cold War they could stop even MBTs. An enemy force was supposed to be halted for as long as possible. Ranger units are designed to conduct Direct Action missions behind enemy lines, disrupting eg. supply lines etc. Hitting high value targets, reconaissance and so on. Also most of the demolition works written above about the infrastructure was done by rangers. Then all those defensive lines were designed to as i said halt the enemies. Never stay in a long battle. Just hit them hard, then regroup...rinse and repeat. Finally, imagine another picture as whole. A large enemy advance is detected. All of a sudden the first vehicles drives into a mined area. At the same time the road- or bridge is being blown behind them. Separating the front troops from the rest, because the surrounding area is rugged terrain (marshes, dense forrest, mountains etc.). Then comes a hailstorm of artillery, aircrafts, infantry and tanks firing. When the smoke clears noone is left to fight.

I think the blade to dig it in is genius

S Tank: Half cover counts as full cover - also win friends and terrify enemies with your sick 180's

As a Seargent and team leader for 8 men with the task to fight tanks with our two Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless anti-tank guns back in 1984 (lol) I was really impressed how good the "Stridsvagn S" was.

Doesnt matter how long or short a video is, it NEVER gets boring!

In the 1960s, my Swedish grandmother remarked about how when she was little, her grandmother had been afraid that the russians would return to Sweden. Nice video. Good Luck, Rick

Tack för en mycket bra o saklig presentation hälsningar från Mariestad Sverige

I really like that Swedish ‘out of the box’ way of thinking. Brilliant vehicle/concept, well ahead of its time. Love this video! Think I will buy something from your shop in return for your efforts :)

Absolutely first rate as usual David - thank you. I obviously love the witty chats with Mr Fletcher but I learn so much more from the length and detail of your chats - please give us 30 mins on every tank in the collection (not much to ask so just slot in amongst your other duties!)

that curator is incredibly knowledgeable and eloquent.

I've watched many videos on this tank but I think your video has best described its attributes, oddities, and potential downfalls the best. Great video!

Amazing lecture, the best one I've heard so far on this iconic tank.

To be correct Sweden is a coastal nation and whilst its East coast traditionally traded with the Baltic nations, its West Coast traditionally traded with Britain, this continued during the war with Swedish ships sailing in British convoys, Bofors guns including the water cooled gyro stabilised mounts being sold and licensed to Britain and the greater part of SKF's production.

Whether or not the Stridsvagn 103 is a Tank is answered by the fact that this is the channel for the TANK MUSEUM. We all know what is generally meant by a tank, even if some people enjoy getting worked up over the details

A fascinating piece of lateral and innovative thinking beautifully contextualised and summarised by Mr Willey. Bravo!

Gotta admire the Swedish military's willingness to think outside the box.

Cheiftion did a great inside the hatch on the 103.

The Swedes for a small country (population that is) have come up with remarkably interesting tank and aircraft designs. Probably because they aren't weighed down by the clusterfucks that are the US and UK procurement systems. Where good ideas go to die in a sea of corruption, competing services and the bane of the British military, the UK Treasury. Also if the S- tank is not a tank cause it doesn't have a turret, then the British didn't invent the tank in WW1, but the French with their Renault.

Sweden has the better of the defense philosophies to date. "We don't go looking for trouble, but we're ready when trouble comes knocking on our door."

There's so many neat features on this vehicle. It's interesting seeing just how many lessons were learned from WW2 and how much original research was done. Certainly the stat that anti-tank guns caused a lot of losses shows that the idea of a turret being 'necessary' wasn't true, at least at that time. The Sturmgeschütz-type vehicles really punched above their weight too, especially when factoring in cost. As best I can tell, the only thing that really killed this tank is the development of stabilised turrets. Everything else seems really great - speed, weight, cost, armour, firepower, etc. I also think it's very fair to call it a tank, as that was exactly it's role - it just met it in an unconventional manner. Even in WW2 we had a whole bunch of ideas of what a tank even was (M3 Lee for example).

Great video, I’ve been exposed to this vehicle due to the World of Tanks video game and I’ve been intrigued by it. You have answered all my questions and more. Thanks as always!

I think / remember that the main ideea behind it was this: Sweden have a lot of forests and a turret cannot turn among trees. But this tank can, as is just the hull, also that gun solid mounted into the body can knock down trees.

Nice another video to lighten up my Friday afternoon

Being a Swede, I've got a bit of a soft spot for the Stridsvagn S.... One of these days, I'll find my way down to the museum.... Most excellent video, as always!

3:37 is such a cool looking photograph

If the S-tank isn't a tank then neither are the Tanks MkI - MkVIII.

A correction. 25 rounds were carried in one of the magazines and 20 in the other. The magazine you wanted was selected by the gunner/commander. 5 extra rounds, usually smoke, could manually be fed into the breech by the radio man by turning a handle until the round was loaded.

I recall this tank as a scale model when I was a boy. I was fascinated by it's deign. Thank you TTM for this, finally now I know, decades later, interesting how life unfolds.

Fantastic video! Although, one thing David missed with the S-tank was that one design feature of the vehicle was copied and used in later tank designs of other nations: The interior layout. The S-tank was front engined, and placed its engine and transmission in front of the crew as an additional layer of protection. This was used by the Swedish again in the CV90 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and was also used by the Israelis in their very successful Merkava series of Main Battle Tanks. Both of these vehicles are still in service today, with the CV90 being exported to various other European nations. So in that respect, the S-tank did have a successful impact on future armoured vehicle design!

The S-Tank is the best-looking tank ever.

As a Swede, thank you so much for this episode! i hope to visit your museum one day :D

The S-Tank from the first time I saw it in grade school in a book , at first and forever has me scratching my head .

I was trained on antitank-missiles ( TOW ) - the S tank was so much harder to find, then tanks like Centurion during feild training !..... that low profile !.

At 0:55 I was ready to hear, "Sweden is basically a foreign country."

as usual a very good honest presentation, thanks!

instantaneously became one of my favorite tanks

I always considered these to be basically a technologically more sophisticated version of the Sturmgeschutz tank destroyers rather than a proper tank. And given that the StuG III was, numerically, the most successful WWII German AFV, it was a pretty good idea to design it with this in mind.

One of the most interesting tank designs of all time.

Fascinating insight into an unusual looking, non-mainstream armoured vehicle. Impressive up close.

Fantastic video. Definitely one of my favourite vehicles

STRV 103.. The greatest thing to come out of sweden since.. well actually all our military stuff tends to be great at what they are designed for.. But god bless the mighty S

It's a really fascinating period in arms development, especially for less well-off nations who couldn't modernize every aspect of its armed forces rapidly. Sweden prioritized tanks and aircraft for most of the early Cold War and by the mid-60's had the J-35 Draken, one of the most advance jet fighters of its time, and the first turbine-powered tank, but the infantry were still running around with bolt-action Mausers. By the very late 60's, the G3 had been adopted and gone into production, of course, but there was still this time of technological transition were not every arm of the armed forces had reached the same new plateau.

Amazing knowledge. These talks are wonderful.

A nice, balanced and factual take on the S-Tank! This video serves as a very good debunking of the idea that the S-tank was "a purely defensive tank".

My understanding is another reason for the turbine is that it is easier to start in very cold weather, compared to a standard Diesel engine. The S tank and the Merkava are my favorites, as they both demonstrate some unorthodox engineering.

Sweden also imported the designer of the Lk2 tank and he designed the Landsverk L10 and L60 tanks. The L60 being the most produced tank in Sweden during ww2 and it was exported to Hungary as the Toldi.

Weird but awesome. Great video thank you 😊

I really enjoy listening to David Willey

Another detail packed video from David that illustrated many important aspects of tactics, role and adaptability of the S tank. In my humble opinion a tank that would probably prove itself very difficult to defeat on the European battlefield. Thank you David for another masterpiece.

Excellent DW, I like this vehicle, it's interesting💖

Made my top 5 when I visited the museum a couple of days ago for the first time!

Excellent video! Thank you

One of those tanks are known as the "apple tank" due to in the British testing in a field exersice one 103 (Swedish crew) relocated down a slope and accidentally went through an orchard. Weeks later it was put in to maintanace in Sweden and there was lots of apple mush were it did not belong. So Apple tank it was. (Story told by mechanic deployed on site)(also, keep well known spare parts in a small tin box in left breast pocket) some small O-rings were a big factor to big problems. Small reminder: (as far as I know) the Brits invented the tank. Did that tank have a revolving turret?...

As a young teenager in the 60's interested in tanks I first thought that this was a dumb idea for a tank. Wow was I wrong but hey- I was a dumb teenager 🤪

For the algorithm! Also thank you for doing a tank chat on this very interesting tank.

i want to visit this museum so badly, i'm sure i will visit in the future because tankfest is something on my bucketlist

8:25 the S-tank was very stealthy, except... a falling tree which gives its position while the tank is aiming the gun Absolutely fantastic tank. Thank you for another great video!

Regarding 25:25 : to be fair, the T-62 was quite low as well. The british Centurion was a whopping 87 cm (2'10") taller than the S-Tank!

Such a concept! And yet the price of fish remained stubbornly the same... Excellent thank you

Nice analysis, very balanced as always from the tank museum

USA: M2 Bradley - "We know it's not a tank, but will the enemy". Sweden: Stridsvagn 103 - "FFS THIS IS TANK!"

When I was in the Swedish army in the late 90's, I recall a captain telling us about how Sweden borrowed a bunch of Leopard 2's for evaluation, and how the S-tanks whooped the kitties' rears bigtime. Anyone know more about that?

Thanks for the video. Great presentation.

Would love a modern version of this concept if practical