The S-Tank in Ukraine?! 

We have one in the Military Museum in my hometown. I think it looks amazing and it was a really cool achievement in it's time. I also saw one live when I was a kid at a military show. They ran over a volvo with it. Great times. And because I'm a nerd at heart I recently picked up model kit building for stress relief and the Strv103B in 1;35 scale is my first build.

The only disadvantage I see with the S-Tank is that it can't roll forward while firing to the sides.

The S-tank is scrapped all 300 of them excep some ten examples in museums around the world.

It was designed for its time. In Ukraine it would be at best a resource drain and at worst a death trap. It would be something else unique to look after that doesn't share parts or training with anything else. Unless modernised versions could be built that would fit Ukraine's needs.

Most tanks today as we see in Ukraine are targeted, hit and destroyed from above. From drones, missiles etc. Since this tank was designed to protected itself from the sides/front and not from above, it may not be very useful. Also, the large number of different tanks, IFVs in Ukraine requires large amounts of resources, stocks, support/engineering/maintenance training. Can Ukraine support and maintain another tanks variation? However, additional firepower is always useful in Ukraine.

Theoretically it could be used in the second line, providing firesupport to other tanks, IFVs and infantry while staying hidden. As you said, cages are easier to fit on it (longer ones) and a camonet on top of it, and it would be easier to hide. In those tests mentioned, the only drawback it had, was groundpressure. It was higher even if it weighs less due to the shorter tracks. Building new ones with new materials and technology would be good, but it wouldnt be worth it. The purpose would be limited.

The S-Tank makes more sense on the modern battlefield than MBT nowadays does. Slabbing more and more armor on a vehicle is both costly and makes the vehicle slower and break-downs probably more likely. Face it, a MBT needs to resist 12kg mines, top drone attacks, dual warhead man portable missiles. Frontal SABOT rounds. Also mobility kill equals kill (drones arrive after 10 min and finish it) SA - Situation Awareness and Intelligence data will be the next king on the battlefield, behind that, cost effectiveness and minituralisation. The old S-tank might not have the two first in its current form, but it surely has the two later but SA/INT is just a matter of installing modern computers and sensors. Possibly also installing a drone "hangar". The 90mm gun could also be modified to fire missiles for a range of different targets. Even making it able to engage UAVs

ITS THE CHEESE WEDGE!

2 S tanks that can even roll around in the world one is in Arsenalen museum.

Thanks again for this video. Even Sweden gave up the concept.

My second comment: Around 14:40, paraphrasing: "Adding armour, and thus weight, to Strv 103 would be a good thing." No, it wouldn't! It needs to keep the power to weight ratio up and the (already fairly high) ground pressure down in order to stay mobile.

so cool

I mean it is possible but unrealistic. The cv90 120 would be a much better choice.

Möjlighet att bygga om den till en drönar-tank?

People must not have been very smart in the past if they said a tank that can't deal with mines is perfect in every way.

don't we like have a whopping total of 1 S-tank in running condition at the Arsenalen museum. We have at least a handful more to my knowledge..... as static displays. And who knows what their condition is like, I'm going to guess bad, if you want it for anything else than a display piece.

This was a very good tank!

Third comment: I agree with your conclusion that it's not an option, or at least not a good one, for Ukraine, given the current circumstances. I do not agree with your reason why though: Strv 103 could have been a great option, as described below in this post, but as is there are just to few of them in good enough condition to make it worth while from a logistical perspective. The support organization required to maintain half a dozen (or less) very special tanks just isn't worth it! From a strategical and tactical perspective a larger number of strv 103 could probably do a lot if they were a modernized variety of the 103D version. That's the REMOTE CONTROL version! With a modern sensor suite and properly EW hardened a bunch of those could lead an assault straight through a mine field without risking the lives of any crew members. Those that make it through can then really cause trouble for the enemy.

This tank has been retired for like 30 years with most of them scrapped..

Do a video about the Mine Kafon Drone !

S stands for Sneaky. It gets around

There are no S tanks , they got scrapped long ago .

If it would be deployed it's game over for Russia...

Sooo, you are saying that the tank needs a 40mm autoturet to shoot drones and infantry and things. Mines are a btch tho.

Give away the drawings and let the Ukraine do their own updates.

A winter tank. No mines in the snow 😉

That romour is BS... There are no S-tanks left. Except a very few museum peices - of with most of them dosen't work.

You need better sound on your videos. Cheers!

I have a couple of comments, starting with no 1: At 2:24 you talk about gun stabilization and that it wasn't a thing, but is required for shooting accurately while moving. Both of these claims are wrong! Gun stabilization was a thing already in WW2, with the Sherman having a for its time pretty good stabilizer (though claimed to be a bitch to learn how to use properly). Just about all post war tanks had gun stabilizers, but none of them could shoot accurately while moving. To shoot accurately on the move two things are required: 1. A stabilized gun SIGHT that is mechanically disconnected from the gun barrel and can move independently. 2. A targeting computer connected to both the sight and the gun barrel, controlling the movements of the gun based on where the sight is pointed and other input data. When the gunner press the trigger the computer calculates in which direction the barrel should be pointing an then fires the shot when the deviation is sufficiently small. There's essentially no need to have the barrel stabilized at all, but it helps to get the shot off faster if the barrel isn't pointing 45 degrees off target when the trigger is pressed. Only around 1970 computers were beginning to be small and sturdy enough to be used for this application. The gun sight is stabilized by having (computer controlled) light mirrors and/or prisms keeping the sight line stable as the turret trembles and moves.

id seen that thing a fwie time ,

😂😂😂

We are vikings 😁 not defensiv 😈

Du har så många fel. Kolla up fakta först.