The Tank that Points Down - The Swedish S Tank - Stridsvagn 103 

The bulldozer 'variant' is both in the thumbnail of the video and at 7:34. In reality it was less of a variant and more standard issue of every tank upgraded to the Ceasar or '103C' standard, and every tenth on the Bertil or '103B' standard. To be fair what I've heard from people driving the 103 I was extremely good at "firing on the move" well what I mean by this isn't actually firing while moving but rather clutch and break. So imagine you're the commander of a 103 and your driver/gunner is driving over a field and 90° to your left is an enemy, then you can instantly tanke over control and basically whip your tank to the left in the matter of a second, faster than any other tank could ever turn its turret during this time. The clutch break turn is impressive if you haven't seen it! Cheers from Sweden brother!

@@thatdamngamers Thank you for reply, it's not a variant, I was just too blind to see. Stows pretty niftily though, just a couple of mm more to the glacis armor. I agree with your assessment of the turning and pointing capability of the s-tank, truly remarkable (never seen it in person). Still if it would have had automatic gun leveling (the suspension clearly was up to it), it would have be even more awesome. Cheers from Finland brother!

Shrug. The S tank isn’t a tank. It is a tank destroyer, perhaps the last one ever made.

@@bkane573 think you can take back that shrug, it is by all intents and purposes it is a tank, specifically an MBT, don't care about your definition of a tank but here in Sweden it served as an MBT, served the role of a defensive MBT, and got the designation Stridsvagn (Tank) and not Pansarvärnskanonvagn (Tank Destroyer). Your argument is invalid.

@@bkane573 You're not entirely wrong, but to me you aren't entirely right either. A turretless armored vehicle can be a nightmare to classify, but the s-tank deserves a nuanced treatment. The vehicle shares many traits of the tank destroyer, but the technology had advanced to a point where a very low profile machine could point and shoot like the best of the turreted ones. In fact it's very much unlike e.g. the anti-tank Sturmgeschütz. I can't probably sway from you pigeonholing the s-tank to a category I very much disagree with, but please give the thought of reconsidering more than a shrug.

I like how the reason for liking it is "pooping"

You can compare it to a Stug at least which 10 years earlier was a very successful little gun.

@@Burneth_ That was just a funny observation. About a year ago there was a longer video about this tank on another channel. It went deeper into the design. It's a great tank with lots of innovations but it would be useless on the modern battlefield. The Javelin and the N-law would see to that.

@@Wooargh That and the Hetzer are the two tanks it reminds me of. In testing, it got on target faster than most. It would be fun to take it for a ride at one of those tank driving places.

G'day, Tanks for the Anal Expletives...; Perhaps...? Coincidentally, or by Design...; One Wonders. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

Have you got anything that can deliver something to spice up pootins morning cup of tea?

Dear Hiznogood, I have seen, first hand, what you swedes call 'outdated' hehe that made me laugh out loud. there is something uniquely Swedish about waiting at a traffic light to change, in a forest, when a Viggen flashes past on the 'other' road and takes off, I mean come on, 'outdated'? lol lol, you chaps take defence seriously again. Good.

I think you’re being far too humble in this response. Sweden also designed he Bandkannon artillery which was instrumental in the modern Archer artillery system. Swedes think differently in a good way. Like the Gripen, extremely advanced delta-canard fighter jet that can be launched or land on a stretch of road. The Stridsvagn 103 video did not touch on all of the research done by Sweden when selecting the turret-less tank as a platform. Although different because the gun was capable of elevation- I’m sure the Jagdpanther Nazi designs were taken into account when making that decision. Those were loved by their operators. The 103 is better with it’s active suspension IMO- Swedish difference in thinking evident. It was a Saab engineer who provided the shaped charge design for the overfly NLAW which is outrageously effective for extremely low cost! I have friends in Sweden. Nordic people’s are some of the best in the world as a people. Happy days in many ways to you!!! Let’s hope this world we currently live in turns a 180- for everyone’s sake.

The Sherman of WW2(by mid war) had gun stability…. But it wasn’t used or had training to use….

Did every tank with a stab just phase out of existence while this tank was active?

cool..thanks for sharing pops

the Orcsi would be complaining about some tracked drone that was shooting their asses off.

@@rembrandtshadows What's an Orcsi?

@@Algabatz Its a slang slander by the Ukrainians to describe the Russian army, after what happened in Bucha and Hostimel. Orc, orcsi is the plural. Like the marauding orcs from Tolkein. Smert' orcsi means 'death to the orcs'.

@@rembrandtshadows Aha, I see. That's funny. Thanks!

Sweden army was once very good, in a defensive war sweden could probably last a long time. Sweden really nailed its doctrin when it commes to guerilla war. Using roads as airfields (at one time having the fourth largest airforce), having smal low tanks that can hide in forests together with good AT. Skåne and Blekinge would probably be a lost cause because of how flat and terrain less it is. but in the other regions where the train is much more difficult attacking casualties would make it a statement

It was badass for sure ….. using high ways as airfields was revolutionary

"Would have ____ deadly." What is "been", Alex?

@@austingode was? The Bas 90 system (the name of the road network airfields) is still in operational use and is compatible with our own SAAB 39 Gripen

Not really re thinking stuff, The germans were using tank destroyers like this all through ww2, Stug is the most famous example

You should check out the “Live fire trials against the S tank” video as well that is available on RU-vid

We were asked not to do those turnes too frequently due to the extreme wear of the brakes :)

I don t think it could actually raise or lower the hull -- what would it do with the slack track?

Also take into consideration that angle equals thickness.and its designed that its directly engaged opponent is presented the perfect angle for thickness and deflection.

@@randytaylor1258 I believe the wheels, (or some other tensioning component that I don't know the name of) would constantly move to keep the track tight. Here is a video, while you can not see how it works in this video you can see what it does. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4RVbqyz2lk4.html

@@randytaylor1258 it can, it has a tensioning system, not sure exactly how, but it adjusts the geometry of the suspension and wheels to angle up or down. the gun has no elevation mechanism so it wouldn't be able to aim otherwise

Plus they have a row of holes in the nose to hold a kind of round stock slat armor to defeat shaped charge warheads. The holes were usually plugged with plastic dowels and painted over since that armor package was secret during the cold war. It shows the slat armor at 7:36.

This maneuver is also why the S-tank was actually faster then turreted tanks to react and fire on targets not directly in front as it could do a break turn and then quickly fire at any direction much faster then a turret would spin around. 5 or more seconds is common for just turning a turret 90 degrees to the side.

@@znail4675 Wow Incredibly slow turret rotation !

The S tank was tested by the Brit`s and the US and found the S tank competitive against their current tank`s@@davidm.4670

Bedford truck lol

@@destroyerarmor2846 ?

seems such as obvious flaw that if the thing gets damaged in any way so that it cant turn its over

An accurate statement. Too bad all the tank fakes on the internet think they are experts....

And strv 104

Thanks for that! The S-tank has long been ignored but, like the Merkava, it deserves serious thought. Wrote 2 theses in college on the Merkava -- from then-thin resources -- and it still makes me think.

@@randytaylor1258 I completely agree with what you say, it's sad that this tank does not get so much attention. I have a relative who served on board an s-tank during the 70's, I have heard many stories from big exercises they had with the tank and how he loved the sound of the tanks engine. I have also seen an s-tank drive and I completly anderstand why he loved that tank.

Exactly, one of the points against a turreted tank was that in a dense forest it would not be able to traverse the turret anyway.

7:34 shows it with the bulldozer blade in the stowed position in the front.

The Norwegians are always a threat, especially if they a bad trip after chowing down on some fermented whale blubber.

or just knock the tree down ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mYxPBmRdSPc.html

"It was purpose built for its environment. Lots of trees in the north. Can’t turn a turret between the tree"- Lol, oh please, the same would apply with a still current if the tank moves it's whole body. It's all fun till your opponent starts to shoot while moving, lol.

@@eu29lex16 true, but the doctrine for it was waiting at a crest on a small dirt road until the soviet/russia came shot once and then reversed up to the next ambush position

It rocks so hard turds poo out the back. 😄 The spent round ejector is funny.

Turbine engine powering a hydraulic pump have a piston for elevation on the gun shrink it down another foot. Then you really got something.

Future is unmanned

They mostly get hit by above by modern anti tank munitions like the javalin. So shrinking it doesn't matter that must honestly unless its against other tanks and direct fire weapons.

@@aFlockOfOrfans That makes sense. Nice tank. Imagine a documentary on all failed prototypes for every country in the world. That would be nuts

@@aFlockOfOrfans pyramid design. Best way to deflect an air attack. No taller than 7 feet

You are probably right, but I assume that if they had continued down the same line, it would have become even more stealthy and possibly have some kind of double top/composite armor. This tank is supposed to hide in place, do a shot or three, and then rush backwards to another position. If it manages to hide well enough, the risk of being shot at from javelins etc are far less than a tank in open combat or driving trough enemy territory.

M55

Siege tank from StarCraft

Swedens politicians had an idea that peace talking negotiations and flowers and pink ballons would work with an enemy. "Today there is no need for a armed defense"

@Randy Taylor, Most of your points are very good and make sense, well said sir, however one point you have overlooked is the political overview, consider this if you will. Budget constraints are applied by government, Military spending is therefore at the beck and call of mostly those with 'other' agendas, so if the S-tank was removed from front line service because it was just too damned good, who would benefit? Maybe someone with evil intentions and big deep pockets right next door? S-tank is a formidable opponent especially in its defensive capacity, therefore removing it would be a body blow for the Swedish military. Does that make sense? Personally I am a very suspicious person and basing that assumption on current affairs I think I might be right? Or put it another way, we all keep seeing various platitudes about Special Forces being involved in Ukraine, spetnaz getting their arses kicked being the most obvious, so would S-tank be considered a SF weapons platform? It is unique and deadly, it's original role hasn't gone away, and it seems to be quite a threat to an invading force.

You are both very thoughtful, and I thank you. Of course you are correct. I was talking military doctrine but in a modern democracy that cannot be considered alone without appreciating will of the civilian masters. Look what it has cost Germany to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas. It is hard to gather the subtlety of domestic politics from across the pond and I thank you for adding that perspective to my comments. A weapon system is seriously crippled if the powers that be have no interest in going to war to press political goals. If the goal of peace requires the commitment to go to prepare for war, then the less the commitment the less the the deterrence against aggression. Respect.

The main issue that the S-tank had was that it was made right after WW2 and later it lacked important tech like modern night vision and installing that would cost so much that getting new tanks was not that much costlier.

We are talking about it's combat performance and efficiency, of which we have no real world data, that's unfortunate

Yeah we should invade Sweden with armored forces to test it

it would have been good at offence too, fights are usually on roads as terrain is hard to go trough with tanks. in WW2 German Stugs were as effective than turreted tanks were.

Did you try to sell it to the Italians, they'd have loved it!

@@michaelsambrook7934 with an additional faster reverse gear, the French would love it

@@pteppig would it need to go forward at all?! :D

That seems like a distinction without a difference. As well I'd say whatever the motive power attaches to is a systems "hull"

@@DanielCGCG Sure, it's a hull. But that's not the point. The point is the philosophy. To not mount a gun on a hull, but to mount tracks on a turret.

Nope. All gone to scrap.

@@pellecarlsson8408 Im pretty sure there's at the minimum one left, at the Arsenalen museum...

@@pellecarlsson8408 No, there are a few around in Sweden and some other countries have at least one, England for instance in the Bobbington(?) tank museum.

@@e.m7116 Close, Bovington! Even this Aussie had to stop and think about how to spell Bovington. Some UK place names are crazy. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@@markfryer9880 Thanks Mark! 👍

I was wondering if you could make them drift.

There are kits of the S in 1:72, 1:48, and 1:35.

Yes it does...

A true cavalry function.

As a scout vehicle almost useless.

The US army has often looked for a "light tank." I wonder if something like this would be adequate.

I like it but I think it’s due for an upgrade. I think a remote turret and independent weapon systems. The turret and the suspension would make for some weird articulation and maneuvers. Like trying to aim up at building to cover its blind spots. I think it could be better served as artillery platform. They have new artillery Called Round Hyper Velocity Projectile, or HVP with technology from the navy rail gun program and can precision-target ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, ships at sea, and targets on the ground. Range of 43 nautical miles. 6 rounds per minute

Hard to say if it never saw actual combat

@@josedorsaith5261 Send it to Ukraine for testing lmao

👍👍 exactly.

Don't forget, Sweden isn't the Sinai. As I said earlier, the S would be wicked in the hands of the Finns.

@@randytaylor1258 they should donate some to Ukraine. Get feedback on whether the tank concept worked.

@@almac9203 Our dear politicans decided that there will be no more wars(?!) , so scrapped everyone in service sadly :'(

All S tanks has been cutted up long time ago

It was designed for open area defensive combat in access valleys/mountainous terrain. I believe they had/have other defensive plans for urban areas. The strengths & weaknesses you noted would flow from those main design targets.

Yep the defense indepth plan for the Swedish military run. Involved being able to move this tank from prepared position to prepared position. Specifically designed for fighting in forests and somewhat hilly terrain. The ability to quickly set up what is essentially mobile artillery support. Then when threatened move quickly and with a low profile for high survivability. These are not designed to act independently unless it's simply a stalling action and even then only for short amounts of time.

swedish coastal defense it’s probably effective as hell

In addition world of tanks has a version of this tank in it. The major issue of missing a turret means this tank has extreme weakness to bring flanked. In a combined arms combat not a horrible weakness. ..... Until tanks began to be able to fire on the move.

wouldn't be able to fire on the move!

The 4th vehicle was an early British Challenger prototype. However it was disqualified and never tested due to an unwillingness to send over a test vehicle in time to participate in the testing. Instead only a M1A2, Leopard 2 Improved and an early Leclerc version were sent over.

@@Ragedaonenlonely Thx, i clearly remember there is alot of references to a 4th, but i dont remember if it was the same trials the T80U was tested in, of it in deed the Challenger had a finger in the game.

@@SverkerSuper The T-80 was tested later in a separate set of testing. Only the 3 I mentioned were tested in the first trial.

@@Ragedaonenlonely I know there was only 3 tested, but I have heard several times that there was a 4th entry (of which you answered above) that was taken off before on site evaluation. I might just be shit in expressing myself, hopes that clears it up.

@@SverkerSuper I got that part, no worries. It's a bit of a shame they didn't want to send a vehicle over to be tested. It would have been interesting to see how it would have done against the rest. Sadly they were short on functional prototypes to be tested so they elected to pull out of the trial instead.

Definitely the sexiest tank of all time. Looks like a sports Stug.

Swedens army is just a joke. That country hasnt been in conflict in 200 years. Just a waste of taxmoney

Before ANY others? I’d take something proven with battle experience, an Abrams. Plus a 103mm gun today doesnt cut it.

The first thing they teach you as a tanker is the term, "shoot, move, communicate".

The Finns wouldn't have any problems deploying it.

@@Thornbeard not too unlike a sniper

I'd argue it started all the way back in time with Gustavus Adolphus and the whole "father of modern war" thing lol we have a rich history of throwing everything out in favour of new concepts and everything from the swedish brigade, carolean alotment systems, destroyer carrier hybrids, advancements in divebombing, THE BOFORS 40MM, sterling engine submarines, the archer, gripen, list goes on. All these are yet more results of this strategy. Now there have been a lot of failures and shortcomings along the way as well...

Probably the AMX-13 they did have a turret but they were low and very light reconnaissance tanks. We used them in that role for decades next to the Leopard 1 and 2.

I guess it would need a 125mm now...

@troy Ferrington kind of a case of catch me if you can.

I wish they explained the suspension system. He said it was pretty reliable. I wonder because it’s so light. There’s so less wear and tear. I personally like but it can’t shoot on the move. I think it would work great as general platform for artillery or ada

The Swedish have a fixed gun find another one like it please.

You can't move the barrel 1mm on the swedish the turretless your talking about could move the barrel not just 360 degrees.

With the electronic integrated laser sighting system you don't need to traverse the main gun. Old-school thinking.

Another thought? There was nothing nimble about a Sturmgeschutz -- or a Ferdinand or Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger. Similar concept, completely different execution.

@@randytaylor1258 are you high?

Exactly, the later versions of the tank '103b' and '103c' were even fitted with bulldozer blades (the B model had one per every third tank and every C tank were fitted with one) so the most probable enemy, the Soviet would cross the Swedish-Finnish border and on top of the hilly northern Swedish landscape would be Strv103s in ambush position along every road. Tanks that could dig themselves down and hide their entire body and then fire a Salvo of 4 rounds in 16 seconds and then reverse away at 50kph thanks to the reverse driver, then the tank could regroup along another road. The Swedish doctrine was to not be hit at all. Edit: one per three not one per ten

Ukraine is showing us that the primary predator of tanks isn't other tanks, but ATGMs, guided artillery, and mini-drone bombing attacks. Being able to traverse the main gun doesn't add any survivability vs these threats. Meanwhile having the ability to add replaceable standoff armor across the entire upper surface without interfering with a turret seems quite valuable. The role of tanks in future warfare is going to be as drone carriers providing line of sight command and control in high EW environments and BLOS guided shell launchers , I think.

You would have to score a precision hit on those tracks from the side, or drive over an AT mine with sufficient soft kill potential. These disadvantages are inherent to every tank design out there... Which is why western tank doctrine usually involves facing towards your enemy, and having either infantry or other supportive elements to cover your flanks. Furthermore, it would also be predicated upon already erroneous tactical decisions to send an armor company into an area of operations that has not already been sufficiently "de-fanged" from prosecuting such flanking engagements against the tank. In the west, this is air superiority and reconnaissance in force by, as said previously, other supportive elements. And just to be clear, if your tank is soft-killed and rendered combat ineffective (which a tank that cannot move on its own meets the definition of, unless you are literally in a WW2 Carentan-style hellscape with enemies literally around the corner), you ditch that son of a bitch as fast as you can, and if in hostile territory modern doctrine calls for it to be demo'd and sabotaged to prevent capture. Your position kind of holds for WW2-era and extremely early cold war days, but nowadays tanks simply are not used in any capacity that could possibly result in such failure you are describing. I am obviously not mentioning Russia here because it is obvious they still follow old doctrines, and are not emphasizing the combined arms potential of their armor. Modern MBTs more or less serve as the "bulwark" that you can keep moving forward in an area of operations as you secure more and more ground with mechanized infantry that is enhanced with close air support. If your the battle space does not allow for advancing infantry under close air support, then you simply don't move your armor into the firing line to begin with. And in long range tank v. tank engagements where, if by some magical set of circumstances neither the blue or the red force has any planes performing close air support (such as the very well known battle of 73 easting in Desert Storm), you are still left with tanks fighting one another front-to-front. There is really no way that a tank is ever going to show its side armor to another tank in modern warfare. Again I have to emphasize that I leave Russian doctrine out of this analysis because there is really no rhyme or reason to how they are using their armor in their war in Ukraine, and I'm kind of compelled to say that a conflict between two genuine military powers (of which russia doesn't seem to be one lol) have to follow some kind of logic.

@@kschleic9053 my point wasn't necessarily talking about other tanks. There are some shoulder-fired weapons (like the AT-4) that can blow off tracks, but aren't strong enough to penetrate modern main battle tanks. Not everything is Javelins.

@@kschleic9053 Things have changed, and so would this tank have done if it had been developed further. I could envision something like this with a few added rocket-rubes in the front. Then it could have tracked several tanks/vehicles before unleashing several rockets(with pre-allocated targets) and it's main gun more or less at the same time, before retreating back to safety. At it's position there could be a camera set up by the crew so that they could assess the damage/situation even after backing out.

They missed out half the quote in that they acquired targets and reloaded faster WHEN the tank was fully buttoned up, BUT with hatches open, the Leo 1 was faster. The other quote there from the British trials at Bovington ("the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks") is taken from the middle of a sentence (of which I don't know the rest) but I think it likely the rest of the sentence/paragraph/report tempers that statement (eg by saying something like it has an advantage IN CERTAIN AREAS... Which pretty much all tanks do, this one being no exception). This vehicle (I think calling it a tank is a political decision more than a technical one) seems to have a very strong fanbase for what was essentially an evolutionary dead end. Sure it had a turbine engine, but what did Sweden replace that tank with, a diesel-powered turreted tank.

@@sergarlantyrell7847 Moving from a defensive doctrine to an offensive doctrine, and from anti-tank ambush to infantry support. People keep citing the Javelin but anti-tank missiles are essentially defensive, too, particularly if wire-guided.