"Of course it won't work when you're standing on it . . ." Oh, I think you, of all people, know what it's like to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. ;-) Happy holidays!
I used the Anti Tank sub variant the PvKv/43 in 97/98 as the main towing trainer when i drove the BgBv90 in Northern Sweden. You barely noticed it was there and it probably traveled faster than it had ever done in service as the Cv90 does 70 km/h
Nice to hear that you differ between the Stridsvagn m/42 TM, TH and EH and the Infanterikanonvagn 73! I hate it when people refers to the Ikv 73 as Strv m/42 or the other way around!
Thanks Arsenalen & WoT/WG, eagerly awaiting future Swedish & other nations yet seen tanks. +TheChieftainWoT ..with regards one of your earlier recent episodes where you ask about grease nipples, I believe they go back to at least the mid 1800's, 140+ years ago and was likely quickly developed along with the rise of 'The Age of Steam'.
Should be interesting to see the part two, as it doesn't look that big from the outside..And of course no one has, to my knowledge, invented a tank that works like the Tardis yet. :D
My guess with the spare wheel is it was hoisted up on there at the factory, and the expectation was when you needed it, you'd just let it fall to the soft ground beside the tank. Then, you'd just abandon the old wheel, either in the field or it became the depot guys' problem, if it broke during downtime.
yank1776 they were, and the railroad bridges and country lane bridges were the reason for the 22ton weight limit. He just wasn't that specific about it.
Chieftain, we miss watching how someone would actually get into all of the crew positions, you provide a good representation. Could you go back to showing us again?
I thought the narrow width was because it needed to fit within the minimum loading gauge of Sweden's rail network, so it could be transported anywhere on their rail network for rapid deployment to any area within Sweden it was needed. And their rail lines were not high capacity, many were in mountains or forests, etc. They could have sacrificed length about as easily to save weight, i seems to me. So why choose the one dimension that has the most negatives to minimize?
How do they reach these design philosophy conclusions? Like a smaller lower idler on the rear for Swedish tanks? What advantages does this offer over other designs?
I notice the recently leaked 'Super Conqueror' is now part of the intro/transition. Also still a bit odd that after all this time we haven't had a Chieftain vid on the Chieftain (especially now console actually has the tank).
Not sure but I think the way they thought was: If a road wheel gets destroyed we just replace it with the spare and leave the damaged one. A new one can be had at the depot where all sorts of lifting equipement will be avaible.
The turret side door reinforcement seems to be around the edge of the door. I guess that a glancing hit dented the door and it snapped its lock and sprung open and could not be closed. A large hole in the side of a turret is, I would think, a BAD THING...
Re weight: At first the weight limit was firm on 20 tonnes. Then they were "hmm maybe 21 tonnes would be okay" and then a bit later "perhaps adding another tonne won't have bridges falling down" if the design process had been any longer it would probably have crept up to 23 tonnes 😅
I have a question. What was the main reason Sweden decided to go for a normal tank, instead of a turret-less tank destroyer at that point? I mean, They probably were going to be the defenders most of the time and with their industry, wouldn't It be more fitting to produce something like a Stug III? It's cheaper, less complicated and smaller.
Tanks at this time usually had short barrels to support Infantry more then killing tanks. Here is a tank destroyed built on the same chassi, though it only came into service after the war. sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarv%C3%A4rnskanonvagn_m/43
1. You still need MBTs in the arsenal. Even if you're "just" defending, you still need to be on the offensive to drive the enemy out. TDs are not versatile, so if you can only choose *one* type of tank, make it an MBT. Although I absolutely agree that they should have built a few TDs using the same chassis. 2. There was no doctrine for using turret-less tanks at the time. Going turret-less would mean inventing a new doctrine (with no experience) and then retraining the entire tank corps during a war. A dedicated TD was a very new thing at the time. The StuG III and IV were initially assault guns (they had low-velocity guns incapable of penetrating armour), not TDs. They weren't rearmed to TDs until around 1942. Even if you count the earliest StuGs as TDs, they had only been operational for two years when Strv M/42 entered service.
Funkpanzer So when this tank was designed, the greatest threat was Germany, and seeing as They were undefeated at that point(1941) and They are seemingly rolling through the entire Red Army, could you really allow yourself the luxury to design a tank that is good at offense? From my limited understanding, Sweden had nowhere near the manpower nor the industry to build (standard)tanks in a sufficient number to defeat a potential invading force. So wouldn't It have been better to design a tank focused entirely around defense(since You have no chance at a reasonable offense), which would have been both faster and cheaper to manufacture? And Sweden actually went with the turret-less tank design in the form of the S-tank later on. So Is it really just that a standard tank's flexibility was more desired than a greater number of tanks focused around defense?
Defense/offense doesn't really apply on the scale of an entire war. If you got to choose a tank for *one specific battle*, you could say you are either a defender or an attacker. You'll never be a defender during an *entire war*. I'm exaggerating to make a point here, but if you're just going to be a defender, why use tanks at all, why not just concrete bunkers? Like the Maginot line, which worked great. :) This was Hitler's mistake with the Blitzkrieg. If you are completely focused on a fast offensive, you'll get crushed as soon as you get stuck. Same with Luftwaffe, which was great at precision bombing and tactical support, but had no strategic and very limited defensive capabilities, and fell apart completely as soon as Allies pushed back. So you will need MBTs. Especially if you have a small army. You are looking at this from our viewpoint in 2016, where we know what StuGs and TDs would do later in the war. In 1941, this was a *very* new idea. No sensible army would have spent all their resources on a crazy new invention that no-one had used before. The S-tank was made after the results came in from WWII. Manufactured and tested in peace time, had laser optics, fly-by-wire controls etc, so it could perform as an MBT. And it had crews trained on it, and most importantly a doctrine built for it. I absolutely agree with what you are saying, I would have ordered at least half of the tanks to be built as TDs. But that's because we both know things people didn't know back then.
The main point in regard to concrete bunkers vs tanks is that one can be moved to where its needed, the other.... not so much. :) Much of the doctrines for the swedish army is based on guerilla tactics and infantry support. In dense forrested areas, swamps and rocky terrain infantry will almost always spot and engage enemy tanks first. The IKV series of vehicles (Infanteri Kanon Vagn = Infantery Cannon Vehicle) are rather light, manouverable and carry a good alround gun. Their job was to support the infantry by quickly get in position and defeat tanks/infantry that are already being engaged by friendly infantery. Later on the infantry would carry ever more efficient and powerful AT systems, like the RB55, 56,AT4 etc etc.
190kg is just shy of 419lb in real world measurements (which is closest to a quarter of a ton, not a fifth). Doesn't sound like much of an issue... two strapping young lads could handle that. I used to help my brother load stuff weighing a couple hundred pounds easy in to pickup trucks when we were both younger, in our teen years. We loaded a brush hog on the truck once by hand. Those weigh in the neighborhood of 500lbs. The thing about it is that you have to not be a wuss. :) I'd also imagine, realistically, you don't dismount that or tracks by hand. You have your crane truck or tank do the heavy lifting for you. Those extra parts were for worst of the worst case scenarios only, and were often placed to add to armor effectiveness. Like the extra track sections bolted all over the place.
Since Freedom units has been defined in metric since 1893, I'll dispute which system is te real world one ;) I can agree that the weight itself isn't that much of an issue, but it becomes bit troublesome when you go from a flatbed to the back of the turret s finding stable footing and proper angles to lift becomes more of a concern.
Luke Panzer not really as it's only seating three people. one on the right and two back to back on the left side. The rearward driver/radio operator even had space to put his legs on top of the radio set and lie down fully extended!
If some advanced race was watching down on us, I bet they'd see our tanks and armored fighting vehicles as barbaric and archaic. But to a lot of us, we see them as badass and interesting!
This Was direct translation. Plus i don't sugar coat things so they look good or in this case sound good. The name Stridsvagn is so identical to the same word that would be in my language that would be spelled like this: Stríðsvagn and that would translate to Warwagon and nothing else. I prefere direct translation.
Splitting hairs (and I don't really care), but if Warwagon was a direct translation, it would be called a "Krigsvagn", not "Stridsvagn". Krig = War. Strid = Battle. No sugar coating, "battle wagon" is the direct translation.
So that's why you went armor then, wasn't it, sir? You got tired of walking everywhere and carrying everything on your back, or didn't want to have to do all of that, so you went armor when you went and joined the US Army, right?
oh wow i do the same thing telling inanimate objects to stay and not fall over alsoI cringe every time i see him lift the heavy items there is a serious lack of technique i am surprised he does not get an injury doing that its a dangerous ignorance of health and safety
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great Christmas Present, hope to see more of the Chieftan
It's true- engine bay hatches and toilet seat lids need to be told to 'STAY....'
Hope you had a good chrissy Chieftain and have a great new year!
"Of course it won't work when you're standing on it . . ."
Oh, I think you, of all people, know what it's like to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. ;-)
Happy holidays!
I used the Anti Tank sub variant the PvKv/43 in 97/98 as the main towing trainer when i drove the BgBv90 in Northern Sweden.
You barely noticed it was there and it probably traveled faster than it had ever done in service as the Cv90 does 70 km/h
Nice to hear that you differ between the Stridsvagn m/42 TM, TH and EH and the Infanterikanonvagn 73! I hate it when people refers to the Ikv 73 as Strv m/42 or the other way around!
Thanks Arsenalen & WoT/WG, eagerly awaiting future Swedish & other nations yet seen tanks.
+TheChieftainWoT ..with regards one of your earlier recent episodes where you ask about grease nipples, I believe they go back to at least the mid 1800's, 140+ years ago and was likely quickly developed along with the rise of 'The Age of Steam'.
Should be interesting to see the part two, as it doesn't look that big from the outside..And of course no one has, to my knowledge, invented a tank that works like the Tardis yet. :D
Was going into some serious withdraw Chieftain! Thank you for a great video on a well designed Swedish tank.
I just started grinding this very tank. Glad that the elite engine is nothing unstable in-game.
yay! one month from now we'll have part 2! XD I liked the old transition better. Thanks for squelching the music while you talk.
My guess with the spare wheel is it was hoisted up on there at the factory, and the expectation was when you needed it, you'd just let it fall to the soft ground beside the tank. Then, you'd just abandon the old wheel, either in the field or it became the depot guys' problem, if it broke during downtime.
plus viking are strong before 2000s most strongman were from the baltic region ...
Merry Christmas my friend, looking forward to seeing more of your videos in 2017.
Have fun in 2017,
Joe
Ah, the old puzzle of "What were they thinking when they put that there!"
Thought they were built narrow to fit on the National Railway System.
yank1776 they were, and the railroad bridges and country lane bridges were the reason for the 22ton weight limit.
He just wasn't that specific about it.
Probably both, to be honest.
we need more of these
I for one like the new intro and transitions. Looking forward to the nest video.
New fancy intro, still the same good content!
I just love watching you explain things. :)
Great video as always, Major, but I have to ask: is there any chance at some point of you doing a video on the FV4005 sitting at Bovington?
Look forward to the next one. Thanks.
Chieftain, we miss watching how someone would actually get into all of the crew positions, you provide a good representation. Could you go back to showing us again?
"A two man job, ordinarily." Or, as we say in Sweden: "A one man job."
AakeTraak you claim a tank needs two to work! Sweden designs a mbt with one man combat capacity.
i thought in Sweden you call it "did you just assume their gender?!"
I thought the narrow width was because it needed to fit within the minimum loading gauge of Sweden's rail network, so it could be transported anywhere on their rail network for rapid deployment to any area within Sweden it was needed. And their rail lines were not high capacity, many were in mountains or forests, etc. They could have sacrificed length about as easily to save weight, i seems to me. So why choose the one dimension that has the most negatives to minimize?
How do they reach these design philosophy conclusions? Like a smaller lower idler on the rear for Swedish tanks? What advantages does this offer over other designs?
With that base they have it on it kinda seems like a giant war game piece.
loving your work
I notice the recently leaked 'Super Conqueror' is now part of the intro/transition.
Also still a bit odd that after all this time we haven't had a Chieftain vid on the Chieftain (especially now console actually has the tank).
Not sure but I think the way they thought was: If a road wheel gets destroyed we just replace it with the spare and leave the damaged one. A new one can be had at the depot where all sorts of lifting equipement will be avaible.
Awesome video mate, seriously
The turret side door reinforcement seems to be around the edge of the door. I guess that a glancing hit dented the door and it snapped its lock and sprung open and could not be closed. A large hole in the side of a turret is, I would think, a BAD THING...
this video tank series are epic
please please, do the same, but with WWII planes! sooo needed
The swedish series has that familiar rear designs
Ever thought that the spare wheels are incredibly strategically placed if you wanted to hoist the engine plates with a rope and keep them held up?
Please tell us SOMETHING about the spaced armor Conqueror :*
The markings on the sideskirts remind me of the ones on the Centennial T95 for Console.
I have to say, I like the old intro more.
it wouldn't be a chieftian's video w/o some struggle with a hatch or similar.
FirestreakRodimusPr its called the chieftain's hatch for a reason
Next time you make a video, can you show how long a Track pin is? Never seen one yet
would depend on the track
Scarce is Fat track pin is generally as long as the tracks width
I wonder if the road wheels on the turret acted as a counterweight to the gun.
Re weight: At first the weight limit was firm on 20 tonnes. Then they were "hmm maybe 21 tonnes would be okay" and then a bit later "perhaps adding another tonne won't have bridges falling down" if the design process had been any longer it would probably have crept up to 23 tonnes 😅
wow, the auto captions suggest the Stridsvagn is something completely different lol
well done
Did I hear a complaint about having too many machine guns?
00:38 !!! where in California can I find a Strids 42? Is it in a museum or collection?
It was in the MVTF (Littlefield) collection. No idea where it is now, it would have been one of the ones sold off after his death.
@@TheChieftainsHatch bummer, that's what I was afraid of. from some cursory digging it looks like it ended up in Jordan...
I am surprised that he didn't mention the rear and how nice a place it would have been to sleep
didn't he say something at 8:40 about sliding off in wet weather
he was talking about snow sliding from the tank
I have a question. What was the main reason Sweden decided to go for a normal tank, instead of a turret-less tank destroyer at that point?
I mean, They probably were going to be the defenders most of the time and with their industry, wouldn't It be more fitting to produce something like a Stug III? It's cheaper, less complicated and smaller.
Tanks at this time usually had short barrels to support Infantry more then killing tanks.
Here is a tank destroyed built on the same chassi, though it only came into service after the war.
sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarv%C3%A4rnskanonvagn_m/43
1. You still need MBTs in the arsenal. Even if you're "just" defending, you still need to be on the offensive to drive the enemy out. TDs are not versatile, so if you can only choose *one* type of tank, make it an MBT. Although I absolutely agree that they should have built a few TDs using the same chassis.
2. There was no doctrine for using turret-less tanks at the time. Going turret-less would mean inventing a new doctrine (with no experience) and then retraining the entire tank corps during a war. A dedicated TD was a very new thing at the time. The StuG III and IV were initially assault guns (they had low-velocity guns incapable of penetrating armour), not TDs. They weren't rearmed to TDs until around 1942. Even if you count the earliest StuGs as TDs, they had only been operational for two years when Strv M/42 entered service.
Funkpanzer
So when this tank was designed, the greatest threat was Germany, and seeing as They were undefeated at that point(1941) and They are seemingly rolling through the entire Red Army, could you really allow yourself the luxury to design a tank that is good at offense? From my limited understanding, Sweden had nowhere near the manpower nor the industry to build (standard)tanks in a sufficient number to defeat a potential invading force.
So wouldn't It have been better to design a tank focused entirely around defense(since You have no chance at a reasonable offense), which would have been both faster and cheaper to manufacture?
And Sweden actually went with the turret-less tank design in the form of the S-tank later on.
So Is it really just that a standard tank's flexibility was more desired than a greater number of tanks focused around defense?
Defense/offense doesn't really apply on the scale of an entire war. If you got to choose a tank for *one specific battle*, you could say you are either a defender or an attacker. You'll never be a defender during an *entire war*.
I'm exaggerating to make a point here, but if you're just going to be a defender, why use tanks at all, why not just concrete bunkers? Like the Maginot line, which worked great. :)
This was Hitler's mistake with the Blitzkrieg. If you are completely focused on a fast offensive, you'll get crushed as soon as you get stuck. Same with Luftwaffe, which was great at precision bombing and tactical support, but had no strategic and very limited defensive capabilities, and fell apart completely as soon as Allies pushed back.
So you will need MBTs. Especially if you have a small army.
You are looking at this from our viewpoint in 2016, where we know what StuGs and TDs would do later in the war. In 1941, this was a *very* new idea. No sensible army would have spent all their resources on a crazy new invention that no-one had used before.
The S-tank was made after the results came in from WWII. Manufactured and tested in peace time, had laser optics, fly-by-wire controls etc, so it could perform as an MBT. And it had crews trained on it, and most importantly a doctrine built for it.
I absolutely agree with what you are saying, I would have ordered at least half of the tanks to be built as TDs. But that's because we both know things people didn't know back then.
The main point in regard to concrete bunkers vs tanks is that one can be moved to where its needed, the other.... not so much. :)
Much of the doctrines for the swedish army is based on guerilla tactics and infantry support. In dense forrested areas, swamps and rocky terrain infantry will almost always spot and engage enemy tanks first. The IKV series of vehicles (Infanteri Kanon Vagn = Infantery Cannon Vehicle) are rather light, manouverable and carry a good alround gun. Their job was to support the infantry by quickly get in position and defeat tanks/infantry that are already being engaged by friendly infantery. Later on the infantry would carry ever more efficient and powerful AT systems, like the RB55, 56,AT4 etc etc.
Here's hoping the inside is as well thought out as the outside.
190kg is just shy of 419lb in real world measurements (which is closest to a quarter of a ton, not a fifth). Doesn't sound like much of an issue... two strapping young lads could handle that. I used to help my brother load stuff weighing a couple hundred pounds easy in to pickup trucks when we were both younger, in our teen years. We loaded a brush hog on the truck once by hand. Those weigh in the neighborhood of 500lbs. The thing about it is that you have to not be a wuss. :) I'd also imagine, realistically, you don't dismount that or tracks by hand. You have your crane truck or tank do the heavy lifting for you. Those extra parts were for worst of the worst case scenarios only, and were often placed to add to armor effectiveness. Like the extra track sections bolted all over the place.
Since Freedom units has been defined in metric since 1893, I'll dispute which system is te real world one ;)
I can agree that the weight itself isn't that much of an issue, but it becomes bit troublesome when you go from a flatbed to the back of the turret s finding stable footing and proper angles to lift becomes more of a concern.
Is anyone else addicted to the music? Please never change it.
they put machine guns on so if there were spear men you were carrying you could put them to some use
you surely mean spare men. Spear men I imagine would stand atop the tank and throw spears at the enemy.
m1 next. thank you
You didnt always have gray hair?
If I was able to make one law the whole world had to follow, it would be when a new type of tank is created, one must be saved for museum purposes.
strv 103 next plz it must have a cramped interior
Luke Panzer not really as it's only seating three people. one on the right and two back to back on the left side. The rearward driver/radio operator even had space to put his legs on top of the radio set and lie down fully extended!
If some advanced race was watching down on us, I bet they'd see our tanks and armored fighting vehicles as barbaric and archaic. But to a lot of us, we see them as badass and interesting!
9:05 what?? A Volvo engine that isn't reliable?? Impossible!
The old transition cut was better :(
Love the shorter intro
Yes, my subscription failed me tonight but not you chieftain.
sick intro
8:00 Just like in, I think, in the ISU video ;D
When you question if something is gonna call on you “ staaaay”
It looks like the KV
8:12 "Two man job ordinarily"
Weird flex but okay
Where is the Stetson, its not the chieftain without it.
Anyone else notice that at 0:58 that Conqueror is dressed for war?
Yes...WG have been teasing us about it and neither the artist nor TheChieftain seem to want to say anything about it. :(
E = En motor = one engine , T = Två motorer = two engines.... my guess =D
I'm watching this while eating apricots, just so you know.
Stay.....
8:54 An "unreliable Volvo engine", Surely you jest.
tell me next time youre there so i could be in the background of the video and stare so the editors gets crepped out
those pine needles lol
about as nordic as it gets
Gun barrel is warped
Stridsvagn would be tranlated. Warwagon
or War-chariot. We use the same word for Tank as for Chariot (as in the ones used by Boadicea).
Battlewagon is a closer translation.
This Was direct translation. Plus i don't sugar coat things so they look good or in this case sound good. The name Stridsvagn is so identical to the same word that would be in my language that would be spelled like this: Stríðsvagn and that would translate to Warwagon and nothing else. I prefere direct translation.
Splitting hairs (and I don't really care), but if Warwagon was a direct translation, it would be called a "Krigsvagn", not "Stridsvagn". Krig = War. Strid = Battle. No sugar coating, "battle wagon" is the direct translation.
But we did have the word "Stridsvagn" before the tank was ever invented but referring to a War Chariot.
Lift with your legs, not your back, for God's sake! You'll throw your back at some point.
I was just about to comment the same thing, Makes me cringe watching him, I hope he works out, but I dont think so.
Work out!? Why would I do such a thing?
I take my Army fitness test on occasion, that's as far as I'll go.
So that's why you went armor then, wasn't it, sir? You got tired of walking everywhere and carrying everything on your back, or didn't want to have to do all of that, so you went armor when you went and joined the US Army, right?
TheChieftainWoT lol why work out your skinny as it is xD
Oh god, I just wanted to go to sleep
bilal SADIQ It's 5am in Germany XD
oh wow i do the same thing telling inanimate objects to stay and not fall over alsoI cringe every time i see him lift the heavy items there is a serious lack of technique i am surprised he does not get an injury doing that its a dangerous ignorance of health and safety