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.
@@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.
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
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.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
4:05 - 4:13. That sound that tank makes..... That sound induces fear into all nearby. I would be sacred shitless if i heard that thing near me at night.
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
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.
S-Tank can't fire on the move, ha, no tank of its time could fire on the move even with stabilization unless they were aiming at the side of a tank at 100 meters, then you've enter close quarter brawling range and you're frankly suicidal. S-Tank was an offensive guerrilla weapon. Hit em' where their soft, maneuver, and hit them again.
not the first versions, they could fire somewhat accuratly while going at max 20 km/h above that and the gun stabilization system whould go haywire. after 2-3 seconds of it doing that after you have stoped again the system whould reset and you can finaly aim.
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.
I love the innovations that went into this tank but at the end of the day, like the narrator said, this is a purely defensive tank because it can't shoot when traveling. I think this was what the Swedish army wanted anyway as they were hopelessly outnumbered by the Soviet Red Army.
It wasn't purely defensive, it was just designed based on the assumption that being able to move quickly using terrain cover and then firing faster than the enemy would be more useful than the attempts during that era to make tank guns accurate when moving.
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.
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.
@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.
@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 “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.
In my opinion, it is still infinitely more practical and effective to rotate the turret to fire at a target behind or to the sides than to have to rotate the entire tank.
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.
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.
"The S tank is also capable of traversing smoothly, despite minor obstacles in it's path."
*pushes a whole tree out of it's way*
Yes yes, *minor obstacles*
13 years later. Im finally here.
Me too. just 1 day later than you.
@@werhnerd2773 Me too. Just 1 day later than you
@@julesonghena6806 me too. I'm just 3hrs later than you
@@bedathesimp1994 me too just 6 hours later than you
War Thunder, anybody?
"... is capable of traversing smoothly despite minor obstacles in it's path"
**Hurls a boulder**
**Breaks a tree**
"minor obstacles"
XD that was scary to see, such a powerful engine
XD
You my sir made my day
For a tank yeah
It’s a tank of course it’s a minor obstacle
Those tracks refuse to come of-
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
Gas turbine + diesel, sounds super dope
That’s isn’t it’s engine noise it just some overlay gash.
@@t_k_o_lits a Mix ?
@@rafomic4210 yeah it uses both
1:16 T-34-85
1:25 now it’s a Maus!
I saw that too
The documentary seems bias
Lol xD
Didnt even notice that, wow
maus with big cupola
That is the clip in it's entirety. The voice heard at the end is talking about a different tank.
Are you doing good?
Hi there!
What tank the narrator is talking later on this video?
You should pin this message, so viewers would see it and know :)
Thanks for uploading this documentary! Enjoyed it very much!
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.
@@korana6308 A turret on tracks. Yes, it was designed to hide and do fast ambush attacks then run and hide and repeat
It CAN fire on the move, the problem is that it needs to be pretty flat ground and at ranges less then 500 meters for it to be accurate doing so.
and it has to drive directly towards or away from the target...
So basically it can’t fire on the move
but if u play world of tanks? this guy is a devil
Why u need fire on the move when u can stop move for fire and get more accurate?
@@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.
Look at that sloped frontal armor when facing enemies.
Ricochet at its highest probability.
Uranium depleted shells don't care tho- aka every single shell fired since 1970 by USSR and USA
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
Egor Rorvik well if you have an impact angle of over 85* I think even du rounds of today and absolutely those of the 70s and 80s would bounce/ricochet
this tank pooping after shooting 5:05
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Seriously, its pooping tank
and it happens in war thunder unlike in WoT
I wish i didnt see that now it seems less intimidating
I think I nearly did the same thing the first time I fired a gun.
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
@@alexisXcore93 💀💀
Jagdpanther on steroids.
I love it.
more like JgTiger on steroid and horse steroid added
@@detectivepatchouli8266 more like E25 on steroids.
At least JagdPanther and JagdTiger can move their guns😐
Mohammad Jaafar But this one has engines that don’t break down all the time, plus it can be operated by one man if needed.
@@Hiznogood a bit bull your dumb arent you
2020 Nobody:
2020 RUclips: Hey, what about this random video from 2006?
True. Правда
probably because war thunder released it
@@artilleryfire6576 and World of tanks
@@Eldar_Aytpaev they released it a couple of years ago, what do you mean?
@@artilleryfire6576
But WOT has a larger audience.
RUclips recommendations never disappointing me.
Probably lots of world of tanks players here?
I have this tank
@@ivorthumm1104 i jave the S1. And i like it.
@@TheBulletoffire mee too
Habedou Defiant yes
Nah, a bunch of us War Thunder players are here too
"Can't fire on the move"
You mean you can't auto-aim while holding down "W"?
ever moment
it's funny how it poops brass))
It is like when you are really bad in you stomach and you sneeze and fart at the same time :P
rofl
It is not fun, but it has a function!
@@Mordiiax what does than mean dork ?
@@onlythewise1 fecal repulse
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.
Well the worlds first Tank did not have any revolving turret. So by defenition a tank do not need a turret.
Swedish S-Tank Capt.(Ret.)
It is not a tank without turret, but a turret without a chassis
It's a Tank destroyer.
@@iwanttobetankman4260 we know that
@@iwanttobetankman4260 No, it's not. It's a MBT
The whole vehicle is a turret....the suspension elevates and depresses the gun.
I'm expecting Daebom fans to appear because of of this scene at 5:03. Here it comes.
Yep, here we are
Feels empty, they probably haven't found this video yet
This is 13 years old in my recommendation box,
But still awesome
@MajSolo Instead of a turretless tank, think of the S tank as a tankless turret...
DonMeaker the entire thing is an oscillating tank
This tank was a real futuristic beast to it's date.
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?!
No
@@M8143K 12 years to come up with that burn.
😂
Then again, this is a defensive tank, to protect Sweden.
Very nice points, I know I'm a little late but this man's got a point
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 love how it "shits" out the spent cartridge. :)
S-tank must be the coolest tank ever. I've been waiting for a clip like this. Thanks for posting!
Very cool, I love to see novel solutions to problems. Thanks for posting this Grimlock.
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!!!!
It’s an MBT not an AFV or even TD
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.
Tror du vi tycker att ni är svenskar om ni bor på andra sidan världen och inte kan svenska?
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.
1:53 says minor obstacles *shows a whole ass bolder*
I absolutely like these niche systems created for specific requirements and contexts.
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 would put a remote turret on it
@@King.Leonidas mg?
17 years later I am finally here 🎉
Спустя 13 лет, и ютуб решил кинуть мне в рекомендации это.
Domik Cromwell у меня для тебя новость, спустя 14 лет
Never seen or heard of this before but I’m happy to now know
я здесь единственный русский?
\
Нет братан! Еще я есть! Пиздец шведы мозг сломают!
Согласен
Нет
Не, ты не один.
А 13 лет назад Ютуб был?)
My grandfather was a Crewman of this tank, stationed in the rear end during his time in the military.
did he loved it?
I love how it turns into a boat 😂😂
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
The more I see it, the more I like this vehicle,
It’s really a innovative concept...🐥
Ahhh yes the almighty swedish wedge
@jimmyn89SWE And speaking of the M60 and Leo 1, those were actually considered as the alternatives to the S tank.
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
5:05 My 9y/o mind : Hahaha, Poopy tank
Не танк, а могила. В реальном бою не сможет долго продержаться. Я как маршал танково-диванных войск вам это говорю.
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
Маршал значит ты сраный , это НЕ ТАНК ЭТО *ПТ* и в боях она НЕ УЧАВСТВУЕТ 👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊 А ЛУПИТ ИЗ ПОД ТЯЖКА .
*Strv 103*
Other tank: “haha shorty”
*Deploys flotation screen*
“What did you say to me you little shi-“
Машина высокого технологического уровня.
The machine is a high technological level.
what a nifty machine being able to tackle most obstacles like that. it’s very cool to watch this high 😄
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.
2006 World of Tanks haven't been created yet.
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.
Interesting construction
6:56 how high does this engine rev?
I love it. It would be nice to have more combat records on the vehicle.
The russian 125 mm smoothbore punches through the only 40 mm armour on the slope even as very sloped but with added ceramic tiles who knows
it might go through the slope, but what about the rest of the tank including the engines? the crew are in the back of the tank@@jari2018
WHO FROM WOT ? :)
Yup, here i am :)
Well wot blitz
Its me
Yeeeaahhh
Wide open throttle?
6:57 clean drift
Beautiful
Not a tank because of no turret
First tank ever : am I a joke to you
@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.
@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.
4:05 - 4:13. That sound that tank makes..... That sound induces fear into all nearby. I would be sacred shitless if i heard that thing near me at night.
Pewdiepie : *Hard as a Diamond Rock*
15 years later man RUclips has really grown
16 now
Стерва, мать её!
Бульбашей на момент выхода видео еще не существовало)
This aged like Fine Wine
Поставьте лайк. Пусть думают, что я что-то путёвое написал)
Although I don’t understand Russian but it sounds nice
4:10 sounds like a roaring sportscar :O
5:04 hmm
Strv 103 is the perfect example of a turretless tank
wonder what was overall cost of those? comparing to "normal" tank. 2:1? 3:1?
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.
viking93ify yeah..and? i was asking what was the cost for tank.. i already stated that was cheap.
@@sharky0922 roughly the same as a T-55
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
@@combatantezoteric2965 overmatch doesn't work that way IRL...
It’s so cool that one man can go on a rampage with this one alone !!
5:04 me when the when the me when
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.
S-Tank can't fire on the move, ha, no tank of its time could fire on the move even with stabilization unless they were aiming at the side of a tank at 100 meters, then you've enter close quarter brawling range and you're frankly suicidal. S-Tank was an offensive guerrilla weapon. Hit em' where their soft, maneuver, and hit them again.
not the first versions, they could fire somewhat accuratly while going at max 20 km/h above that and the gun stabilization system whould go haywire. after 2-3 seconds of it doing that after you have stoped again the system whould reset and you can finaly aim.
It's a beast in defensive tactics and counter strike
the S-tank is the modern Tank destroyer. im gonna call it the Swedish hetzer
Its not a tank destroyer
It’s a freakin MBT
And it's not modern
It was in service to 1997. Cuurent Swedish MBT is STRV 122 and it's based on improved Leopard 2
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.
I love the innovations that went into this tank but at the end of the day, like the narrator said, this is a purely defensive tank because it can't shoot when traveling. I think this was what the Swedish army wanted anyway as they were hopelessly outnumbered by the Soviet Red Army.
It wasn't purely defensive, it was just designed based on the assumption that being able to move quickly using terrain cover and then firing faster than the enemy would be more useful than the attempts during that era to make tank guns accurate when moving.
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.
The only place where traversing decreases accuracy is WarGaming's completely unrealistic arcade tank game called World of Tanks.
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.
War thunder is better for 49% that reason
@@nuttynuts4601 but some of us are too poor for a pc so instead we play the blitz version
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.
@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.
StuG life!
@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
If world of tanks add this thing and the water thingy... ohh boy..
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
I'm f*cked, the first time I met this tank/TD I chase it with my T-10 thinking that TD is slow driving backward.
Then there's TOG
It's funny that I thought "well with how much you have why doesn't it float" and then that section popped up. Dang, this MBT did all
Yeah and the turret and gun couldnt even move that much in the forrests up here in the north so the swedes decided they didnt need it anyway :)
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.
I still haven’t seen it hit anything.
Love the 103
that maybe true up until the 115mm of the t-62.
It should also be noted that the first armored vehicles to be called tanks did not have turrets.
плохо то, что без работающего двигателя этот танк ничего не может!
А какой может?
@@PA3_DBA887 34-85
Отличная машинка смотрел документалку лет 12 назад вот уж не думал что в игре появится
S Tank the best tank
Lol not even in ur dreams😂
It’s the worst tank because it doesn’t have a turret
@@hanfei6871 the Japanese tanks sucks
Adam 1740 underweight and overpriced! Just like French tanks!
@@hanfei6871 having a turret doesnt make a tank good
In my opinion, it is still infinitely more practical and effective to rotate the turret to fire at a target behind or to the sides than to have to rotate the entire tank.
Who else came here from “world of tanks”?😄
yes)
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.
Defensive weapon? i find that Offensive to be Frank
Janne Samurai Who is Frank?
I wish RUclips recommended this video to me 17 years ago ;(
Reminds me of the Stug
Swedish Stug :)
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.
Yeah me too a more modern stug.
It's more of a defensive vehicle than an offensive one, the lack of a turret means that it can't effectively engage targets while on the move.