Love the content, but you REALLY need to work on balancing (mastering) the audio, mate. I’m listening in high quality headphones and it’s quite hard to make out what you’re saying over the engine noise and the music. In addition, your voiceover sort of sounds like it was recorded inside a tupperware container. Again, I love the content. Just trying to provide some constructive feedback :) Keep it up mate ✌️
Agree. Lovely video sabotaged by needless background music. Never ever put music over anything. I WANT to hear what you're saying. It's the audio equivalent of putting clipart all over the video for no reason.
These vehicles and the predecessor Bv 202 was not designed for special operations (as an aside special forces preferred the old Bv 202 because it was quieter), but this type of vehicles was developed as a response to winter manoeuvres in northern Sweden in the 50's where the infantry brigades had huge problems with mobility. This led to the development of the Bv 202, the Bv 206 is just a newer better vehicle of that type.
When I was in the army in 1980-1981 we used this band wagon. When we left our troop transport trucks behind and went on skis in to roadless terrain we put tents and other stuff in the band wagon. It was also meant to evacuate wounded. Fortunately we only did training and no actual combat so no real wounded😊
It's more or less common in the civil sector. When we had up to 2 meter snow (6.5 feet) one winter, these were the only vehicles that got anywhere. They were used for things like transporting sick people to hospitals, getting food to isolated elderly, evacuating people and much more. They are the perfect vehicles for deep snow and deep swamps.
The Army in Alaska had these starting in 1984. They were the M973 Small Unit Support Vehicle (SUSV). They were equipped with a 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine and a Mercedes 4 spd automatic transmission. The 5 cylinder engine didn't fair well. It was prone to overheating and headgasket leaks . In 1990, the M973A1 was introduced with a 6 cylinder diesel. By 1999, the Hagglunds contract ended and the SUSV's were scrapped. In 2023 the Army is prepared to re-introduce the improved model.
I find it fascinating that the specs would be so different from country to country. In the original it was a ford v6 2.8 taken down to , if I remember correctly 2,4 petrol engine, limited to 58 kph , these limiters could easily be bypassed to a top speed of 92 kph . 4 speed automatic Mercedes’ gearbox and a torque converter. It had a mean power and nothing you could not do with it . The other version was called 2062 same specs but more punch .
We operate five of these at the Antarctic centre in Christchurch New Zealand, currently looking for replacement Mercedes diesel engines - any help would be appreciated!
As far as I know, there has not been nay military vehicles in Sweden powered by a Volvo diesel. (Petrol on the other han has occurred a lot). A diesel in this kind of vehicle makes a lot of sense, I suppose, so then it would likely been a Scania if it should be a domestic one.
@@davebowman6497 Ltgb 938 (and various versions of it) were militarized versions of the L385 Volvo Viking diesel truck. Similarly L 934 (L3154). Those are the only ones I can think of.
@frankkrunk Uh, that's embarrassing.. Of-course we had a Volvo truck at the staff platoon of the RBS-70 company I did my military service at! And it definitively was a diesel. 【Blushing】
Very good question, actually. This might be one that at some point found itself in Russia. It’s well-known that the Russians got their hands on this vehicle, copied it, and made their own version. Cheaply and badly, I might add. Just like they have badly copied many other pieces of Swedish military equipment, such as the CB90 (Combat Boat 90). Their cheap copies are terrible. The Russians have very little innovation power. I expect all the lovely Russian bots to flood me with stupid comments in an attempt to refute me. Hello and welcome :)
"..but you always gotta look out for the trailer at the back". AFAIK the trailer will go where the front part went. Steering is not accomplished by having one track go faster than the other like on eg a tank. There probably are some kind of differentials _allowing_ the tracks in a pair to go at different speeds, but that speed difference would be an effect of the vehicle turning, not the cause of it. All four tracks are driven, and the steering wheel controls the articulation of the front and back part. Ie when the steering wheel is turned it bends the complete vehicle. Thus, the complete vehicle behaves as a car would if it had counter-steering on the back wheels. The back wheels would go where the front wheels went. In the same manner the BvXXX rear tracks go where the front tracks went. The exception to this would be if you where on sideways dloping ground that offered little grip. But in that case everything would potentially slip'n'slide, and you would be cursing a lot. 😅
Den absolut bästa bandvagn vi haft i försvaret
BvS10 är så otroligt mycket bättre.
@@erik.... It's quite a lot heavier though making it better for combat conditions, but more costly for logistics.
Love the content, but you REALLY need to work on balancing (mastering) the audio, mate. I’m listening in high quality headphones and it’s quite hard to make out what you’re saying over the engine noise and the music. In addition, your voiceover sort of sounds like it was recorded inside a tupperware container. Again, I love the content. Just trying to provide some constructive feedback :) Keep it up mate ✌️
Agree. Lovely video sabotaged by needless background music. Never ever put music over anything. I WANT to hear what you're saying. It's the audio equivalent of putting clipart all over the video for no reason.
These vehicles and the predecessor Bv 202 was not designed for special operations (as an aside special forces preferred the old Bv 202 because it was quieter), but this type of vehicles was developed as a response to winter manoeuvres in northern Sweden in the 50's where the infantry brigades had huge problems with mobility. This led to the development of the Bv 202, the Bv 206 is just a newer better vehicle of that type.
When I was in the army in 1980-1981 we used this band wagon.
When we left our troop transport trucks behind and went on skis in to roadless terrain we put tents and other stuff in the band wagon.
It was also meant to evacuate wounded.
Fortunately we only did training and no actual combat so no real wounded😊
Interesting! Was it in Sweden or somewhere else?
@@FuelEra
Yes.
The regiment was I14.
It no longer exists.
It's more or less common in the civil sector. When we had up to 2 meter snow (6.5 feet) one winter, these were the only vehicles that got anywhere. They were used for things like transporting sick people to hospitals, getting food to isolated elderly, evacuating people and much more.
They are the perfect vehicles for deep snow and deep swamps.
It just doesn’t sink! Stays so well on top of the snow 👍
The Army in Alaska had these starting in 1984. They were the M973 Small Unit Support Vehicle (SUSV). They were equipped with a 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine and a Mercedes 4 spd automatic transmission. The 5 cylinder engine didn't fair well. It was prone to overheating and headgasket leaks . In 1990, the M973A1 was introduced with a 6 cylinder diesel. By 1999, the Hagglunds contract ended and the SUSV's were scrapped. In 2023 the Army is prepared to re-introduce the improved model.
I find it fascinating that the specs would be so different from country to country. In the original it was a ford v6 2.8 taken down to , if I remember correctly 2,4 petrol engine, limited to 58 kph , these limiters could easily be bypassed to a top speed of 92 kph . 4 speed automatic Mercedes’ gearbox and a torque converter. It had a mean power and nothing you could not do with it . The other version was called 2062 same specs but more punch .
We operate five of these at the Antarctic centre in Christchurch New Zealand, currently looking for replacement Mercedes diesel engines - any help would be appreciated!
It sure is bloody fun to drive!
Really?......I want one.
search for "BvS10" and you get the new ones
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Beer Veer
I’m surprised they didn’t use a Volvo engine
When you were competing with the likes of Volvo and Scania for the order, choosing one of their engines would not have been ideal.
As far as I know, there has not been nay military vehicles in Sweden powered by a Volvo diesel. (Petrol on the other han has occurred a lot).
A diesel in this kind of vehicle makes a lot of sense, I suppose, so then it would likely been a Scania if it should be a domestic one.
@@davebowman6497 Ltgb 938 (and various versions of it) were militarized versions of the L385 Volvo Viking diesel truck. Similarly L 934 (L3154). Those are the only ones I can think of.
@frankkrunk Uh, that's embarrassing.. Of-course we had a Volvo truck at the staff platoon of the RBS-70 company I did my military service at! And it definitively was a diesel. 【Blushing】
@@davebowman6497every truck i saw during my time at I19 in 03-04 was a Scania. Every truck from tungstridsvagnstransport to the Tross was Scania.
Why is there Russian instructions/warnings on the instrument panel?
Russians bought a bunch of them some time ago
It also has a russian registration plate from the Novgorod region. So the bigger question is - why is there so much left in swedish?
Very good question, actually. This might be one that at some point found itself in Russia. It’s well-known that the Russians got their hands on this vehicle, copied it, and made their own version. Cheaply and badly, I might add. Just like they have badly copied many other pieces of Swedish military equipment, such as the CB90 (Combat Boat 90). Their cheap copies are terrible. The Russians have very little innovation power. I expect all the lovely Russian bots to flood me with stupid comments in an attempt to refute me. Hello and welcome :)
@@indiefjant Är inte förvånad i de fallet haha! Dom blir mer å mer lik en kineskopia!
"..but you always gotta look out for the trailer at the back".
AFAIK the trailer will go where the front part went.
Steering is not accomplished by having one track go faster than the other like on eg a tank. There probably are some kind of differentials _allowing_ the tracks in a pair to go at different speeds, but that speed difference would be an effect of the vehicle turning, not the cause of it.
All four tracks are driven, and the steering wheel controls the articulation of the front and back part. Ie when the steering wheel is turned it bends the complete vehicle. Thus, the complete vehicle behaves as a car would if it had counter-steering on the back wheels. The back wheels would go where the front wheels went. In the same manner the BvXXX rear tracks go where the front tracks went.
The exception to this would be if you where on sideways dloping ground that offered little grip. But in that case everything would potentially slip'n'slide, and you would be cursing a lot. 😅