Strv 103 | The turretless tank legend of the Swedish Army
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- We are investigating the Strv 103 (Stridsvagn 103 or S-tank), the most fascinating tank of Sweden, with its turretless design. #strw103 #swedisharmy #tank
Why did Sweden develop a turretless tank?
Was the Strv 103 disadvantageous compared with the other turreted tanks of the period?
What were the other different features of the Strv 103?
Why have the other countries not used turretless tanks?
00:00 Introduction
01:27 Historical and geographical background
02:38 Programme history
04:34 Naming
05:01 Specifications
06:31 Main differences between variants
07:37 Main gun
07:49 Crew compartment
08:41 Firepower
10:34 Mobility
11:21 Additional fuel tanks
11:39 Analysis
Welcome to our new content. As the Weapon Detective, we are investigating modern weapon systems of the Second Cold War. The Weapon Legends is about older weapon systems. In our videos, we tell their epic stories which made them a legend. The Weapon Legends investigates these stories, reads between the lines, analyse, and tells the untold. In our videos, you can find technical information as well as historical backgrounds, what happened during the development processes, combat experience and political projection. Let the wisdom of history show us what the future would be like. Let’s investigate the veteran weapons of the past together.
© Swedish Armed Forces, Roger Nilsson, Tekniskt Magasin, Imperial War Museums, British Army, net-film.ru, Bohusläns Försvarsmuseum, Gotlands Försvarsmuseum, US Army, yolkhere, French Army, US Marine Corps, Bundesarchiv, Adalberto Pimentel da Silva, harry4468, MaskinJunior, Sofilein, Ybox 10, Södra Skåningarna, Zeitgeschichte in Bild und Ton, AP (Associated Press), Breidablick Film AB, Cinema Art, Europa Post Production, Filmpool Nord, Finnish Film Foundation, Gräsken Invest, Kino Finlandia, SVT, Philip Nylund, Thomas Blixt, Roger Nilsson, PrimusPilus2, Bundeswehr, K L, Discovery Channel
Music: Swedish Army March - Pansarkamrater Marsch
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos
• Weapon Legends
Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos
• Swedish Systems
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Land videos
• Weapon Legends-Land
/ weapondetective
/ weapondetective
weapondetective@gmail.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html
Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LpBbgCM_Ndw0Lq6CMmhBsrp.html
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Land videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LqHE6H1re0NTbEd4ZnzNCgn.html
A great concept for it’s time, as our military force was a defense force against an invasion army. As a soldier you where trained for independent actions, fighting in small groups guerilla style. It would had been a very costly invasion for the aggressors, as we where told to never surrendered. “Any talk about surrender is false!” It’s hard to fight an decentralized enemy, even our fighter jets could operate from road bases that quickly could be re-grouped to a new base quickly. Re-arming and re-fueling was done under 15 minutes or less.
That’s actually really interesting
Thank god the finns saved you from the russians
It would be all great if your government wouldn't have scammed its way through all the major conflicts and benefited from them by selling weapons and raw ore to both sides of the conflict. Smart? Yes. Immoral? Yes yes.
@@dingdong2103 no, we traded raw ore and other things for weapons and the promise of not getting our asses invaded and wiped by a force we cant come close to matching
@@desertdesmond6736 With the exception of the brave souls who volunteered to defend Finland, Sweden mostly benefited from the war even at the expense of Finland (France and England offered troops and supplies in the war against the Soviets but Sweden denied their passage).
Back in 1982 While I was stationed in Mainz Germany with 8th Infantry Division. We had to do a NATO river crossing and that was my first time seeing one of them. I got a chance to sit in the commanders seat. To this day it was the most WOW moment of my life.
I remember being a kid in the 80's looking at this tank in a book. I fell in love with it's practical design and very specific purpose.
Me too!
The “hit and run” tactic was a big reason for this tank. Designed to fight an enemy with superior numbers aka russ
Russ...h b?
No, it was not a big reason, it was an afterthought. The backwards driving gear was one of the last systems added.
@@peterlewerin4213 all military planing during that time period was influenced by the scenario of a Russian invasion and how to defend against it. Officially Sweden was neutral under the Cold War period, but because of Russian pressure (that resulted in Sweden handing over German refugees to Russia). Leading to Sweden not feeling sure that Russia would respect its neutrality. So Sweden hade a secret defense pact with America. The scenario was for Sweden to use hit and run tactics to delay the Russians long enough for American soldiers to arrive.
@@thecheekychinaman6713 sorry Russia
@@iFarsight No, the strategy didn't emphasise hit and run tactics. The idea was to go all out and push invaders back at the borders. Given that this wouldn't be possible indefinitely, withdrawing to and regrouping in forested areas was expected but not as a means to achieve strategic goals.
Cool Swedish design married to great engineering. Add the scenic Swedish countryside and the tank version of a"hand brake" turn, what more could you ask for from a video? Yet again the Weapon Detective knocks the ball out of the park!!!
A few points. Experienced crews could drive and fire with this tank. the suspension used was so smooth and fast it could outshift any turreted tank all the way up to proper fully gstabbed tanks. such as leo2 and the like. When the cold war ended t-62s and t-72s where brought in and they test fired on these vehicles with what would have been devestating effect.
To compare it to anyform of tank destroyer is a terrible sin. They were never designed for such a purpose. Its also erranous to believe its a purely defensive vehicle. The entire doctrine around full soviet invasion was to strike hard and strike as soon as possible. It was never to fall back or give ground. It was to stop them dead in their tracks and keep them there until they got either tired of dying and left or for the western forces to mop up the soviets in europe and send aid. The key to winning a possible ww3 was who held sweden. Falling back and giving ground is thus not a plausible tactic. The entire point of the "total defense" strategy was so that the soviets would not be able to get to our natural resources, airstrips, harbors, nuclear plants and even dairy plants (excellent at massproducing biological warfare weapons)
There are maps where there are lines drawn where not one inch would ever be given until Sweden was overrun. The massive army in sweden at that time was designed around simple numbers because it was known how many men the soviets could field and if they wanted to take on europe and sweden at the same time they would only have X amount. if X amount could be held in place the soviets would be incapable of taking europe and thus failing. If they comitted overwhelming numbers into sweden they would quickly lose europe and get overrun.
Great info, I never heard of it. Thanks for sharing.
Very good and informative video.
There are some small things I want to correct:
The Strv 103 were never intended to replace the Centurion, they was suposed to complete each other. The Strv 103 mainly replaced the Strv 74.
The Strv 103 and 104 was replaced at first with Strv 121 (leased used Leopard 2 A4) and later completed with the Strv 122 (new A5).
4:34 Actually, Stridsvagn just means Tank. But if you want to go very literal "Strid" means combat, & "vagn" means wagon, so combat wagon.
In German it means Streitwagen so very simmilar and Streitwagen were the chariots of ancient warfare :) So quite fitting
there is a english word . Strife but I also belive combat wagon is a better word
@@jari2018 The word "strife" is used when describing air to ground attacks. I haven't heard the word used in other cases. I'm sure I missed it.
@@ichimonjiguy I think you mean 'strafe'.
@@bangkokbill4035 Thanks. I got it wrong.
70% of Sweden's area consists of forest and 10% of water. We have different needs compared to most other countries when it comes to
Defence of the country. It's the same with Finland.
"performance in muddy terrain was naturally low"
Well, yes except not exactly. The track arrangement actually allowed very good ability to get THROUGH terrain, the higher ground pressure just slowed it down a bit more than preferable. So while it was a definite drawback, it's not nearly as bad as it looks if you just look at the raw numbers. And the short track arrangement is also what allows the extreme agility, and without a turret, this was more important than being able to go faster over soft terrain.
So "performance" if read as speed, then yes, but if read as ability to get past difficult terrain at all then no, its performance was actually better than average. This was part of the requirements because >1/2 of Sweden has lots of very difficult terrain spread out all over it.
Excellent presentation. The Sv103 is like something International Rescue would use in Thunderbirds!! Fascinating tank.
Stunning design.
In a defensive war this would still be fearsome.
It was a good tank tailor-made for Sweden and our geography made it good for defence, our dense forests in the north and gave great protection .
It was actually mainly used in the southern half of Sweden, only one (P5) of the four battalions equipped with the S-tank was based north of Dalaälven. It's primary objective would have been to swiftly counterattack any hostile amphibious landings on the flat southeastern shores of Sweden, or against airborne landings on the plains south of the lakes Vänern and Vättern.
this tank looks terrific!!!!
i think that it would be a good Idea to modernize the strv with a 120mm gun, better engine, and newer armor package
S-103 hade a 250hp boxer moter, and a gas turbin. The back driver hade 2 radios and was medical education. 103 could shot a bottle 1,6 km. On The road The speedway was 90km/ when you swith on a certein button, but then you could only driver about 20 min. The ksp you could take with you and fight on The grund. The gas turbiner was not so god it brooke down a lot!! 1971 a was on The 103 as back driver.
What was the purpose of the back driver..??
@@jessekleidon9503 To get away so fast The tank could, the gunner and chef still shoting if there still whas enemy!!
Not The gunner but the chef could with the KSP, machingun shot 360 degres!
They could deal with the scoot and shoot problem with a secondary small missile option for targets outside of its main guy's field of fire - and still keep that ultra low profile
I never knew tank without turret exist 😲. The aiming of a target within certain vertical angle seems hard to fire,launch. 💥☠️
Just found your channel with the zsu 23 4 video, subscribed right away.
One of the main misunderstandings of the Stridsvagn 103 I see all over the internet is that is is a “defensive tank”. That’s completely wrong. The 103 was just as an offensive weapon, according to tank doctrine.
All contemporary tanks at the time had to stop first for accurate fire. And the S tank could bring its gun to bear faster than any turret. A 90 degree turn takes 1 second with the clutch and break manoeuvre (a move that would pull the tracks off of most other tanks). The hydraulics where very accurate and offered better movement than many turrets. The optics would still be world class. The fixed gun meant extremely good accuracy at long ranges.
Stridsvagn means "combat wagon" , not "combat vehicle". The later, in swedish Stridsfordon is used for more lightly armed personal carriers in the swedish army like the Strf.90.
Directly translated Stridsvagn means combat vehicle, but in term it means tank or MBT.
@@satanihelvetet Combat wagon.
Stridsvagn means tank, or main battle tank, nothing else.
Very interesting! thank you very much! I think a tank like this could now work along with drones laying over the trees working as watchers and sensors over the battlefield
Nice video about turretless tank stv 103.. produced by swedish with clear explaining of its characters and its several versions with specific certain abilities ..too enjoying video thanks for sending 👍👍👍👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾for weapons detective channel
Some machines become beatiful artifacts. This is one of them. Like a Spitfire.
Many laughed at this tank but I can tell you one thing, when they layed hidden and waited for you didn't laugh at all. As a defensive weapon it was really good. The gun barrel goes through the whole tank and is one of the longest gunbarrels in history which gives it a lethal precision. At that time heatsights was rare so the gasturbine didn't give them away as easily as they would today. Many times the first sign of their presence was when you got hit.
When did they see action precisely? You say "When they lay hidden and waited for you" ... who did they do this to?
@@thevelointhevale1132 The Swedish armed forces conducted many huge combined arms trainings, sometimes using allmost all of Sweden for this purpose, those assigned to play the role of agressor certainly noted it's efficiency.
Sure training iis not real action but you need to remeber that Sweden for decades was probably the worlds most militaized country per capita in terms of resources, manpower and a total defence doctrine that meant that all parts of the society had to participate in these training scenarios. Even things like full scale evacuation of major areas of the capitol Stockholm was tested requiring all civilians to comply.
The primary benefit of a longer barrel is muzzle velocity. With kinetic penetrators, you can achieve more with the same ammunition just by increasing the projectile speed (thus gaining more kinetic energy). That's why Leopard 2A6 has a longer barrel than 2A4.
@@kronop8884 Sweden has no combat experience whatsoever! Even in the Balkan war the swedish army relied on support from Danish tanks. As usual the Swedish crap equipment proved useless, just like this insane tank "design"
@@Jorn41 I smell envy… The Swedish led Nordbat 2 was one of the most efficient in the Balkan, with support of Danish tanks and Norwegian helicopters, that’s how UN missions work.
i think its genius. i'd like to see the barrel be able to control its elevation, but i like this idea.
Im pretty sure they tried that with a concept and it made the gun less stable and just as fast to aim as having it completely stationary.
Heard something about the fixed barrel making it possible to implement autoloading tech, something that would be more difficult with a moving barrel. For that time autoloading was pretty high-tech.
A slight correction. The name of the auxiliary MG is not KPS58, it's KSP58. The KSP58 is still in service in the Swedish armed forces. 🙂
Just found this channel and subbed, great stuff.Please make a video about the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife and F-4 Phantom.
After 1.09 instant subscription and yes i am a swede and i love the strv 103!!!
If the 103 is to be considered useless, should StuGs and their Panzerjager derivatives also be considered useless? It appears history would suggest otherwise :-) Thanks again for great work!
*Useless for the time yes. I absolutely love the tank but I see why they say that. Stabilizers were already being developed and manufactured in the 60s.
@@SpeedVaultz Yet the standard procedure at the time was to stop before firing. The 103 did not suffer from not having a stabilize as much as people think
@@SpeedVaultz In the mid to late 1950's when the concept was developed real useful stabilisation was thought to be a long time coming and nobody could forsee the incredible rate of electronics development that came later. With a 2.4 second autoloader reload rate firing from defensive positions It would probably have done quite well had such a situation occured.
It's artillery, not a tank but it does have pansar.
it's not useless, it just is not capable of performing the duties of a tank and is better used by infantry.
@@michaelmay5453 Great comments! Although the limitations on elevation would have really limited its uses artillery, with a 105 would it not still function pretty adequately as an assault in addition to it s main roles? Thanks!
Good presentation for absolute Swedish beauty. Tank for sharing
Loved the video and the tank
Strw 103-0 have as well 20 mm Automatkanon m/45B but this auto cannon was shown pooor performance soo on the another trail was remnoved and after trails was out fitted with machine gun as A version but over all great video mate.
Great bit of kit!!! Love it’s low level, be hard to find with normal binoculars
That was actually the idea behind the design. Dig trenches for the tanks to "hide" in, just come up far enough for it to be able to fire, and then back down to safety again. It'll be hella hard for the enemy to spot 10-12" of tank sticking up between the trees a mile away ;)
These fuel cans on the sides actually do also work as side armor, as the plastic fuel container also contain a metal plate.
I first saw this vehicle in a video game called generation zero. I always thought it was a weird arse design and convinced myself it was so.ething the developers conjured together. Imagine my surprise when I found out these things are actually real 🤣 the more I learn of these tanks the more I like them jaha.
love this tank!
Thanks for the post of the take of my name.
This is a genius idea.
Iconic. Very practical. The Pzk38t was a perfect base for the Hetzer 38. A much feared anti tank tracked vehicle. So this I believe it was heavily influenced as it was cheap...and powerful. And small crew easy camouflaged and easy maintenance. Many post WWII country’s have made innovative weapons. The bofors 40mm is perhaps the greatest example. Still around. Ma Duece or .50cal. Is still around in a wide variety of air..ground and sea versions. The shaped charge....rocket. Or Bazooka or panzerfaust became..Laws and RPG’s...still very much around. Previous to such secret technology....Anti tank meant bigger round. Which meant bigger carriage...bigger gun.....bigger hassle! Shaped charge...hand held. Or...3.5” version could have much bigger rocket...and fired in salvos! Tiger Tanks had no defense! Equivalent to a broadside from a light cruiser! Much feared
Typhoons...hadn’t far to fly. And the Falaise gap wasn’t very far away! For weeks! They were pounded by everything...including rockets with shaped charges. Solid blocks for miles....and miles...blackened....charred. First time the US military in Europe had really delivered a lot of death and destruction. Eisenhower wrote in his journal. “It was possible to walk for hundreds of yards on nothing but dead....and dying flesh. Driven into a pocket...they desperately fought to keep it open....expecting reinforcements....but became the only way....OUT! The Allies pounded this pocket for weeks!
Nice Swedish tank....it came with a girl in a bikini...and a mug of beer. So.....I heard.
This is probably my favorite besides the Abrams & Leopard.
Sweden was once a super power military wise in its history. Didn't even know that, shame they didn't conquered the world. Seems they do a lot of things right in their country xd
No way!!!! I drive past that museum on my way to work every day! Fucking hell!
For a second I thought you were going to say "I drive that tank to work every day"
And Now you must do a video with the 155mm bandkanon 1 a ...14 r. In less that 60 seconds
Well.. it's more of a tankless turret then a turretless tank..
Found a teeny tiny mistake. It’s not KPS 58, it is KSP 58. ☺️
4:32 No, "Stridsvagn" does not mean Combat Vehicle, "Stridsfordon" does, like the Stridsfordon 90 ("Strf 90" for short). Instead, Stridsvagn literally means "combat wagon".
I would also strongly recommend a look at the Inside the Chieftain's Hatch episodes on this vehicle.
Great Tank, best regards from Leo land Germany ;-)
had never seen the word "handsome" use so accurate
coolest tank ever
The machine guns are called KSP 58 not KPS, its short for Kulspruta which literally translates to bulletsprayer
It can also be translated as bullet-syringe, I think it is more correct. Visually it also makes more sense.
Back when the term was coined, there wasn't anything like flower sprayers or garden hoes with mist/spray function.
A syringe doesn't need to have a hypodermic needle. It is the concept of a cylindric pump with a narrowing towards the end making the liquid accelerate.
That's my two cent's anyway :)
@@2canines In my head i've always translated it to bullet syringe too, although i changed my mind while writing my previous comment and thought bulletspray sounded more correct.
I totally buy your concept and after reading it i cant help but to change my mind back to bullet syringe too haha
Swedes (Rus), the only foreigners to leave an indelible mark on Russia. Such cool kit.
If you know guerilla warfare then you can use the Strv 103 to its fullest potential. I myself will like to revive this concept of tank as i am living in a Nation thats tropical and very much perfect for that kind of warfare, this tank is great but main problem might be the turbine engine cause the fuel consumption, maybe that need to be replace and maybe put a bit more angle on the side and front so the munition can ricochet thus also i think the advantage of having no turret that if a munition ricochet it doesnt hit your turret.
The angle/profile of the front makes it almost impossible to hit the Strv 103, and even if you do, the shot will most likely bounce right off of it...
And then we have the game warthunder, that failed in all aspects except for the reloadspeed.
I’m curious on how they are gonna stabilise the gun when firing
"vagn" is not pronounced like the german word "wagen"
swedish uses gn just like english, (and im fairly certain its the same for german aswell. the "gen" sounds litrualy makes no sense here.)
The "ng-n" sound is almost unique to the nordic languages, so it is very difficult to reproduce if you are not a native speaker.
Most languages have some sound features like this, that native speakers take for granted, but are very strange to foreigners.
Often you won't even hear these subtleties of you haven't been exposed to that language a lot.
It is crazy to have a two engine in a single tank. Wouldn't a single power diesel be better? Still, a cool tank design.
I think it’s funny how the Jagpanzer hit its barrel in the dirt lol 1:20
Beautiful very good ❤❤❤
I want one!
"The first cold war" is a funny phrase
In reality the first Cold War never ended, just a momentary truce as Russia regrouped.
The Hetzers, and Stug concept, inspired Sweden
Common missconception. This tank is as diffrent from a ww2 tank destroyer as it is from your current MBT style tanks.
@@Mornomgir I repeat...the concept was inspired by the Stug,and Hetzers
@@mikael884 correllation is not causation. It was not inspired in any way shape or form by ww2 style tank destroyers. There is not one single thing during The entirery of The udes programs to suggest such a thing. All The documents are freely available go ahead and read them.
@@Mornomgir Done My reading Long time Ago. Don't let your ego ruin your mood.
@@mikael884 doubtful. The first time ive ever heard of People thinking about The strv 103 has been in later years due to computer game influence.
Defensive tanke n.o.1. Digging in and waiting. No target profile for the enemy to hit.
Do Kravgn pls
all tanks have turrets. this is a tank destroyer. most countries dont split the tank and TD up any more as its more efficient to combine the role in one vehicle. but in WW2, Germany's most manufactured AFV was the Stug III in all its variants which is a TD. the lack of turret makes it cheaper to build and you can mount a larger gun because you dont have the weight of turret to contend with
This is not a tank destroyer this is a purpose built MBT. Also your comparison to the stug proves how little you understand of the tank. Also you are aware that there was a bunch of tank destroyers during ww2 that had turrets, right? So they must have been tanks then?
@@Mornomgir all tanks have turrets. not all TD's do. did i dumb it down enough for you
@@vonn4017 The idea that it can't be a tank if it doesn't have a turret comes from WoT, I believe. Such a simplified rule of thumb makes sense in a game, but reality is not a game.
A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle with battlefield mobility and direct-fire large-calibre armament. The post-war main battle tank designation is narrower but still doesn't exclude a turret-less design. To be absolutely precise, a tank needs to be used according to a tank doctrine.
at some point you say there was no tank at the time with gun stabilization, then 2 minutes later proceed to remind us that the Swedish army was using centurions.... ;)
There were gun stabilisation devices in tanks during WWII. However, even in the 1950s those were too primitive to actually improve the chance of hitting while moving very much (the major advantage was that the time to fire was shortened when the tank had stopped). Centurion crews could also use the gun stabiliser for tea making: a tray behind the breech and put the mugs on it, boil water, pour and enjoy.
Your content is propably used in this canal
PRO Tech
It has still the best optics in the world, not even the Leopold II has better...🤔
How's the aiming time on the Strv 103? I would think it takes significantly more time to lock on to a target when you need to move the entire hull than when you have a rotatable turret.
As mentioned in the video, the Strv 103 could "traverse" faster with its hull than the Leo 1 with its turret. Also note that regardless of how the tank is moving, as the driver and the gunner are the same crewman, driving and aiming become seamless.
@@peterlewerin4213 Well yeah, but at that traverse speed you may easily overshoot your target, and the gun still needs to stabilize before you can take the shot. I think it would take longer for a hull to stabilize after moving than for a turret, especially on soft ground.
@@minervszombies You might think that. I have seen them perform in reality. My company used Centurions, but I had the opportunity to see the Strv 103s on exercises.
@@peterlewerin4213 Alright, I can't argue with someone with your experience. :)
@@minervszombies I'm not a technical expert on the tank, and it could be that you know things that I don't. But I can tell you what I saw. Peace.
moment 4:17... I thought that our American Ww2 tank had a motion stabilization device ??
The tank can really only fight in the open and wilderness. City and urban fighting would be at a disadvantage.
Lol, Urban fighting? I guess you've never been to sweden. Not very much urban stuff going on here...
@@apotekarness whats your point?
@@tarrockin3784 point is if you have the strv 103 in an urban setting you done goofed.
@@alexanderormwiklund that's what I said
Well the literal translation of stridsvagn is battle wagon or war wagon.
Legendary swedish army
PewDiePie: Hey it's me
It was very good on defense, either from a prepared position holding terrain or doing ambushes in a delaying action. Very low and fast in reverse (with the frontal armor facing the enemy). The turretless design is decidely worse on offense though, being unable to fire accurately on the move and unable to swivel a turret in advance to quickly fire down a street you are passing or similar.
I'm fairly sure the strategy the Swedes had for using these tanks took fully into account those disadvantages you listed. So, they wouldn't be sent to such circumstances. In the end Sweden never had anything but a defensive war in mind, so they had much more leeway than the offender (the USSR) in managing the setting: The offender has no choice but to push forward from one location to the next, whereas the defender will choose where to meet the offender.
I believe you are correct. Still, tactical circumstances may require even a defender to make counterattacks (or at least offer significant advantages if your are able to capitalize on such an opportunity) and the S-tank probably wouldn't shine there. Multirole flexibility is always an asset on a battlefield. But of course the Swedes had Centurions and Ikv 91 light tanks as well, both with turrets, to provide other options for their armored battalions.
@@Bot101101 main point of the tank was to signal swedens intention to not rely on foreign weapons and industry or be involved in any kind of foreign war. and still have a well prepared defence of their country. this job the strv did perfectly.
The tank was not primary design for defence. If you look at the field manual for tank platoons it is identical for the Centurion and Strv 103. The doctrinal usage for both was the same.
The armour units of the swedish army was primary intended for counter attack again landing by Warsaw Pact forces in the southern part of the country. There was 6 armoured brigades on the southern third of sweden and only one in the northern part. For defence it was infantry units that was used, hidden antitank guns and anti tank missiles are quite effective in the defect especially if cost effective. The armoured units was intended to exploit the mobility primary for counterattacks.
You have to remember that when the tank was designed the ability to shoot while on the move was very limited. The designers did not expect that capability to advance like it did and with the new tank of the 1970 that could fire when on the move it had a huge disadvantage.
Perhaps the larger problem is that the extremely sloped by very thin frontal armour that worked against the projectiles when design was terrible against long sabot round that started ot be fielded by the soviets when the tank entred service.
@@target844 Counter attacks on your own soil is still defensive warfare. You will choose the perfect place for it. The enemy will be there if they want to make progress, assuming if you are reading the enemy correctly. So, when you say counter attack, I doubt you mean Sweden would have shipped these tanks to the Soviet shores and attacked Leningrad with them. Then it would have been a totally different thing.
The STRV-103 was a design concept simply too far ahead of it's time when it was made, and other nation at the time had already invested billions in their own tank designs. I would love to see this same design concept upgraded with modern fire-control and a L55 type 120mm smoothbore. By simply slightly upsizing to accommodate the larger ammo you could still have the 50 rounds of main-gun ammunition. With modern composite spaced laminate armor with these steep angles it would be virtually impenetrable from a front, or angled profile. I would go with one twin turbo diesel engine for both power and economy as well as space saved. This tank is the only one I know of that can be operated by a single crew member without any degradation to it's combat effectiveness.
how was it too far ahead of it's time? it functiond as expected and didn't have any major drawbacks att the time.
@@charliepettersson7329 I am speaking of the untested for it's time concept of a turretless tank (not a TD) is all.
It's an obsolete design for today. Str103 was built on trading the ability to fire on the move for better protection and speed. This made sense because while tanks of the cold war could fire on the move, accuracy was nonexistent, they had to stop to shot just like the S-tank anyway. In the 1990-thies gyroscopic stabilizers changed this, Turret-tanks could now reliable fire and hit targets on the move making it a indispensable feature that you can't justify trading off for a lower profile.
emplace, strike, extract lmao thats all this thing is good for, probably would have been extremely effective if used right
Lmao? What's funny?
@@christianbateman2 lmao do you have no life or nothing better to do lol
Good tanks when defending when you don't need to shoot on the move as much. If they still had them, they could've shipped those to Ukraine for proper testing.
Tebrikler, güzel derleme olmuş.
DO Merkava 4M only fifth-generation tank
Our next land system video will be about the Merkava 4. Please keep us following.
@@WeaponDetective Keep out also of Nemmer and newest BTR Eitan 35t with inhabiting turret and all with active protection
@@MaxKrumholz Man, there is already an Eitan video on the channel
@@habahan4257 not so good - turret version th-cam.com/video/1KRnYjVkEAQ/w-d-xo.html The peculiarity of this weapon is that it can conduct targeted fire with both artillery and rocket shells. Forever, even in densely built-up conditions, is important when performing anti-terrorist operations.
New cannon for "Eitan" The cannon is not only designed to suppress enemy manpower on land but can also be used as a means of air defense and fire at planes, helicopters, and UAVs
@@habahan4257 turret version 30-40mm th-cam.com/video/1KRnYjVkEAQ/w-d-xo.html The peculiarity of this weapon is that it can conduct targeted fire with both artillery and rocket shells. Forever, even in densely built-up conditions, is important when performing anti-terrorist operations.
New cannon for "Eitan" The cannon is not only designed to suppress enemy manpower on land but can also be used as a means of air defense and fire at planes, helicopters, and UAVs. also, fire rockets and it's our own cannon
As a Swede, i like this tank. I don't think it would be useful today
Couple of years back before scrapping the last full reserves of them they had a wargame against strv122 and the strv103 won. so i reckon that depends. Its still better than what most of the former eastern block has.
@@Mornomgir everything today is better than what the eastern countries makes. It's still like that to this very day. The Russians and other countries in the East doesn't know how to make good things that lasts. That's the case with China, as i have an internet router from China, that stops working once a month, and if i had a Japanese or American router, or any European routers, that wouldn't happen at all. Even the most rusty thing ever is better than anything from the Eastern countries. Sweden is quite famous for their tanks, as i'm a Swede like i said, and many thinks the Swedish tanks are among the best ever, but only Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark uses Swedish tanks. Then Sweden and Germany is cooperating in the manufacturing of the latest Leopard tank, which should really be a 100% German tank, but the gun is made in Sweden, the same goes with the engine and the steel is Swedish too, but everything else is made and put together in Germany. I just don't understand why so many love Swedish tanks. I mean, they're killing machines that isn't the most powerful tanks out there, but they're effective. The latest tank that's entirely from Sweden isn't even on the list of being famous or anything. I don't even know which tank is the main tank of Sweden and the other Nordic countries, cause i do know that the Nordic countries are using Swedish tanks as their main tank, unless it's my native Sweden, as Sweden uses 2 different tanks as main tanks. The latest Leopard and the latest STRV tank, which i don't even remember which that is. I should know, but i don't
There's only one way to find out -- fight.
Turretless tank is low and hard to hit but with out a turret you have turn the tank to aim a shot.
The first cold war?
No track no game
'BOOM'..wtf?!!..
Who shot us?...
Errrr...that AntHill ?!?...
Swedish Power
The "first" Cold War?
It isn't "Stridsvagen" but "Stridsvagn", vagn pronounced as vaŋn, that is a glutural "gn"
Swedish can be a tricky language. Many Swedes, no matter how old they are, has a few problems with Swedish. I know from my own personal experience, as i'm from Sweden, and i have a few hard times of pronouncing a few Swedish words, despite being a native speaker of Swedish. But i can at least pronounce vagn to almost perfection
"first cold War" have there been several cold wars?
The cold war never ended in the first place.
It "evolved" into proxy wars.
There are wars and cold wars. Nothing else
Sweden produces beautiful women and beautiful weapons. Lovelly combination.
Apparently you can call anything a tank nowadays.
how is this a legend. how many kills or losses did it get
This is all good stuff but in reality the whole Swedish defence system counts on Finland being the bumber againts Russia and when war breaks againts east, swedes will fight to last finn :D
So they basically protect Sweden's backyard...🤣🤣🤣
Not even remotly accurate.
There isn't much we can do to make the geography less unfair to Finland, but for decades the expectation has been that a Russian attack would hit the extreme north or extreme south of Sweden. If it would turn out that way, Russia would proceed directly to Sweden and bypass Finland. You're welcome.
A true hotrod
Este vehículo sueco es como el stug 3 de Alemania, un cañón de asalto
Looks similar to stug III G
I think old military equipment should be sold to poor countries so they can defend themselves. Since Iraq and Afghanistan are taking control of their own security now, why don't they just try and sell them the Strv tanks for example. First of all it's better than nothing, and second, we can see the tanks in action against the terrorists that are still operational. Win-win
Old military equipment is being sold to poor countries in great quantities, and then getting wiped from the face of earth when those countries are attacked by countries with new stuff
It was really good design at that time, except that it couldn't shoot at its flank while moving.
Which no design could, at that time.