What we're missing here is the variant with its own bulldozer blade in the front to dig its own dugout. I love how the Swedes took a concept, discussed it, an then ran with it. This was late in the a time of change for tanks, from light/medium/heavy to the main battle tank, and gun stabilization based on on a gyro platform was still new. What was a perhaps small part of what made the s-tank obsolete was the inability to follow the flow. A counter-argument would be that the s-tank was purely defensive, firing from prepared or hasty positions and never had the problem of advancing and acquiring/engaging targets on the move. Never mind my ramblings, the Swedish are extremely creative arms designers and manufacturers. I bow my head and doff my cap to my near and dear neighbors (I'm a Finn).
The bulldozer 'variant' is both in the thumbnail of the video and at 7:34. In reality it was less of a variant and more standard issue of every tank upgraded to the Ceasar or '103C' standard, and every tenth on the Bertil or '103B' standard. To be fair what I've heard from people driving the 103 I was extremely good at "firing on the move" well what I mean by this isn't actually firing while moving but rather clutch and break. So imagine you're the commander of a 103 and your driver/gunner is driving over a field and 90° to your left is an enemy, then you can instantly tanke over control and basically whip your tank to the left in the matter of a second, faster than any other tank could ever turn its turret during this time. The clutch break turn is impressive if you haven't seen it! Cheers from Sweden brother!
@@thatdamngamers Thank you for reply, it's not a variant, I was just too blind to see. Stows pretty niftily though, just a couple of mm more to the glacis armor. I agree with your assessment of the turning and pointing capability of the s-tank, truly remarkable (never seen it in person). Still if it would have had automatic gun leveling (the suspension clearly was up to it), it would have be even more awesome. Cheers from Finland brother!
@@bkane573 think you can take back that shrug, it is by all intents and purposes it is a tank, specifically an MBT, don't care about your definition of a tank but here in Sweden it served as an MBT, served the role of a defensive MBT, and got the designation Stridsvagn (Tank) and not Pansarvärnskanonvagn (Tank Destroyer). Your argument is invalid.
@@bkane573 You're not entirely wrong, but to me you aren't entirely right either. A turretless armored vehicle can be a nightmare to classify, but the s-tank deserves a nuanced treatment. The vehicle shares many traits of the tank destroyer, but the technology had advanced to a point where a very low profile machine could point and shoot like the best of the turreted ones. In fact it's very much unlike e.g. the anti-tank Sturmgeschütz. I can't probably sway from you pigeonholing the s-tank to a category I very much disagree with, but please give the thought of reconsidering more than a shrug.
The "S" tank was an incredible machine. I rode in one once when we were going through some dense woods. The blade-like front cut the trees like they were mere matches. At the time virtually impossible to hit from the front, everything would just bounce off. The spotter could find a target from the rear, aim a laser, and by simply pressing a button the online computer turned the tank for an instant shot, before the enemy had a chance to see that they were spotted. It could even dig itself down in a muddy ditch or a creek and be used as a bridge for other, lighter vehicles. The Rolls Royce engines were great, but standing next to an "S" when the turbines kicked in was really a powerful experience. I remember once when a bunch of Russian (Edit: oh, that would have been Soviet!) dignitaries, and high military officers came to watch a demonstration. They looked a bit shocked. The "S" was so low that it was hard to see from afar, even on a field. It did however have one serious flaw, and that was that lacking a turret, they were incapacitated if the caterpillar tracks were damaged. But If they weren't demolished, we should send them to Ukraine.
@@Algabatz Its a slang slander by the Ukrainians to describe the Russian army, after what happened in Bucha and Hostimel. Orc, orcsi is the plural. Like the marauding orcs from Tolkein. Smert' orcsi means 'death to the orcs'.
It's an interesting design but without any combat time, there's no way to know how well it would have done. My favorite part is the spent casing ejector. It looks like it's pooping as it goes.
@@Burneth_ That was just a funny observation. About a year ago there was a longer video about this tank on another channel. It went deeper into the design. It's a great tank with lots of innovations but it would be useless on the modern battlefield. The Javelin and the N-law would see to that.
@@Wooargh That and the Hetzer are the two tanks it reminds me of. In testing, it got on target faster than most. It would be fun to take it for a ride at one of those tank driving places.
G'day, Tanks for the Anal Expletives...; Perhaps...? Coincidentally, or by Design...; One Wonders. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
I think its abundantly clear that, in a defensive posture, the S Tank would have deadly. As has often happened, the Swedish military was absolutely willing to toss old concepts out the window, and to fundamentally rethink all concepts of combat. And it makes sense... A smallish, neutral nation concerned with a vast, lumbering, old school offensive military force with hostile intentions essentially next door...I think their play was dead on the money..... I think the Soviet bloc should thank Stalin's ghost that they never had to tangle with the Swedes. They may have eventually overcome them by sheer weight of numbers and a cavalier attitude toward there own force's safety, but I'll bet the BTR or T72 driver wasn't sorry that never happened. P.S. Swedish air superiority? Well, count those MIG and Sukhoi drivers as really glad that never went down...
Sweden army was once very good, in a defensive war sweden could probably last a long time. Sweden really nailed its doctrin when it commes to guerilla war. Using roads as airfields (at one time having the fourth largest airforce), having smal low tanks that can hide in forests together with good AT. Skåne and Blekinge would probably be a lost cause because of how flat and terrain less it is. but in the other regions where the train is much more difficult attacking casualties would make it a statement
The tank was also able to raise and lower itself to hide behind hills and berms, The sloping top meant that if it took a hit head on, there was a (good?) chance that the round would skip off since there was no turret for it to hit. It was made to work well on the roadways. This tank could run behind cover, pop up, aim and shoot, drop back down, and run to another spot to do the same.
Also take into consideration that angle equals thickness.and its designed that its directly engaged opponent is presented the perfect angle for thickness and deflection.
@@randytaylor1258 I believe the wheels, (or some other tensioning component that I don't know the name of) would constantly move to keep the track tight. Here is a video, while you can not see how it works in this video you can see what it does. th-cam.com/video/4RVbqyz2lk4/w-d-xo.html
@@randytaylor1258 it can, it has a tensioning system, not sure exactly how, but it adjusts the geometry of the suspension and wheels to angle up or down. the gun has no elevation mechanism so it wouldn't be able to aim otherwise
Plus they have a row of holes in the nose to hold a kind of round stock slat armor to defeat shaped charge warheads. The holes were usually plugged with plastic dowels and painted over since that armor package was secret during the cold war. It shows the slat armor at 7:36.
When this tank was active, there where no tanks with gun stabilization i.e. shooting on the run was highly ineffective. The S103 wasn’t just a defensive tank, it was meant to be used in a offensive role and it speed and fast shooting gun and low profile would had made it a hard to and very lethal adversary, I think. Today with thermal imaging, stabilized gun and onboard computers assisting the gunner, our poor old S103 would be clearly outdated. To switch to the Leopard 2 was a sound decision. Anyway for the era under it served it would had been a great asset, just like the Draken, Viggen, Carl Gustav and all other “homemade” weapon systems we peace loving Swedes have made and still are making!😉
Dear Hiznogood, I have seen, first hand, what you swedes call 'outdated' hehe that made me laugh out loud. there is something uniquely Swedish about waiting at a traffic light to change, in a forest, when a Viggen flashes past on the 'other' road and takes off, I mean come on, 'outdated'? lol lol, you chaps take defence seriously again. Good.
I think you’re being far too humble in this response. Sweden also designed he Bandkannon artillery which was instrumental in the modern Archer artillery system. Swedes think differently in a good way. Like the Gripen, extremely advanced delta-canard fighter jet that can be launched or land on a stretch of road. The Stridsvagn 103 video did not touch on all of the research done by Sweden when selecting the turret-less tank as a platform. Although different because the gun was capable of elevation- I’m sure the Jagdpanther Nazi designs were taken into account when making that decision. Those were loved by their operators. The 103 is better with it’s active suspension IMO- Swedish difference in thinking evident. It was a Saab engineer who provided the shaped charge design for the overfly NLAW which is outrageously effective for extremely low cost! I have friends in Sweden. Nordic people’s are some of the best in the world as a people. Happy days in many ways to you!!! Let’s hope this world we currently live in turns a 180- for everyone’s sake.
As an AEV 2 operator in the Canadian military, the turn that the STRV 103 did at 6:08 blows my mind. This vehicle has always been interesting to me. So to see it explained in such detail is awesome.
In 1973 I was a REME technician for a squadron within a British tank regiment. That squadron, including myself was selected to go to Sweden for five weeks to learn about the S-tank for the M.o.D to assess it for the next generation of British Tanks. We naturally didn't take any Chieftain tanks with us but some Bedford trucks went which were re-painted blue (Sweden was neutral remember). We had instructors and learned quite a bit about it as well as visiting Volvo, Bofers etc. A couple of months later a squadron of S-tanks were shipped to West Germany (Courtesy of the British taxpayer) and put up against Chieftains at the Soltau training area. Both sides were fitted with Simfire systems and to cut a long story short "the Chieftains massacred them" because it was obvious that a defensive tank was no match for a main battle tank. The big disadvantage of the S-tank was that being a fixed gun it couldn't turn quick enough to bring its gun to bear on a target before a turreted tank blew it to bits. Of course in my opinion the regiment I was with were far better trained in using their equipment. I'm now 76 nearly so I'll pass on this little story before I "kick the bucket"!!!
I absolutely love the Cold War Swedish doctrine, so different yet so logical, instead of using cookie cutter vehicles, we developed ones tailored to defend Sweden in the most efficient way possible
Back in the 80s I was working a defense show event during which a guy talked about this exact tank. He had actually evaluated one and said it was an engineering marvel and a hydraulic nightmare, at the same time.
This maneuver is also why the S-tank was actually faster then turreted tanks to react and fire on targets not directly in front as it could do a break turn and then quickly fire at any direction much faster then a turret would spin around. 5 or more seconds is common for just turning a turret 90 degrees to the side.
Quality control is excellent-- Dark Tech has arrived. The narrative is concise and well-written, and the verbal speed is where is should be. Of course, we subscribed.
I really like your videos. Not only are they extremely informative but the delivery is so unique and effective. Perfectly suited for the subject matter.
It was purpose built for its environment. Lots of trees in the north. Can’t turn a turret between the tree. With a Bulldozer blade added to the front, it could burrow down and wait for the invading force from the East. Thanks for the show. Always impressed with your work.
"It was purpose built for its environment. Lots of trees in the north. Can’t turn a turret between the tree"- Lol, oh please, the same would apply with a still current if the tank moves it's whole body. It's all fun till your opponent starts to shoot while moving, lol.
@@eu29lex16 true, but the doctrine for it was waiting at a crest on a small dirt road until the soviet/russia came shot once and then reversed up to the next ambush position
I was sent to Sweden in 1972 and spent some time with a Swedish armor unit. They demonstrated the Stridsvagn 103 for us. I was impressed with how fast it could turn and aim. There was no live fire in the demonstration we were given. The Swedish soldiers themselves seemed quite competent with their machine and quite confident in its abilities and their likelihood of success against contemporary Soviet tanks.
The founder of tank 103 or the S-tank is called Sven Berge and it turned out that Berge's idea completely changed the definition of what a tank really is. The tank had a weight of 42.5 tons, a length of 9 meters, a width of 3.32 meters and a height of 2.14 meters. When the tank was announced in 1963, it turned out that many people became interested, even John F. Kennedy wanted to know more about the Swedish tank. There were reasons for this because it was not only the first tank with a turbine engine but also one of the first tanks with a laser sight and with a large dozer blade so that the tank could dig itself down in to a combat position. One of the more interesting tests done with tank 103 in the 1990s was that they tried to make the tank remote controlled. Via cameras, one could sit far from the danger and the ongoing battle and drive the tank at dangerous passages where the enemy could be. You could also fire the cannon at a distance from the tank with the controls. But this experiment turned out to be far too expensive and futuristic so it was discontinued in the late 90's.
Thanks for that! The S-tank has long been ignored but, like the Merkava, it deserves serious thought. Wrote 2 theses in college on the Merkava -- from then-thin resources -- and it still makes me think.
@@randytaylor1258 I completely agree with what you say, it's sad that this tank does not get so much attention. I have a relative who served on board an s-tank during the 70's, I have heard many stories from big exercises they had with the tank and how he loved the sound of the tanks engine. I have also seen an s-tank drive and I completly anderstand why he loved that tank.
They were not decomissioned in the 1980's, but gradually replaced with leopard2 in the late 90's Stridsvagn 2000 was a project that never realized. The one shown in this video is not a real veicle but a plywood mock-up.
I saw the Strv103 a lot when I was young . It was a mighty sight each time. But with the new antitankmissiles of today hitting its target from above and having a big flat top,,,naa don’t think the Strv would survive. Its design was based upon reflecting incoming tankrounds away not missiles.Thank you From Sweden for a great video👍
You are probably right, but I assume that if they had continued down the same line, it would have become even more stealthy and possibly have some kind of double top/composite armor. This tank is supposed to hide in place, do a shot or three, and then rush backwards to another position. If it manages to hide well enough, the risk of being shot at from javelins etc are far less than a tank in open combat or driving trough enemy territory.
You are born in a country where said tank is from... and still gets to know technical sides of the vehicle that you did not already know. THAT'S Impressive. Thanks. 👍
I can think of a few advantages like it looks like a APC when the silhouette doesn't show the gun barrel. and without the weight of the turret you can either be faster or in the case of some tanks double up armor thickness. the advantages of turbines are you can start them up in -20f and have power now to get moving right away, try this with a diesel engine lol. and the power they make as well as if your enemy doesn't know your tanks sound like some kind of aircraft they may be looking in the sky while you roll up. Its main disadvantage is fuel consumption.
I have been having a dream about a tank that looks like this. The main differences are, the main gun is a larger caliber and offset in the hull. The reason the dream tank was so rememberable, was, when the gun was fully elevated, stabilizers extended from the hull and the gun kept on rising. Turning the tank into an artillery placement.
Any time I see this thing, all I can think of is the little animation from that documentary demonstrating the suspension where it just violently rocks up and down like a pissed off block of cheese
Fantastic video -- thanks! I had been aware of the S but never found much reference to it outside the ancient Aurora 1:48 kit (which actually had an aimable main gun via working suspension). Notice the coverage from the commander's hatch, an innovation led by the Israeli Urdan cupola -- another country which prioritized crew survivability. Effectiveness? People forget that the German panzer ace, Michael Wittmann, fought much of WWII commanding a turretless Sturmgeschùtz assault gun. And that tank had manual loading, a less than optimized dual-purpose cannon, and manual sighting system. In the highly mechanized S, the commander puts the sighting pip on the target and the tank reacts automatically to train the Canon on target -- fire! While it isn't mentioned, the small size, low height, low weight, and high.mobility make the S an awesome reconnaissance/scout vehicle with the added sting of an antitank cannon -- supported by infantry, a modern Sturmgeschutz. It isn't competition for the role of the Leopard MBT so why did the Swedes retire it? It's a great ambush weapon -- did the Swedes actually change doctrine? Or did they simply wear them out? Great video.
Swedens politicians had an idea that peace talking negotiations and flowers and pink ballons would work with an enemy. "Today there is no need for a armed defense"
@Randy Taylor, Most of your points are very good and make sense, well said sir, however one point you have overlooked is the political overview, consider this if you will. Budget constraints are applied by government, Military spending is therefore at the beck and call of mostly those with 'other' agendas, so if the S-tank was removed from front line service because it was just too damned good, who would benefit? Maybe someone with evil intentions and big deep pockets right next door? S-tank is a formidable opponent especially in its defensive capacity, therefore removing it would be a body blow for the Swedish military. Does that make sense? Personally I am a very suspicious person and basing that assumption on current affairs I think I might be right? Or put it another way, we all keep seeing various platitudes about Special Forces being involved in Ukraine, spetnaz getting their arses kicked being the most obvious, so would S-tank be considered a SF weapons platform? It is unique and deadly, it's original role hasn't gone away, and it seems to be quite a threat to an invading force.
You are both very thoughtful, and I thank you. Of course you are correct. I was talking military doctrine but in a modern democracy that cannot be considered alone without appreciating will of the civilian masters. Look what it has cost Germany to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas. It is hard to gather the subtlety of domestic politics from across the pond and I thank you for adding that perspective to my comments. A weapon system is seriously crippled if the powers that be have no interest in going to war to press political goals. If the goal of peace requires the commitment to go to prepare for war, then the less the commitment the less the the deterrence against aggression. Respect.
The main issue that the S-tank had was that it was made right after WW2 and later it lacked important tech like modern night vision and installing that would cost so much that getting new tanks was not that much costlier.
Your voice reminds me of a factual documentary that I've watched years back when blu-rays were still in use. "If they truly were in the airplanes. How then did their passports remain intact and with no burnt odor or burnt sections?" Wish I was able to save that file into a USB.
They mostly get hit by above by modern anti tank munitions like the javalin. So shrinking it doesn't matter that must honestly unless its against other tanks and direct fire weapons.
it would have been good at offence too, fights are usually on roads as terrain is hard to go trough with tanks. in WW2 German Stugs were as effective than turreted tanks were.
Im glad that its not tested in combat! Its this its our own concept, made for defence if somebody have the stupid idea to invade us! It was in those days that stabilased guns was a dream of the future. The driver was altso the gunner, so he often got the first shot! There was a autoloader, so next shot was about seconds!
You didn't mention one of the main advantages of all crew being able to drive it. In combat practices a common procedure was to dig in, fire on attackers and then the rear facing guy (main task being comms) would drive it in reverse out of danger, no need to turn the tail to the enemy as you retreated. This tank could drive as fast reversing as going forward!
This is a brilliant design, and as much as I understand the benefits of a commonality of design, and the parts nightmare of having a dozen tank designs, It might not be horrible to have two or three types. The compact size and lower weight of this design can allow it to drive on roads without destroying roads, destroying bridges, and aid in it being deployed by smaller cargo-planes.
I'm glad to see that you've slowed down your commentary and diluted the mock awe/fascination, thanks for that. Now if you could just turn them down a leeeetle bit more I'll be able to watch a whole video. 😉 "....the British Armour school in Bovington..". Close, it's Bovingdon.
@@pellecarlsson8408 No, there are a few around in Sweden and some other countries have at least one, England for instance in the Bobbington(?) tank museum.
@@e.m7116 Close, Bovington! Even this Aussie had to stop and think about how to spell Bovington. Some UK place names are crazy. Mark from Melbourne Australia
To call it a "turretless" tank is kind of wrong. The philosophy behind Strv103 is different. Their goal was not to make a tank without a turret. Their goal was to make a turret without a tank. It's all turret, no hull.
I'm from Sweden and it's always been a sad thing for me that they put so much thought and effort into creating something that was so amazing only to throw it away.
I joined the army in 1978. I saw these tanks often. It was tailor made for its role in Swedish terrain. It used its bulldozer blade to dig a trench where just the gun would be exposed. And the grill in front would make grenades explode before hitting the tank.
Tank S The best tank, I would choose to fight in this one before any others. I was just admiring the one parked in front of the Swedish war museum in Stockholm two weeks ago. Sweden always secretly has the best national army. Armed is how you guarantee neutrality. They know what’s up
One thing that is often missed in the comments on Strv 103, is the unique observations possibilities it offered to the crew. A key to win a combat is to see the enemy before he see you - and the 103 is better in that than any tank, even compared to today´s top notch tanks. Also, being on full speed ahead, typical time to catch the target and fire was some 2-3 seconds, regardless of direction. Given that we often saw them before they saw us, it is not strange that we often won when doing mock battles against Centurions and the few T-72´s Sweden bought in the early 90´s. To the Leopard 2 we sadly lost many times. The two Abrams we had, we never was able to compete against - they were always in the workshop with mechanical problems. A drawback was that when we fired, we were more or less standing still, and it took some time to accelerate to full speed again. In other posts I have seen the laser range finder mentioned - this was introduced in the C-version, but we never used it. No need for it, as the gun was so accurate, and the gun sight superb. Using the laser would only mean that you fired a second or two later, and there is no time for that - especially as you will most certainly hit with the first shot anyway.
1. 2nd engine was needed to traverse sideways, since dirt and mud was to much fpr the R&R to do alone 2. It could fire surprisingly accurate up to 1500m on the move 3. The strv2000 was never adopted since the cheaper stop-gap Strv121 and later Strv122(Leopards) was selected over LeClerc, Abrams and another entry
The 4th vehicle was an early British Challenger prototype. However it was disqualified and never tested due to an unwillingness to send over a test vehicle in time to participate in the testing. Instead only a M1A2, Leopard 2 Improved and an early Leclerc version were sent over.
@@Ragedaonenlonely Thx, i clearly remember there is alot of references to a 4th, but i dont remember if it was the same trials the T80U was tested in, of it in deed the Challenger had a finger in the game.
@@Ragedaonenlonely I know there was only 3 tested, but I have heard several times that there was a 4th entry (of which you answered above) that was taken off before on site evaluation. I might just be shit in expressing myself, hopes that clears it up.
@@SverkerSuper I got that part, no worries. It's a bit of a shame they didn't want to send a vehicle over to be tested. It would have been interesting to see how it would have done against the rest. Sadly they were short on functional prototypes to be tested so they elected to pull out of the trial instead.
for its purpose the ideal tank. redundant controls are sweet. WHat the video forgot to mention that the maintenance was a nightmare, because you need to basically pull everything out with a crane if the engine is broken
It was amphibious and would have been unparalleled in hitting close range targets considering how low it could aim the gun it seemed pretty battle worthy to me.
I like it but I think it’s due for an upgrade. I think a remote turret and independent weapon systems. The turret and the suspension would make for some weird articulation and maneuvers. Like trying to aim up at building to cover its blind spots. I think it could be better served as artillery platform. They have new artillery Called Round Hyper Velocity Projectile, or HVP with technology from the navy rail gun program and can precision-target ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, ships at sea, and targets on the ground. Range of 43 nautical miles. 6 rounds per minute
Seems it would depend on how many hits it could take vs the Panzers. It probably would win the round being less of a target. If the main driver is hit the others could still drive it to cover or out of the cross-hairs giving it a better survival ratio.
It would have been interesting as part of a mixed armoured battle group with heavier tanks and artillery. It would have been good as scout and outlying flank protection for heavier more traditional armour in an offensive role.
I did my compulsory army service as a weapons and servo mechanic of the S103C in the late 80's. At that time (and since 20 years before) gyro stabilised turreted tanks could fire while moving whereas the S-tank could only ever do it stand still. Probably good as a defensive weapon while the rest of the world used tanks offensively. The gun was great with its longer barrel (higher velocity shelling), auto loader and for a 60's design large bore of 105 mm. If I recall correctly, the anti tank shells had an exit speed of 1900 m/s and would cut through opposing armour like a hot knife through butter. With the gas turbine on it sounded like a jet fighter while it moved like farm tractor - don't think I ever got it above 30 klm/hr.
The Stridsvagn 103 was the first mass-produced main battle tank to use a turbine engine, but the first Tank with an turbine engine was an German Panther Tank 1944.
I've always thought it was a brilliant solution to a single purpose in it's singular terrain. Lots of trees lower branches would limit other tanks while this one could circle round and shove a round into it's opponent's arse. But nobody has invaded (thankfully) to find out.
it all depends on how and where the engagement begins, who fires first, and the number of friendly armored units covering different firing positions. if you dont train your tank regiments then it doesn’t matter who has what turret… though its certainly safer than a t92 geometrically speaking
As a scouting vehicle it has awsome potential, speed and defensability are wins in my book, plus the cannon is big enough to damage almost anything I think?
I love the rear facing driver concept. For shoot and scoot engagements with prepared positions this would be deadly and youd never know how many tanks you were fighting. Once one or two comrades have gone up in flames youd be worried and slow the advance right down.
One thing that has continud to impress me is how Sweden, despite it's small size, has always remained comparable in their military, often emphasizing quality for their lack of quantity. This started with the re-engineered M96 mauser and the 6.5x55, made possible with the better metalurgy for it's time than other Mausers (I still have a 1906 manufactured M96). It was seen in the late 40s, early 50s destroyer designs in the costal navy, some of the best DD in the world at that time and today in the Grippen fighter. The S-tank didn't deviate from that at all. I suspect had USSR come after them, they would have had a rude surprise, as they were given by Finland in 1939, and apparently by the Ukrain right not.
I'd argue it started all the way back in time with Gustavus Adolphus and the whole "father of modern war" thing lol we have a rich history of throwing everything out in favour of new concepts and everything from the swedish brigade, carolean alotment systems, destroyer carrier hybrids, advancements in divebombing, THE BOFORS 40MM, sterling engine submarines, the archer, gripen, list goes on. All these are yet more results of this strategy. Now there have been a lot of failures and shortcomings along the way as well...
Everything about this tank is great. I hope they will come to their senses and make a up to date version. This platform is great in rocky terrain, or sloop valley. It's like a self-propelled tank destroyer. Less man power with a larger punch for the fraction of the cost. They can still use them to great effect against Russia.
The fast cannon was also because the auto loading would be much more reliable then in a torrent. That was also one reason to have a gun that didn't moved (a moving gun (just a couple of degree) was also thought about). As someone talked about, the auto aiming during motion was not there when the stridsvagn 103 was designed. So then, as happen with all military design, the evolution made it obsoleted. So that was actually the reason it wasn't developed anymore. But we had the Archer artillery gun system, which would fire several shots while the gun was basically falling down from raised aiming position. Then packed and moved out of the position within a minute. THAT is a really cool gun. Would still be a leathal weapon today.
It was designed for open area defensive combat in access valleys/mountainous terrain. I believe they had/have other defensive plans for urban areas. The strengths & weaknesses you noted would flow from those main design targets.
Yep the defense indepth plan for the Swedish military run. Involved being able to move this tank from prepared position to prepared position. Specifically designed for fighting in forests and somewhat hilly terrain. The ability to quickly set up what is essentially mobile artillery support. Then when threatened move quickly and with a low profile for high survivability. These are not designed to act independently unless it's simply a stalling action and even then only for short amounts of time.
In addition world of tanks has a version of this tank in it. The major issue of missing a turret means this tank has extreme weakness to bring flanked. In a combined arms combat not a horrible weakness. ..... Until tanks began to be able to fire on the move.
Feel like the swedes have this tank in reserve because I feel like this tank would still be useful today. Let's be honest, a 105mm turret ain't nothin to fuck with, whether a t90 or abrahms. And with the transmission/suspension system for precision accuracy, with the inclusion of disposable drone reconnaissance, you literally wouldn't see it coming before it hit you.
The French had similar low-slung tanks/SP's some years ago. They were useful in the old days of sighting by eye or by scope. However, now with electronic guidance, low-slung is often a useless 'advantage' against smart weapons systems.
Probably the AMX-13 they did have a turret but they were low and very light reconnaissance tanks. We used them in that role for decades next to the Leopard 1 and 2.
What made the design obsolete was the emergence of reliable and good gun stablization systems. All the advantages of the 103 design was not enough when you were able to drive the tank, shoot and reliably *hit* your targets at the same time. The modern, improved APFDS was proving challenging to the original armor design. Tests were carried out to explore ceramic armor on the C103, but it was deemed a better choise to buy and upgrade Leopards.
Another thought? There was nothing nimble about a Sturmgeschutz -- or a Ferdinand or Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger. Similar concept, completely different execution.
I wish they explained the suspension system. He said it was pretty reliable. I wonder because it’s so light. There’s so less wear and tear. I personally like but it can’t shoot on the move. I think it would work great as general platform for artillery or ada
I love the idea of the STRV doing a doughnut or two after making a retreat. Then after facing the enemy backing over a ridge. Do this on dry gravel or hard pan dirt to make a large dust cloud & as it backed out of view it would literally disappear like a ninja over a rise.
While there are certainly some advantages, it seems to me the disadvantages could be serious too. With this setup, it seems the tank can be completely disabled (or mission-killed) by simply knocking the tracks off (a mobility-kill) so it can’t turn. There are ww2 D-day accounts in which a tank might have had one of its treads blown off but was still rotating onto the enemy positions & firing effectively. But as a defensive weapon hiding behind berms, that might be less of an issue.
Exactly, the later versions of the tank '103b' and '103c' were even fitted with bulldozer blades (the B model had one per every third tank and every C tank were fitted with one) so the most probable enemy, the Soviet would cross the Swedish-Finnish border and on top of the hilly northern Swedish landscape would be Strv103s in ambush position along every road. Tanks that could dig themselves down and hide their entire body and then fire a Salvo of 4 rounds in 16 seconds and then reverse away at 50kph thanks to the reverse driver, then the tank could regroup along another road. The Swedish doctrine was to not be hit at all. Edit: one per three not one per ten
Ukraine is showing us that the primary predator of tanks isn't other tanks, but ATGMs, guided artillery, and mini-drone bombing attacks. Being able to traverse the main gun doesn't add any survivability vs these threats. Meanwhile having the ability to add replaceable standoff armor across the entire upper surface without interfering with a turret seems quite valuable. The role of tanks in future warfare is going to be as drone carriers providing line of sight command and control in high EW environments and BLOS guided shell launchers , I think.
You would have to score a precision hit on those tracks from the side, or drive over an AT mine with sufficient soft kill potential. These disadvantages are inherent to every tank design out there... Which is why western tank doctrine usually involves facing towards your enemy, and having either infantry or other supportive elements to cover your flanks. Furthermore, it would also be predicated upon already erroneous tactical decisions to send an armor company into an area of operations that has not already been sufficiently "de-fanged" from prosecuting such flanking engagements against the tank. In the west, this is air superiority and reconnaissance in force by, as said previously, other supportive elements. And just to be clear, if your tank is soft-killed and rendered combat ineffective (which a tank that cannot move on its own meets the definition of, unless you are literally in a WW2 Carentan-style hellscape with enemies literally around the corner), you ditch that son of a bitch as fast as you can, and if in hostile territory modern doctrine calls for it to be demo'd and sabotaged to prevent capture. Your position kind of holds for WW2-era and extremely early cold war days, but nowadays tanks simply are not used in any capacity that could possibly result in such failure you are describing. I am obviously not mentioning Russia here because it is obvious they still follow old doctrines, and are not emphasizing the combined arms potential of their armor. Modern MBTs more or less serve as the "bulwark" that you can keep moving forward in an area of operations as you secure more and more ground with mechanized infantry that is enhanced with close air support. If your the battle space does not allow for advancing infantry under close air support, then you simply don't move your armor into the firing line to begin with. And in long range tank v. tank engagements where, if by some magical set of circumstances neither the blue or the red force has any planes performing close air support (such as the very well known battle of 73 easting in Desert Storm), you are still left with tanks fighting one another front-to-front. There is really no way that a tank is ever going to show its side armor to another tank in modern warfare. Again I have to emphasize that I leave Russian doctrine out of this analysis because there is really no rhyme or reason to how they are using their armor in their war in Ukraine, and I'm kind of compelled to say that a conflict between two genuine military powers (of which russia doesn't seem to be one lol) have to follow some kind of logic.
@@kschleic9053 my point wasn't necessarily talking about other tanks. There are some shoulder-fired weapons (like the AT-4) that can blow off tracks, but aren't strong enough to penetrate modern main battle tanks. Not everything is Javelins.
@@kschleic9053 Things have changed, and so would this tank have done if it had been developed further. I could envision something like this with a few added rocket-rubes in the front. Then it could have tracked several tanks/vehicles before unleashing several rockets(with pre-allocated targets) and it's main gun more or less at the same time, before retreating back to safety. At it's position there could be a camera set up by the crew so that they could assess the damage/situation even after backing out.
the beauty of it is its ability to hide, low to the ground ... fire and then using the rear driving systems could drive in reverse as fast and as maneuverable as it could driving forward. To simply go to the next pre-designated spot to wait in ambush again. Not sure how its armor would stand up to NLaw and Javelins of today ... but a fantastic example of a defensive weapon for a smaller force to lay in wait.
It wouldn't. That was part of what made the S-tank utterly obsolete, the armour relied heavily on deflection, but the long rod APFSDS doesn't care about armour angle so during the trials the T-72 Sweden got from Germany shoot straight through the tank bow to aft. Top-hitting munitions wouldn't have a problem at all, with a maximum armour thickness of 8 cm RHA.
What we're missing here is the variant with its own bulldozer blade in the front to dig its own dugout. I love how the Swedes took a concept, discussed it, an then ran with it.
This was late in the a time of change for tanks, from light/medium/heavy to the main battle tank, and gun stabilization based on on a gyro platform was still new. What was a perhaps small part of what made the s-tank obsolete was the inability to follow the flow. A counter-argument would be that the s-tank was purely defensive, firing from prepared or hasty positions and never had the problem of advancing and acquiring/engaging targets on the move.
Never mind my ramblings, the Swedish are extremely creative arms designers and manufacturers. I bow my head and doff my cap to my near and dear neighbors (I'm a Finn).
The bulldozer 'variant' is both in the thumbnail of the video and at 7:34. In reality it was less of a variant and more standard issue of every tank upgraded to the Ceasar or '103C' standard, and every tenth on the Bertil or '103B' standard.
To be fair what I've heard from people driving the 103 I was extremely good at "firing on the move" well what I mean by this isn't actually firing while moving but rather clutch and break. So imagine you're the commander of a 103 and your driver/gunner is driving over a field and 90° to your left is an enemy, then you can instantly tanke over control and basically whip your tank to the left in the matter of a second, faster than any other tank could ever turn its turret during this time. The clutch break turn is impressive if you haven't seen it!
Cheers from Sweden brother!
@@thatdamngamers Thank you for reply, it's not a variant, I was just too blind to see. Stows pretty niftily though, just a couple of mm more to the glacis armor.
I agree with your assessment of the turning and pointing capability of the s-tank, truly remarkable (never seen it in person). Still if it would have had automatic gun leveling (the suspension clearly was up to it), it would have be even more awesome.
Cheers from Finland brother!
Shrug. The S tank isn’t a tank. It is a tank destroyer, perhaps the last one ever made.
@@bkane573 think you can take back that shrug, it is by all intents and purposes it is a tank, specifically an MBT, don't care about your definition of a tank but here in Sweden it served as an MBT, served the role of a defensive MBT, and got the designation Stridsvagn (Tank) and not Pansarvärnskanonvagn (Tank Destroyer).
Your argument is invalid.
@@bkane573 You're not entirely wrong, but to me you aren't entirely right either. A turretless armored vehicle can be a nightmare to classify, but the s-tank deserves a nuanced treatment.
The vehicle shares many traits of the tank destroyer, but the technology had advanced to a point where a very low profile machine could point and shoot like the best of the turreted ones. In fact it's very much unlike e.g. the anti-tank Sturmgeschütz.
I can't probably sway from you pigeonholing the s-tank to a category I very much disagree with, but please give the thought of reconsidering more than a shrug.
The "S" tank was an incredible machine. I rode in one once when we were going through some dense woods. The blade-like front cut the trees like they were mere matches. At the time virtually impossible to hit from the front, everything would just bounce off. The spotter could find a target from the rear, aim a laser, and by simply pressing a button the online computer turned the tank for an instant shot, before the enemy had a chance to see that they were spotted. It could even dig itself down in a muddy ditch or a creek and be used as a bridge for other, lighter vehicles. The Rolls Royce engines were great, but standing next to an "S" when the turbines kicked in was really a powerful experience. I remember once when a bunch of Russian (Edit: oh, that would have been Soviet!) dignitaries, and high military officers came to watch a demonstration. They looked a bit shocked. The "S" was so low that it was hard to see from afar, even on a field. It did however have one serious flaw, and that was that lacking a turret, they were incapacitated if the caterpillar tracks were damaged. But If they weren't demolished, we should send them to Ukraine.
cool..thanks for sharing pops
the Orcsi would be complaining about some tracked drone that was shooting their asses off.
@@rembrandtshadows What's an Orcsi?
@@Algabatz Its a slang slander by the Ukrainians to describe the Russian army, after what happened in Bucha and Hostimel. Orc, orcsi is the plural. Like the marauding orcs from Tolkein. Smert' orcsi means 'death to the orcs'.
@@rembrandtshadows Aha, I see. That's funny. Thanks!
It's an interesting design but without any combat time, there's no way to know how well it would have done. My favorite part is the spent casing ejector. It looks like it's pooping as it goes.
I like how the reason for liking it is "pooping"
You can compare it to a Stug at least which 10 years earlier was a very successful little gun.
@@Burneth_ That was just a funny observation. About a year ago there was a longer video about this tank on another channel. It went deeper into the design. It's a great tank with lots of innovations but it would be useless on the modern battlefield. The Javelin and the N-law would see to that.
@@Wooargh That and the Hetzer are the two tanks it reminds me of. In testing, it got on target faster than most. It would be fun to take it for a ride at one of those tank driving places.
G'day,
Tanks for the
Anal
Expletives...;
Perhaps...?
Coincidentally, or by
Design...;
One
Wonders.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
I think its abundantly clear that, in a defensive posture, the S Tank would have deadly. As has often happened, the Swedish military was absolutely willing to toss old concepts out the window, and to fundamentally rethink all concepts of combat. And it makes sense... A smallish, neutral nation concerned with a vast, lumbering, old school offensive military force with hostile intentions essentially next door...I think their play was dead on the money.....
I think the Soviet bloc should thank Stalin's ghost that they never had to tangle with the Swedes.
They may have eventually overcome them by sheer weight of numbers and a cavalier attitude toward there own force's safety,
but I'll bet the BTR or T72 driver wasn't sorry that never happened.
P.S. Swedish air superiority? Well, count those MIG and Sukhoi drivers as really glad that never went down...
Sweden army was once very good, in a defensive war sweden could probably last a long time. Sweden really nailed its doctrin when it commes to guerilla war. Using roads as airfields (at one time having the fourth largest airforce), having smal low tanks that can hide in forests together with good AT. Skåne and Blekinge would probably be a lost cause because of how flat and terrain less it is. but in the other regions where the train is much more difficult attacking casualties would make it a statement
It was badass for sure ….. using high ways as airfields was revolutionary
"Would have ____ deadly."
What is "been", Alex?
@@austingode was? The Bas 90 system (the name of the road network airfields) is still in operational use and is compatible with our own SAAB 39 Gripen
Not really re thinking stuff, The germans were using tank destroyers like this all through ww2, Stug is the most famous example
The tank was also able to raise and lower itself to hide behind hills and berms, The sloping top meant that if it took a hit head on, there was a (good?) chance that the round would skip off since there was no turret for it to hit. It was made to work well on the roadways. This tank could run behind cover, pop up, aim and shoot, drop back down, and run to another spot to do the same.
I don t think it could actually raise or lower the hull -- what would it do with the slack track?
Also take into consideration that angle equals thickness.and its designed that its directly engaged opponent is presented the perfect angle for thickness and deflection.
@@randytaylor1258 I believe the wheels, (or some other tensioning component that I don't know the name of) would constantly move to keep the track tight.
Here is a video, while you can not see how it works in this video you can see what it does.
th-cam.com/video/4RVbqyz2lk4/w-d-xo.html
@@randytaylor1258 it can, it has a tensioning system, not sure exactly how, but it adjusts the geometry of the suspension and wheels to angle up or down. the gun has no elevation mechanism so it wouldn't be able to aim otherwise
Plus they have a row of holes in the nose to hold a kind of round stock slat armor to defeat shaped charge warheads. The holes were usually plugged with plastic dowels and painted over since that armor package was secret during the cold war. It shows the slat armor at 7:36.
When this tank was active, there where no tanks with gun stabilization i.e. shooting on the run was highly ineffective. The S103 wasn’t just a defensive tank, it was meant to be used in a offensive role and it speed and fast shooting gun and low profile would had made it a hard to and very lethal adversary, I think. Today with thermal imaging, stabilized gun and onboard computers assisting the gunner, our poor old S103 would be clearly outdated. To switch to the Leopard 2 was a sound decision.
Anyway for the era under it served it would had been a great asset, just like the Draken, Viggen, Carl Gustav and all other “homemade” weapon systems we peace loving Swedes have made and still are making!😉
Have you got anything that can deliver something to spice up pootins morning cup of tea?
Dear Hiznogood, I have seen, first hand, what you swedes call 'outdated' hehe that made me laugh out loud. there is something uniquely Swedish about waiting at a traffic light to change, in a forest, when a Viggen flashes past on the 'other' road and takes off, I mean come on, 'outdated'? lol lol, you chaps take defence seriously again. Good.
I think you’re being far too humble in this response. Sweden also designed he Bandkannon artillery which was instrumental in the modern Archer artillery system. Swedes think differently in a good way. Like the Gripen, extremely advanced delta-canard fighter jet that can be launched or land on a stretch of road. The Stridsvagn 103 video did not touch on all of the research done by Sweden when selecting the turret-less tank as a platform. Although different because the gun was capable of elevation- I’m sure the Jagdpanther Nazi designs were taken into account when making that decision. Those were loved by their operators. The 103 is better with it’s active suspension IMO- Swedish difference in thinking evident. It was a Saab engineer who provided the shaped charge design for the overfly NLAW which is outrageously effective for extremely low cost! I have friends in Sweden. Nordic people’s are some of the best in the world as a people. Happy days in many ways to you!!! Let’s hope this world we currently live in turns a 180- for everyone’s sake.
The Sherman of WW2(by mid war) had gun stability…. But it wasn’t used or had training to use….
Did every tank with a stab just phase out of existence while this tank was active?
As an AEV 2 operator in the Canadian military, the turn that the STRV 103 did at 6:08 blows my mind. This vehicle has always been interesting to me. So to see it explained in such detail is awesome.
You should check out the “Live fire trials against the S tank” video as well that is available on TH-cam
We were asked not to do those turnes too frequently due to the extreme wear of the brakes :)
In 1973 I was a REME technician for a squadron within a British tank regiment. That squadron, including myself was selected to go to Sweden for five weeks to learn about the S-tank for the M.o.D to assess it for the next generation of British Tanks. We naturally didn't take any Chieftain tanks with us but some Bedford trucks went which were re-painted blue (Sweden was neutral remember). We had instructors and learned quite a bit about it as well as visiting Volvo, Bofers etc. A couple of months later a squadron of S-tanks were shipped to West Germany (Courtesy of the British taxpayer) and put up against Chieftains at the Soltau training area. Both sides were fitted with Simfire systems and to cut a long story short "the Chieftains massacred them" because it was obvious that a defensive tank was no match for a main battle tank. The big disadvantage of the S-tank was that being a fixed gun it couldn't turn quick enough to bring its gun to bear on a target before a turreted tank blew it to bits. Of course in my opinion the regiment I was with were far better trained in using their equipment. I'm now 76 nearly so I'll pass on this little story before I "kick the bucket"!!!
Bedford truck lol
@@destroyerarmor ?
seems such as obvious flaw that if the thing gets damaged in any way so that it cant turn its over
I absolutely love the Cold War Swedish doctrine, so different yet so logical, instead of using cookie cutter vehicles, we developed ones tailored to defend Sweden in the most efficient way possible
Back in the 80s I was working a defense show event during which a guy talked about this exact tank. He had actually evaluated one and said it was an engineering marvel and a hydraulic nightmare, at the same time.
So we're all going to pretend like the maneuver at 6:08 didn't happen...? That's INSANELY impressive! O_o
This maneuver is also why the S-tank was actually faster then turreted tanks to react and fire on targets not directly in front as it could do a break turn and then quickly fire at any direction much faster then a turret would spin around. 5 or more seconds is common for just turning a turret 90 degrees to the side.
@@znail4675 Wow Incredibly slow turret rotation !
The S tank was tested by the Brit`s and the US and found the S tank competitive against their current tank`s@@davidm.4670
Quality control is excellent-- Dark Tech has arrived. The narrative is concise and well-written, and the verbal speed is where is should be. Of course, we subscribed.
Having lived in Sweden and having seen their very dense woodlands , having a tank such as that is ideal for the terrain.👍
Exactly, one of the points against a turreted tank was that in a dense forest it would not be able to traverse the turret anyway.
I really like your videos. Not only are they extremely informative but the delivery is so unique and effective. Perfectly suited for the subject matter.
It was purpose built for its environment. Lots of trees in the north. Can’t turn a turret between the tree. With a Bulldozer blade added to the front, it could burrow down and wait for the invading force from the East.
Thanks for the show. Always impressed with your work.
7:34 shows it with the bulldozer blade in the stowed position in the front.
The Norwegians are always a threat, especially if they a bad trip after chowing down on some fermented whale blubber.
or just knock the tree down
th-cam.com/video/mYxPBmRdSPc/w-d-xo.html
"It was purpose built for its environment. Lots of trees in the north. Can’t turn a turret between the tree"- Lol, oh please, the same would apply with a still current if the tank moves it's whole body.
It's all fun till your opponent starts to shoot while moving, lol.
@@eu29lex16 true, but the doctrine for it was waiting at a crest on a small dirt road until the soviet/russia came shot once and then reversed up to the next ambush position
I was sent to Sweden in 1972 and spent some time with a Swedish armor unit. They demonstrated the Stridsvagn 103 for us. I was impressed with how fast it could turn and aim. There was no live fire in the demonstration we were given. The Swedish soldiers themselves seemed quite competent with their machine and quite confident in its abilities and their likelihood of success against contemporary Soviet tanks.
The Strv 2000 was just a concept tank, we bought the leopard to replace the 103.
An accurate statement. Too bad all the tank fakes on the internet think they are experts....
And strv 104
thank you for not talking in Fast Forward anymore like you did on your previous videos.
much more understandable and less irritating
I worked hard to get this in World of Tanks game. I love trolling others from a hilltop. Absolutely beautiful.
I absolutely love this tank. Thank you for doing a vid on it!
I’m happy to see you covering my absolute favorite tank. This tank is exceptionally designed. 😎
The founder of tank 103 or the S-tank is called Sven Berge and it turned out that Berge's idea completely changed the definition of what a tank really is. The tank had a weight of 42.5 tons, a length of 9 meters, a width of 3.32 meters and a height of 2.14 meters.
When the tank was announced in 1963, it turned out that many people became interested, even John F. Kennedy wanted to know more about the Swedish tank. There were reasons for this
because it was not only the first tank with a turbine engine but also one of the first tanks with a laser sight and with a large dozer blade so that the tank could dig itself down in to a combat position.
One of the more interesting tests done with tank 103 in the 1990s was that they tried to make the tank remote controlled. Via cameras, one could sit far from the danger and the ongoing battle and drive the tank at dangerous passages where the enemy could be. You could also fire the cannon at a distance from the tank with the controls. But this experiment turned out to be far too expensive and futuristic so it was discontinued in the late 90's.
Thanks for that! The S-tank has long been ignored but, like the Merkava, it deserves serious thought. Wrote 2 theses in college on the Merkava -- from then-thin resources -- and it still makes me think.
@@randytaylor1258 I completely agree with what you say, it's sad that this tank does not get so much attention. I have a relative who served on board an s-tank during the 70's, I have heard many stories from big exercises they had with the tank and how he loved the sound of the tanks engine. I have also seen an s-tank drive and I completly anderstand why he loved that tank.
They were not decomissioned in the 1980's, but gradually replaced with leopard2 in the late 90's
Stridsvagn 2000 was a project that never realized. The one shown in this video is not a real veicle but a plywood mock-up.
Some of those maneuvers were insane, such an awesome tank
I saw the Strv103 a lot when I was young . It was a mighty sight each time. But with the new antitankmissiles of today hitting its target from above and having a big flat top,,,naa don’t think the Strv would survive. Its design was based upon reflecting incoming tankrounds away not missiles.Thank you From Sweden for a great video👍
You are probably right, but I assume that if they had continued down the same line, it would have become even more stealthy and possibly have some kind of double top/composite armor.
This tank is supposed to hide in place, do a shot or three, and then rush backwards to another position.
If it manages to hide well enough, the risk of being shot at from javelins etc are far less than a tank in open combat or driving trough enemy territory.
You are born in a country where said tank is from... and still gets to know technical sides of the vehicle that you did not already know.
THAT'S Impressive.
Thanks. 👍
I can think of a few advantages like it looks like a APC when the silhouette doesn't show the gun barrel. and without the weight of the turret you can either be faster or in the case of some tanks double up armor thickness. the advantages of turbines are you can start them up in -20f and have power now to get moving right away, try this with a diesel engine lol. and the power they make as well as if your enemy doesn't know your tanks sound like some kind of aircraft they may be looking in the sky while you roll up. Its main disadvantage is fuel consumption.
I have been having a dream about a tank that looks like this. The main differences are, the main gun is a larger caliber and offset in the hull. The reason the dream tank was so rememberable, was, when the gun was fully elevated, stabilizers extended from the hull and the gun kept on rising. Turning the tank into an artillery placement.
M55
Siege tank from StarCraft
Any time I see this thing, all I can think of is the little animation from that documentary demonstrating the suspension where it just violently rocks up and down like a pissed off block of cheese
It rocks so hard turds poo out the back. 😄 The spent round ejector is funny.
this channel is getting better... also this tank is true cold war gem
Fantastic video -- thanks! I had been aware of the S but never found much reference to it outside the ancient Aurora 1:48 kit (which actually had an aimable main gun via working suspension). Notice the coverage from the commander's hatch, an innovation led by the Israeli Urdan cupola -- another country which prioritized crew survivability.
Effectiveness? People forget that the German panzer ace, Michael Wittmann, fought much of WWII commanding a turretless Sturmgeschùtz assault gun. And that tank had manual loading, a less than optimized dual-purpose cannon, and manual sighting system.
In the highly mechanized S, the commander puts the sighting pip on the target and the tank reacts automatically to train the Canon on target -- fire!
While it isn't mentioned, the small size, low height, low weight, and high.mobility make the S an awesome reconnaissance/scout vehicle with the added sting of an antitank cannon -- supported by infantry, a modern Sturmgeschutz.
It isn't competition for the role of the Leopard MBT so why did the Swedes retire it? It's a great ambush weapon -- did the Swedes actually change doctrine? Or did they simply wear them out?
Great video.
Swedens politicians had an idea that peace talking negotiations and flowers and pink ballons would work with an enemy. "Today there is no need for a armed defense"
@Randy Taylor, Most of your points are very good and make sense, well said sir, however one point you have overlooked is the political overview, consider this if you will.
Budget constraints are applied by government, Military spending is therefore at the beck and call of mostly those with 'other' agendas, so if the S-tank was removed from front line service because it was just too damned good, who would benefit? Maybe someone with evil intentions and big deep pockets right next door?
S-tank is a formidable opponent especially in its defensive capacity, therefore removing it would be a body blow for the Swedish military. Does that make sense? Personally I am a very suspicious person and basing that assumption on current affairs I think I might be right?
Or put it another way, we all keep seeing various platitudes about Special Forces being involved in Ukraine, spetnaz getting their arses kicked being the most obvious, so would S-tank be considered a SF weapons platform? It is unique and deadly, it's original role hasn't gone away, and it seems to be quite a threat to an invading force.
You are both very thoughtful, and I thank you. Of course you are correct. I was talking military doctrine but in a modern democracy that cannot be considered alone without appreciating will of the civilian masters. Look what it has cost Germany to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas.
It is hard to gather the subtlety of domestic politics from across the pond and I thank you for adding that perspective to my comments. A weapon system is seriously crippled if the powers that be have no interest in going to war to press political goals. If the goal of peace requires the commitment to go to prepare for war, then the less the commitment the less the the deterrence against aggression.
Respect.
The main issue that the S-tank had was that it was made right after WW2 and later it lacked important tech like modern night vision and installing that would cost so much that getting new tanks was not that much costlier.
Your voice reminds me of a factual documentary that I've watched years back when blu-rays were still in use. "If they truly were in the airplanes. How then did their passports remain intact and with no burnt odor or burnt sections?" Wish I was able to save that file into a USB.
This was revolutionary ... and i personaly stil this think this is the future
Turbine engine powering a hydraulic pump have a piston for elevation on the gun shrink it down another foot. Then you really got something.
Future is unmanned
They mostly get hit by above by modern anti tank munitions like the javalin. So shrinking it doesn't matter that must honestly unless its against other tanks and direct fire weapons.
@@aFlockOfOrfans That makes sense. Nice tank. Imagine a documentary on all failed prototypes for every country in the world. That would be nuts
@@aFlockOfOrfans pyramid design. Best way to deflect an air attack. No taller than 7 feet
You really needed to give credit to the German STUG on this ... Meanest tank in WW2... Love your work...
This tank would have been the most-feared defensive hunter on the battlefield. Firing and relocating with ease. Also, maneuverability is sick af.
it would have been good at offence too, fights are usually on roads as terrain is hard to go trough with tanks. in WW2 German Stugs were as effective than turreted tanks were.
Would love a modern version of this concept if practical
I grew up on real swedish husqvarnas and volvos. They make good stuff. Swedish steel is excellent.
Im glad that its not tested in combat!
Its this its our own concept, made for defence if somebody have the stupid idea to invade us!
It was in those days that stabilased guns was a dream of the future.
The driver was altso the gunner, so he often got the first shot!
There was a autoloader, so next shot was about seconds!
Im also glad that no one invaded Sweden...and I am also glad that we now finally join Nato!
You didn't mention one of the main advantages of all crew being able to drive it. In combat practices a common procedure was to dig in, fire on attackers and then the rear facing guy (main task being comms) would drive it in reverse out of danger, no need to turn the tail to the enemy as you retreated. This tank could drive as fast reversing as going forward!
Did you try to sell it to the Italians, they'd have loved it!
@@michaelsambrook7934 with an additional faster reverse gear, the French would love it
@@pteppig would it need to go forward at all?! :D
Dark Tech, you do pick a great range of topics. Thank you.
This is a brilliant design, and as much as I understand the benefits of a commonality of design, and the parts nightmare of having a dozen tank designs, It might not be horrible to have two or three types. The compact size and lower weight of this design can allow it to drive on roads without destroying roads, destroying bridges, and aid in it being deployed by smaller cargo-planes.
I'm glad to see that you've slowed down your commentary and diluted the mock awe/fascination, thanks for that.
Now if you could just turn them down a leeeetle bit more I'll be able to watch a whole video. 😉
"....the British Armour school in Bovington..".
Close, it's Bovingdon.
"The turrent can't be blown up if you don't have a turrent"
Back then our politicians could plan ahead for 10-20 years and was actually semi competent.
It very well could have made a difference. Hopefully they are being maintained in storage.
Nope. All gone to scrap.
@@pellecarlsson8408 Im pretty sure there's at the minimum one left, at the Arsenalen museum...
@@pellecarlsson8408 No, there are a few around in Sweden and some other countries have at least one, England for instance in the Bobbington(?) tank museum.
@@e.m7116 Close, Bovington!
Even this Aussie had to stop and think about how to spell Bovington. Some UK place names are crazy.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
@@markfryer9880 Thanks Mark! 👍
I only know the swedish to deliver durable, reliable and efficient equipment.
Greetings to my brothers and sisters in Sweden from Denmark.
To call it a "turretless" tank is kind of wrong. The philosophy behind Strv103 is different. Their goal was not to make a tank without a turret. Their goal was to make a turret without a tank. It's all turret, no hull.
That seems like a distinction without a difference. As well I'd say whatever the motive power attaches to is a systems "hull"
@@DanielCGCG
Sure, it's a hull. But that's not the point.
The point is the philosophy. To not mount a gun on a hull, but to mount tracks on a turret.
this is by far my favorite tank and is such a cool concept
I'm from Sweden and it's always been a sad thing for me that they put so much thought and effort into creating something that was so amazing only to throw it away.
The US army has often looked for a "light tank." I wonder if something like this would be adequate.
He would be a Killer. Perfect defense Tank for Europe. I am absolut impressed by the Turning speed of the Tank.
Unfortunately? It never saw combat. That's a pretty effective weapon if it doesn't have to be used.
We are talking about it's combat performance and efficiency, of which we have no real world data, that's unfortunate
Yeah we should invade Sweden with armored forces to test it
I joined the army in 1978. I saw these tanks often. It was tailor made for its role in Swedish terrain. It used its bulldozer blade to dig a trench where just the gun would be exposed. And the grill in front would make grenades explode before hitting the tank.
Ingenious tank design. I think it could've been effective if used and supported correctly
I love the Dark Doc channels. Keep up the good work!👍
Yes I believe it would have been good for the intended purpose. Can you make more swedish videos we build a lot of strange stuff from scratch
There are kits of the S in 1:72, 1:48, and 1:35.
This would be a great design template for a small unmanned drone tank.
Tank S The best tank, I would choose to fight in this one before any others. I was just admiring the one parked in front of the Swedish war museum in Stockholm two weeks ago. Sweden always secretly has the best national army. Armed is how you guarantee neutrality. They know what’s up
Definitely the sexiest tank of all time. Looks like a sports Stug.
Swedens army is just a joke. That country hasnt been in conflict in 200 years. Just a waste of taxmoney
Before ANY others? I’d take something proven with battle experience, an Abrams. Plus a 103mm gun today doesnt cut it.
One thing that is often missed in the comments on Strv 103, is the unique observations possibilities it offered to the crew. A key to win a combat is to see the enemy before he see you - and the 103 is better in that than any tank, even compared to today´s top notch tanks.
Also, being on full speed ahead, typical time to catch the target and fire was some 2-3 seconds, regardless of direction. Given that we often saw them before they saw us, it is not strange that we often won when doing mock battles against Centurions and the few T-72´s Sweden bought in the early 90´s. To the Leopard 2 we sadly lost many times. The two Abrams we had, we never was able to compete against - they were always in the workshop with mechanical problems.
A drawback was that when we fired, we were more or less standing still, and it took some time to accelerate to full speed again.
In other posts I have seen the laser range finder mentioned - this was introduced in the C-version, but we never used it. No need for it, as the gun was so accurate, and the gun sight superb. Using the laser would only mean that you fired a second or two later, and there is no time for that - especially as you will most certainly hit with the first shot anyway.
Dont act like every lowrider enthusiast hasn't thought about putting hydraulics on a tracked vehicle
I was wondering if you could make them drift.
Brilliant piece of kit!......click......BANG!
Now I want one.
Wow great footage 👏 keep up the great work 👏 👍 👌
1. 2nd engine was needed to traverse sideways, since dirt and mud was to much fpr the R&R to do alone
2. It could fire surprisingly accurate up to 1500m on the move
3. The strv2000 was never adopted since the cheaper stop-gap Strv121 and later Strv122(Leopards) was selected over LeClerc, Abrams and another entry
The 4th vehicle was an early British Challenger prototype. However it was disqualified and never tested due to an unwillingness to send over a test vehicle in time to participate in the testing. Instead only a M1A2, Leopard 2 Improved and an early Leclerc version were sent over.
@@Ragedaonenlonely Thx, i clearly remember there is alot of references to a 4th, but i dont remember if it was the same trials the T80U was tested in, of it in deed the Challenger had a finger in the game.
@@SverkerSuper The T-80 was tested later in a separate set of testing. Only the 3 I mentioned were tested in the first trial.
@@Ragedaonenlonely I know there was only 3 tested, but I have heard several times that there was a 4th entry (of which you answered above) that was taken off before on site evaluation.
I might just be shit in expressing myself, hopes that clears it up.
@@SverkerSuper I got that part, no worries. It's a bit of a shame they didn't want to send a vehicle over to be tested. It would have been interesting to see how it would have done against the rest. Sadly they were short on functional prototypes to be tested so they elected to pull out of the trial instead.
for its purpose the ideal tank. redundant controls are sweet. WHat the video forgot to mention that the maintenance was a nightmare, because you need to basically pull everything out with a crane if the engine is broken
It was amphibious and would have been unparalleled in hitting close range targets considering how low it could aim the gun it seemed pretty battle worthy to me.
I like it but I think it’s due for an upgrade. I think a remote turret and independent weapon systems. The turret and the suspension would make for some weird articulation and maneuvers. Like trying to aim up at building to cover its blind spots.
I think it could be better served as artillery platform. They have new artillery Called Round Hyper Velocity Projectile, or HVP with technology from the navy rail gun program and can precision-target ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, ships at sea, and targets on the ground. Range of 43 nautical miles. 6 rounds per minute
Hard to say if it never saw actual combat
@@josedorsaith5261 Send it to Ukraine for testing lmao
That was great. Bet we could make that work today. Great lookin tank too.
Seems it would depend on how many hits it could take vs the Panzers. It probably would win the round being less of a target. If the main driver is hit the others could still drive it to cover or out of the cross-hairs giving it a better survival ratio.
As a Swede I really enjoyed this episode.
It would have been interesting as part of a mixed armoured battle group with heavier tanks and artillery.
It would have been good as scout and outlying flank protection for heavier more traditional armour in an offensive role.
A true cavalry function.
As a scout vehicle almost useless.
I did my compulsory army service as a weapons and servo mechanic of the S103C in the late 80's. At that time (and since 20 years before) gyro stabilised turreted tanks could fire while moving whereas the S-tank could only ever do it stand still. Probably good as a defensive weapon while the rest of the world used tanks offensively. The gun was great with its longer barrel (higher velocity shelling), auto loader and for a 60's design large bore of 105 mm. If I recall correctly, the anti tank shells had an exit speed of 1900 m/s and would cut through opposing armour like a hot knife through butter. With the gas turbine on it sounded like a jet fighter while it moved like farm tractor - don't think I ever got it above 30 klm/hr.
ah yes, the Swedish Cheese Wedge
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
The Stridsvagn 103 was the first mass-produced main battle tank to use a turbine engine, but the first Tank with an turbine engine was an German Panther Tank 1944.
Gunner: Sir! Enemy has no turret!
Commander: damn... How do we kill... that which has no turret...?
I've always thought it was a brilliant solution to a single purpose in it's singular terrain.
Lots of trees lower branches would limit other tanks while this one could circle round and shove a round into it's opponent's arse.
But nobody has invaded (thankfully) to find out.
Brings back memories from my military service ages ago 👍🏻🇸🇪
Yes it does...
it all depends on how and where the engagement begins, who fires first, and the number of friendly armored units covering different firing positions. if you dont train your tank regiments then it doesn’t matter who has what turret… though its certainly safer than a t92 geometrically speaking
The first thing they teach you as a tanker is the term, "shoot, move, communicate".
The Finns wouldn't have any problems deploying it.
@@Thornbeard not too unlike a sniper
I love the hydropneumatic suspension in action. My favorite tank to have fun with from the back in World of Tanks!
Always loved the look and idea behind it.
I’ve never heard of this vehicle! Wild story.
As a scouting vehicle it has awsome potential, speed and defensability are wins in my book, plus the cannon is big enough to damage almost anything I think?
I guess it would need a 125mm now...
@troy Ferrington kind of a case of catch me if you can.
I love the rear facing driver concept. For shoot and scoot engagements with prepared positions this would be deadly and youd never know how many tanks you were fighting. Once one or two comrades have gone up in flames youd be worried and slow the advance right down.
One thing that has continud to impress me is how Sweden, despite it's small size, has always remained comparable in their military, often emphasizing quality for their lack of quantity. This started with the re-engineered M96 mauser and the 6.5x55, made possible with the better metalurgy for it's time than other Mausers (I still have a 1906 manufactured M96). It was seen in the late 40s, early 50s destroyer designs in the costal navy, some of the best DD in the world at that time and today in the Grippen fighter. The S-tank didn't deviate from that at all. I suspect had USSR come after them, they would have had a rude surprise, as they were given by Finland in 1939, and apparently by the Ukrain right not.
I'd argue it started all the way back in time with Gustavus Adolphus and the whole "father of modern war" thing lol we have a rich history of throwing everything out in favour of new concepts and everything from the swedish brigade, carolean alotment systems, destroyer carrier hybrids, advancements in divebombing, THE BOFORS 40MM, sterling engine submarines, the archer, gripen, list goes on. All these are yet more results of this strategy.
Now there have been a lot of failures and shortcomings along the way as well...
Honestly this is a really cool concept
Everything about this tank is great. I hope they will come to their senses and make a up to date version. This platform is great in rocky terrain, or sloop valley. It's like a self-propelled tank destroyer. Less man power with a larger punch for the fraction of the cost. They can still use them to great effect against Russia.
The fast cannon was also because the auto loading would be much more reliable then in a torrent.
That was also one reason to have a gun that didn't moved (a moving gun (just a couple of degree) was also thought about).
As someone talked about, the auto aiming during motion was not there when the stridsvagn 103 was designed. So then, as happen with all military design, the evolution made it obsoleted. So that was actually the reason it wasn't developed anymore.
But we had the Archer artillery gun system, which would fire several shots while the gun was basically falling down from raised aiming position. Then packed and moved out of the position within a minute. THAT is a really cool gun. Would still be a leathal weapon today.
5:50, FYI,
When military people talk about aiming weapons, the opposite of "elevation" is "depression", not "descending".
The Stridsvagn 103 has has always been my favorite type of Tank ever officially produced by any Nation
I think this tank would out perform turrent tanks in open environments, but I'm not sure how this does in an urban area or jungle.
It was designed for open area defensive combat in access valleys/mountainous terrain. I believe they had/have other defensive plans for urban areas.
The strengths & weaknesses you noted would flow from those main design targets.
Yep the defense indepth plan for the Swedish military run. Involved being able to move this tank from prepared position to prepared position. Specifically designed for fighting in forests and somewhat hilly terrain.
The ability to quickly set up what is essentially mobile artillery support. Then when threatened move quickly and with a low profile for high survivability.
These are not designed to act independently unless it's simply a stalling action and even then only for short amounts of time.
swedish coastal defense it’s probably effective as hell
In addition world of tanks has a version of this tank in it. The major issue of missing a turret means this tank has extreme weakness to bring flanked.
In a combined arms combat not a horrible weakness.
.....
Until tanks began to be able to fire on the move.
wouldn't be able to fire on the move!
This narrators voice is perfect for this kind of thing
Feel like the swedes have this tank in reserve because I feel like this tank would still be useful today.
Let's be honest, a 105mm turret ain't nothin to fuck with, whether a t90 or abrahms. And with the transmission/suspension system for precision accuracy, with the inclusion of disposable drone reconnaissance, you literally wouldn't see it coming before it hit you.
👍👍 exactly.
Don't forget, Sweden isn't the Sinai. As I said earlier, the S would be wicked in the hands of the Finns.
@@randytaylor1258 they should donate some to Ukraine. Get feedback on whether the tank concept worked.
@@almac9203 Our dear politicans decided that there will be no more wars(?!) , so scrapped everyone in service sadly :'(
All S tanks has been cutted up long time ago
This tank is a pain in the ass to deal with in war thunder.
The French had similar low-slung tanks/SP's some years ago. They were useful in the old days of sighting by eye or by scope. However, now with electronic guidance, low-slung is often a useless 'advantage' against smart weapons systems.
Probably the AMX-13 they did have a turret but they were low and very light reconnaissance tanks. We used them in that role for decades next to the Leopard 1 and 2.
What made the design obsolete was the emergence of reliable and good gun stablization systems. All the advantages of the 103 design was not enough when you were able to drive the tank, shoot and reliably *hit* your targets at the same time. The modern, improved APFDS was proving challenging to the original armor design. Tests were carried out to explore ceramic armor on the C103, but it was deemed a better choise to buy and upgrade Leopards.
How was this tank different from all the turrentless tank destroyers that had come before?
The Swedish have a fixed gun find another one like it please.
You can't move the barrel 1mm on the swedish the turretless your talking about could move the barrel not just 360 degrees.
With the electronic integrated laser sighting system you don't need to traverse the main gun. Old-school thinking.
Another thought? There was nothing nimble about a Sturmgeschutz -- or a Ferdinand or Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger. Similar concept, completely different execution.
@@randytaylor1258 are you high?
Thanks for this 👍
it also seems to me there is a lot more moving parts on the turretless tank that could lead to going down in the battlefield to maintenance issues
I wish they explained the suspension system. He said it was pretty reliable. I wonder because it’s so light. There’s so less wear and tear. I personally like but it can’t shoot on the move. I think it would work great as general platform for artillery or ada
I love the idea of the STRV doing a doughnut or two after making a retreat. Then after facing the enemy backing over a ridge. Do this on dry gravel or hard pan dirt to make a large dust cloud & as it backed out of view it would literally disappear like a ninja over a rise.
While there are certainly some advantages, it seems to me the disadvantages could be serious too. With this setup, it seems the tank can be completely disabled (or mission-killed) by simply knocking the tracks off (a mobility-kill) so it can’t turn. There are ww2 D-day accounts in which a tank might have had one of its treads blown off but was still rotating onto the enemy positions & firing effectively. But as a defensive weapon hiding behind berms, that might be less of an issue.
Exactly, the later versions of the tank '103b' and '103c' were even fitted with bulldozer blades (the B model had one per every third tank and every C tank were fitted with one) so the most probable enemy, the Soviet would cross the Swedish-Finnish border and on top of the hilly northern Swedish landscape would be Strv103s in ambush position along every road. Tanks that could dig themselves down and hide their entire body and then fire a Salvo of 4 rounds in 16 seconds and then reverse away at 50kph thanks to the reverse driver, then the tank could regroup along another road. The Swedish doctrine was to not be hit at all.
Edit: one per three not one per ten
Ukraine is showing us that the primary predator of tanks isn't other tanks, but ATGMs, guided artillery, and mini-drone bombing attacks. Being able to traverse the main gun doesn't add any survivability vs these threats. Meanwhile having the ability to add replaceable standoff armor across the entire upper surface without interfering with a turret seems quite valuable.
The role of tanks in future warfare is going to be as drone carriers providing line of sight command and control in high EW environments and BLOS guided shell launchers , I think.
You would have to score a precision hit on those tracks from the side, or drive over an AT mine with sufficient soft kill potential. These disadvantages are inherent to every tank design out there... Which is why western tank doctrine usually involves facing towards your enemy, and having either infantry or other supportive elements to cover your flanks. Furthermore, it would also be predicated upon already erroneous tactical decisions to send an armor company into an area of operations that has not already been sufficiently "de-fanged" from prosecuting such flanking engagements against the tank. In the west, this is air superiority and reconnaissance in force by, as said previously, other supportive elements.
And just to be clear, if your tank is soft-killed and rendered combat ineffective (which a tank that cannot move on its own meets the definition of, unless you are literally in a WW2 Carentan-style hellscape with enemies literally around the corner), you ditch that son of a bitch as fast as you can, and if in hostile territory modern doctrine calls for it to be demo'd and sabotaged to prevent capture.
Your position kind of holds for WW2-era and extremely early cold war days, but nowadays tanks simply are not used in any capacity that could possibly result in such failure you are describing. I am obviously not mentioning Russia here because it is obvious they still follow old doctrines, and are not emphasizing the combined arms potential of their armor.
Modern MBTs more or less serve as the "bulwark" that you can keep moving forward in an area of operations as you secure more and more ground with mechanized infantry that is enhanced with close air support. If your the battle space does not allow for advancing infantry under close air support, then you simply don't move your armor into the firing line to begin with. And in long range tank v. tank engagements where, if by some magical set of circumstances neither the blue or the red force has any planes performing close air support (such as the very well known battle of 73 easting in Desert Storm), you are still left with tanks fighting one another front-to-front. There is really no way that a tank is ever going to show its side armor to another tank in modern warfare. Again I have to emphasize that I leave Russian doctrine out of this analysis because there is really no rhyme or reason to how they are using their armor in their war in Ukraine, and I'm kind of compelled to say that a conflict between two genuine military powers (of which russia doesn't seem to be one lol) have to follow some kind of logic.
@@kschleic9053 my point wasn't necessarily talking about other tanks. There are some shoulder-fired weapons (like the AT-4) that can blow off tracks, but aren't strong enough to penetrate modern main battle tanks. Not everything is Javelins.
@@kschleic9053 Things have changed, and so would this tank have done if it had been developed further. I could envision something like this with a few added rocket-rubes in the front. Then it could have tracked several tanks/vehicles before unleashing several rockets(with pre-allocated targets) and it's main gun more or less at the same time, before retreating back to safety. At it's position there could be a camera set up by the crew so that they could assess the damage/situation even after backing out.
the beauty of it is its ability to hide, low to the ground ... fire and then using the rear driving systems could drive in reverse as fast and as maneuverable as it could driving forward. To simply go to the next pre-designated spot to wait in ambush again. Not sure how its armor would stand up to NLaw and Javelins of today ... but a fantastic example of a defensive weapon for a smaller force to lay in wait.
It wouldn't. That was part of what made the S-tank utterly obsolete, the armour relied heavily on deflection, but the long rod APFSDS doesn't care about armour angle so during the trials the T-72 Sweden got from Germany shoot straight through the tank bow to aft. Top-hitting munitions wouldn't have a problem at all, with a maximum armour thickness of 8 cm RHA.