Enter the battlefield with World of Tanks. Take command of history's most formidable tanks and conquer your enemies! Play for FREE now!!: tanks.ly/SimpleHistory Check out the TankFest online livestream on TH-cam!!: tanks.ly/Tankfest
One thing that's missing here is that the tank is 100% effective with only a single crewmate and was designed to be able to be used with only 1 crewmate, that was found to be unreliable and they feared the psychological effect of a 1 man crewed tank.
Yes, the tank is definitely functional with a single crew, but having 2 - 3 crews would make controlling the tank more effective as each crew can dedicate their role to drive, shoot and look around.
This tank was designed to ambush armoured colums, hence sneaking up to a pre-determined location, shoot and scoot. One man can do it. However, this requires more training and makes it quite stressful for the normal chores around the vehicle (camouflage, op maintenance, …). Things get much simpler if you have a slightly larger crew. And in case one person has an issue, you can still operate it and do not have a high value asset sitting idle in the field.
@@marrs1013 exactly that, driving the tank as well as shooting the gun and making decisions on what to do all at the same time is too much work for one man. So it was designed in that way so that the tank could remain operational in dire circumstances, but I doubt anyone was actually counting on this as a feasible option.
Yeah, each crew member had the same controls for the tank, the suspension to even the steering controls if 2/3 members got injured or killed But it was still recommended that 3 Crew Members be in the tank to not overwhelm one person
@@thecursed01ww2 was the thing that showed Sweden why they needed a stronger and bigger military, as to not let major military "powers walk all over them" badum tsss 🥁
@@yollmanontherun9074 It would've been something new to Sweden's eastern neighbour, Finland, which wisely kept up its defences. Poland, too, deserves credit for energetically strengthening its armed forces. Both apparently knew something that Sweden didn't.
It was not built for ambush and defense, it was built for attack. The main task of the Swedish armored units was to attack and eliminate the bridgehead of the amphibious and airborne landing of Warsaw Pact forces in Southern Sweden. There was not a lot of armored units and the ones that existed should use their main advantage over infantry units, their mobility, not be stationary for defense. There were 6 armored brigades and one armor battalion in Sweden when it was introduced, all of the brigades were located south of Stockholm only the battalion was in northern Sweden. The brigades were designated assault brigades because of their intended usage. Two of the brigades were in the most southern province of Scania that is quite flat and both of those were Strv-103. Centurion and Strv-103 were intended to do the same task, the handbook for platoon-level operation is the same for both, the only difference is in is practical handling mostly because of the autoloader. There is not difference in how they are intended to be used, the only difference in how to use them for the attack is that Strv-103 is amphibious and water crossing in offensive operations is possible. So the idea it was designed for ambush/defense is simply not correct. Infantry units can do those tasks a lot cheaper with anti-tank guns, missiles and mines. Amoured units should do what they were best att, attack.
One thing not mentioned in the naming of Swedish tanks was the number. The first one or two digits is the rounded caliber of the gun in cm, and the last digit is the number of the design that carried that gun size. So the Strv103 is the third tank design with a 10cm gun, rounded from 105mm. The Leopard 2 tanks the Swedes use are named Strv121 & Strv122, being the first and second designs with a 120mm gun.
Fun fact is that they fudged the numbers with Strv 121 and 122 as the 122 was originally the 121, but when it was decided to buy some older tanks as a stopgap while the "121" was delivered so didn't the military want the older one to be the one with the more modern number so swapped them around.
There is a report where american evaluators compared it to the Patton. They had almost nothing but praise for it pointing out that it took months to train a Patton crew, to train an S-tank crew took WEEKS, high rate of fire, very accurate, hard to spot and hit, easy to maintain and while the Patton needed a crew of at least 3 to still be combat effective an S-tank could still fight even if it was operated by just 1 man. It's main problem laid in the fact that it was not an "offensive" weapon. It lacked heavy armour and relied on the fact that it wouldn't get hit. It was a defensive tank for defensive operations and ambushes. While it was a great tank it didn't fit in with american doctrine at all.
It was designed to be dug down into the dirt as a mobile fortification of sort. It was designed to defend Sweden from a Soviet attack, offensive operations was secondary. When it was dug down the dirt in front of it was a very effective armour
@@andersmalmgren6528 Det också men det var inte en "grej" de tog upp i rapporten (eller kanske inte ens testade). - That is a fact. But it wasn't a thing they mentioned in the report (and maybe didn't even tested). What the report focused on mostly was: Pros: 1. VERY easy to train crew for it 2. High rate of fire and very accurate 3. Long range, low visibility 4. High mobility Cons: 1. Not an offensive weapon 2. Can't stand up in an open field battle (it was not designed to do this) 3. Rear driver will suffer from motion sickness when driving at full speed in reverse (this part just feels like they where just looking for problems) Also in the report: Argument: "No turret. The whole tank has to be turned." Counter-argument: "This is not an issue. The S-tank has TWO very strong engines and is built to be turned in place. (The tank is a turret in itself)." (Den svänger på en femöring) Total evaluation: "Best tank we have ever seen. We love it. But it's not suited for US doctrine." :(
When they tested it had a few advantages,for example, it was on a average 0,2 seconds slower to aim with against the patton but it always shot with higher accuracy.
@@Vollification "Not an offensive weapon" sounds like a made up argument, did they say why ? Could they not imagen going on the offensive with weapons that needs to remain stationary in order to hit ? Then they obviously never been in the infantry, there is not a singel weapon that can hit while moving on the offensive (1960). Just because infantry excel in defence doesnt mean you cant use them on the offense. Maybe Im a genius having 1 group putting down covering fire while another group flanks the enemy , or they are really silly/stupid. Im hoping for the former but sadly its more likely the later is true
You forgot the fact that most tanks of the time stood still when firing. Making the drawback not so big. It took 20-30y more before stabilizers was good enough for firing on the move was a practical reality.
One fun fact is that despite having good protection so was Strv 103 effectively a light tank as removing the turret saved quite a lot of weight. This is also why I think this design could be used in the future as a Light Tank that gives up the turret might be preferable to one that gives up protection.
Also losing your ability to fire on the move and not being able to defend yourself with your gun after receiving damage to the tracks aren't very attractive prospects.
The word "stridsvagn" simply means "tank" as in MBT (Main Battle Tank). All MBT:s that are adopted into service in the swedish army gets that designation: Stridsvagn. The "S" tank was the third tank to enter service that had a 10,5 cm main armament, hence the designation: Stridsvagn 103. When Sweden adopted the german Leopard 2-tank, its swedish designation was: Stridsvagn 121, because it was the first adoted tank to have a 12 cm main armament. The improved version was designated Stridsvagn 122.
You should explain why it’s called a tank despite the fixed gun- the answers might be interesting like how using their unique hydraulics solution to get precise targeting quickly which goes a ways towards off setting the lack of 360 rotation and also how does their doctrine behind its use apply here?
The answer is literally they stubbornly call it a MBT. That is literally the entire reason it is a tank and not a tank destroyer. (despite that literally being what its role would boil down to since it can’t fire on the move thus making it do what ww2 casemate tank destroyers did) When listening to a description of the role it is meant to play in a theoretical defense of Sweden all I can think is “you are literally describing what German tank destroyers or AT gun placements did: move to location, sit and wait, ambush enemy, hope armor is good enough to deflect rerun fire.”
Funfact: during the erlier stages of the cold war, Sweden was the fourth largest airforce. They were also very close to creating their own nuclear arsenal, with the missile chassi already built and only needed a few more months to arm and start testing before cancelling the project.
"Stridsvagn" is directly translated to "combat wagon" or "combat vehicle" as said in 1.18, but the swedish word means approximately tank, combat tank or main combat tank (MBT).
Nej "stridsfordon" means "combat vehicle" , direct translation is "combat chariot" = stridsvagn. Benämningen "stridsvagn"/"pansarvagn" används ibland felaktigt om alla pansarfordon. En stridsvagn är en specifik klass av fordon och klassas precis som alla andra markstridsfordon efter deras ämnade roll, snarare än konstruktion, vilket i sin tur betyder att fordonet behöver uppfylla vissa krav på eldkraft, skydd och mobilitet. - - - - The term "tank"/"armored vehicle" is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to all armored vehicles. A tank is a specific class of vehicle and just like any other ground combat vehicle is classified by their intended role, rather than design, which in turn means the vehicle needs to meet certain firepower, protection and mobility requirements.
@@matso3856 Till att börja med så så har ordet "vagn" med tiden och införande av motorfordon breddats från det ursprungliga, men här ska man också förstå att en vagn, oavsett om den är dragen eller självgående, är en form av fordon. "Vehicle" blir då lite mer allmänt menad översättning medan "chariot" blir en mer specifikt menad översättning och som då stämmer dåligt med vad vi menar i det svenska ordet.
@@satanihelvetet Nu blev det galet ändå. Stridsfordon är en specifik klass , stridsvagn likaså. Så om du kallar båda samma stämmer det inte alls med svenskan ändå. Vi menar inte husvagn eller släpvagn , om britterna vill kalla stridsvagn för combat chariot så är det upp till dom , vi kan alltid falla tillbaka på amerikanska och kalla en stridsvagn "tank". Stridsfordon exempel : CV90 , BMP , Bradley , Warrior etc. Stridsvagn : Leopard , T-72 , Abrams , Challenger etc
The main noteworthy error in this video is the claim that the 103 replaced the Centurion in Swedish service - it never did. Rather, the Stridsvagn 81, the Mark 3 Centurion with a 84mm gun, was replaced by the Centurion Mark 10 with the 105mm gun as the Stridsvagn 101, and existing Strv 81s were also upgraded with 105mm guns as the Stridsvagn 102. The Stridsvagn 103 came after that, hence the 3 in its designation, for being the 3rd Swedish tank with a 105mm gun. It had been in development simultaneously with the testing of the up-gunned Centurions and it was decided both tanks would enter service. The Centurion has the better ability to fire on the move with a fully traversing turret and stabilized gun, allowing it to fill a maneuver role the S-tank can't. The Centurions and S-tanks continued to serve side-by-side up until both tanks were fully replaced in the late 1990s by the Leopard 2, adopted as the Stridsvagn 121.
@@danielrosenkvist3445 I think we make up for it by having badass names for our combat aircraft, like Lansen (The Lance), Draken (The Dragon), Viggen (The Thunderbolt) and Gripen (The Gryphon).
5:50 thats not how heat works... the metal bars wouldve set the heat round of(start charge) so that the charge (hot metal) would just tickle the paintjob😂
Might be low, but at least on the commanders place it actually pretty roomy and comfortable. I did my military service as a pluton commander on this tank (Being commander on one tank, commanding additional 2 tanks)
The Sweden understood that saying your neutral wasn't enough, you needed to be able to enforce it, they also knew that sometimes neutrality isn't enough,
In the late 90s there was a few test done with this tank to have it radio controlled. they did a few of them but the stupid idee to scrap "old things" in the very late 90. Sad thing that we scrapped so much back then.
Personally, the absence of tilting the weapon to the side is the most time-consuming for me, even though this does not have a weak point thanks to this, but it is a great Killer tank
information from wikipedia: The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), also known as the Alternative S and S-tank,[3] is a Swedish Cold War-era main battle tank, designed and manufactured in Sweden.[4] "Strv" is the Swedish military abbreviation of stridsvagn, Swedish for and tank (literally combat wagon, it also is the Swedish word for chariot), while the 103 comes from being the third tank in Swedish service to be equipped with a 10.5 cm gun. Developed in the 1950s, it was the first main battle tank to use a gas turbine engine and the only mass-produced tank since World War II to not use a turret besides the German Kanonenjagdpanzer.[5] It has an unconventional design with a unique gun laying process:[6][7][8] it is turretless with a fixed gun traversed by engaging the tracks and elevated by adjusting the hull suspension.[5] The result was a very low-profile design with an emphasis on survivability and heightened crew protection level. Strv 103s formed a major portion of the Swedish armoured forces from the 1960s to the 1990s, when, along with the Centurions, it was replaced by the Leopard 2 variants Stridsvagn 121 and Stridsvagn 122.[9] While most turretless armoured fighting vehicles are classified as assault guns or tank destroyers, the Strv 103 is considered a tank since its designated combat role matched those of other tanks within contemporary Swedish doctrine.
what people forget about most neutral countries, if you have no allies, that means everyone is a potential enemy, so you need to heavily militarize just in case.
Some way I like the design a lot and think it's beautiful. I hope Swärjes still have them stored somewhere as back up bonus in case of war. I mean, tank is stil tank and 1+1 tanks is better than just 1.
Dealing with these things sounds like a nightmare. Slapping you around from ambush, hitting, disappearing and digging in again like trapdoor spiders... They'd make every mile an expensive trade.
it was meant to be the break through tank in symbiosis with the more Defensive centurions not to replace Centurion, Both served well into the late 90's. it was meant to replace older Swedish light and medium tanks from the late 30's and early 40's, It was also an exreamly offensive tank in it was used to Rush forwatd in groups of 3 fire 3 quick bursts which would have a high chance to hit the enemy thanks to the extreme accuracy of the system i would even argue only the challenger is more accurate to this day. The reverse as quick as it entered the fray aka 60km/h or faster. basically keeping the front towards the enemies at all time. Swedish Doctrine puts almost extreme levels of focus on aggressive counterattacks at alltimes and has so since the time of Gustavus Adolphus and even earlier. Whilst tiday having the main focus on defending the nation. Basically best defence is an extrme brutal offence. Best regards.
You seem to not understand that the S tank had a fixed gun, no elevation or traverse at all. While the JadgPanther you showed had a limited traverse and full elevation weapon. So it could be aimed in its frontal arc with the vehicle stationary. These are very different things.
There is a report on the tank written by a strv103 tank platoon commander that is called "The secret failure". It hightlights some trouble he had with the tank. One of it was the high maintenance compared to the centurion tank. And the soviet T-72 was only 8-7 inches higher (20cm) than the strv103. I like the looks of the tank but Im afraid it became to big to fail.
I don't see it as that much of a disadvantage to be unable to shoot on the move. For long-range exchanges, it matters little compared to spotting the enemy first and being able to land a meaningful hit first... A turret used to matter more for close range engagements, especially in cities or driving out of cover and shooting and going back to cover. However, modern MBTs got so big and have such long cannon barrels that are a hindrance for such tasks. I bet that over time they will be replaced by ATGMs and AFVs with smaller sizes, but a lot of firepower and better elevation depression and turn rate (similar to SPAA).
Just to add, the Jagdpanther had some degree of traverse on its cannon despite being a case mate. The Strv 103 has absolutely no traverse on its main gun and why it had to aim using the whole tank. Honestly, even considering the time period, it was a less than stellar tank design idea. Goes to show flops can get through the design board too.
There are advantages with the fixed gun as it can have much higher rate of fire that haven't been matched since by MBT. You can also consider the Strv 103 not as a turret less tank, but a tracked turret as it can turn and aim just as fast as other MBT, just not shoot on the move.
Don't use War Thunder to judge it. It could turn and aim as fast as any main battle tank at the time. And considering that stabilizers still wheren't good enough for tanks to reliably fire on the move it was more then good enough, better even.
One wonders when rough terrain -- trees, rocks, whatnot -- made it so that the Strv 103 couldn't traverse its gun. It was a concern with the WW2-era StuG III, which could traverse its gun independently to some degree. Ambush positions needed to be picked with extra care.
@@peabase Trees was actually one of the main reasons for the design as turrets doesn't work that well when there are trees nearby. Strv 103 wasn't that bothered by trees as the barrell doesn't stick out as far as from a turret because the gun uses the entire length of the tank not stick out from a Central turret. It was also quite able to move both trees and stones while rotating if so needed. There are clips on YT showing that.
@@znail4675 Size matters, but all things being equal, I would argue that nearby trees and rocks would render a turretless design less effective than a turreted one. But what do I kmow, I've only been attached to a tank brigade as a reserve officer for thirty years. And we don't hurt pretty trees or squirrels when we go on exercises. As a forest owner and conservationist, I would get mighty upset, too.
And on the note of the amount of crewmembers, The military said that If the sent the tank out to war, with only 2 crew, if they did not get hit, they would not surivive due to the psycological stress. more or less what they said was " if we send them out with only a crew of 2, they will die, by their own hands. A third member was added, but i have heard that if necessery , this tank could be operated by one person. as long as they sat at one of the forward staytions. I think its a shame that Sweden did not continue this series of tank and bought and modded Lepoard 2s instead ( Stridsvagn 122)
can you do a "life inside" video with the israeli idf tank "merkava", it was designed to keep the crew safe but i would really like a more in depth analysis of it
Becausr it has neither the turret nor any kind of horizontal traverse, precise targeting is extremely difficult, so yeah, you're right. It has ti be impenetrable from the front though, that angle is insane.
Stridsvagn = battle tank. Variant of the generic Swedish name for tanks, Pansarvagn (armored tank). Vagn clearly translate to tank, not wagon, in this context :-)
World: "Yea so... Most tanks get disabled when hit on the turret... How we solve?" Sweden: "Can't hit turret if there is no turret?" *opens can of surstromming*
Hello. All I m wondering how come Sweden would design such tank thay the only draw back is having no turret but it does have a good hidden ok combat but if its tracks get disabled the tank is unable to turn. It almost looked like a SPG tank destroyer but the last one but modern. But its a good tank unless it did saw action at Ukraine.
Reason why? Im not sure if you are familiar with Sweden but majority of our country is covered in forests a rotating turret tends to not really be an advantage for a tank anyhow so why have it? of course our Leopard 2 have it currently and Im quite happy with them. But the S tank were designed to fight in a certain way and a rotating turret made no sense for such a tank.
Enter the battlefield with World of Tanks. Take command of history's most formidable tanks and conquer your enemies! Play for FREE now!!: tanks.ly/SimpleHistory
Check out the TankFest online livestream on TH-cam!!: tanks.ly/Tankfest
No.
Yes.
I like your videos simple history
Like video
At least I don't have to choose 1 nation for my whole game. (WT so good)
One thing that's missing here is that the tank is 100% effective with only a single crewmate and was designed to be able to be used with only 1 crewmate, that was found to be unreliable and they feared the psychological effect of a 1 man crewed tank.
Functioning with 1 crew yes, but certainly not 100% effective.
Yes, the tank is definitely functional with a single crew, but having 2 - 3 crews would make controlling the tank more effective as each crew can dedicate their role to drive, shoot and look around.
This tank was designed to ambush armoured colums, hence sneaking up to a pre-determined location, shoot and scoot. One man can do it. However, this requires more training and makes it quite stressful for the normal chores around the vehicle (camouflage, op maintenance, …). Things get much simpler if you have a slightly larger crew. And in case one person has an issue, you can still operate it and do not have a high value asset sitting idle in the field.
I guess the 1 man solution is only viable as desperate, last ditch effort in defence.
@@marrs1013 exactly that, driving the tank as well as shooting the gun and making decisions on what to do all at the same time is too much work for one man. So it was designed in that way so that the tank could remain operational in dire circumstances, but I doubt anyone was actually counting on this as a feasible option.
"Shoot me all you wish, my tank is too smooth, the smoothest there is, your shells simply slide right off!"
YALL CAN CALL ME SLIPPRY DAN!
Where is this from?
A meme spoofing the "my brain is the smoothest there is. Your insults slide right of".@@Kuro-mg8vc
Heat will destroy this tank
Hehehe high-explosive go boom.
You forgot that the tank can still be manned by one person. That can still shoot and drive.
Rambo?
Yeah, each crew member had the same controls for the tank, the suspension to even the steering controls if 2/3 members got injured or killed
But it was still recommended that 3 Crew Members be in the tank to not overwhelm one person
@@yi_hou3092 Close, the rear guy can't shoot the gun only drive.
@@znail4675 he could change seats
@@yi_hou3092 True, if 2/3 of the crew was taken out, 1 crewman can drive and shoot from the commanders seat.
Postwar Stug doesn’t exist, it can’t hurt you.
Postwar Stug:
dang you were faster than me with that ,cheers
as a swedish person (that sat in an STRV-103, yes it's cramped) i am offended.
Not actually. :)
Sweden took the phrase 'if you want peace prepare for war' seriously and I love it.
In that case Sweden failed recently, by disarming while Russia did prepare for war.
"And be nice to the nazis and let them walk over you, literally, instead of fighting
@@peabase Yepp but thats been a problem since th fall of the Soviet Union so thats nothing new
@@thecursed01ww2 was the thing that showed Sweden why they needed a stronger and bigger military, as to not let major military "powers walk all over them" badum tsss 🥁
@@yollmanontherun9074 It would've been something new to Sweden's eastern neighbour, Finland, which wisely kept up its defences. Poland, too, deserves credit for energetically strengthening its armed forces. Both apparently knew something that Sweden didn't.
Small detail, but I appreciate the accuracy in the uniform designs for the Swedish army in the video.
I especially love the inclusion of the shoulder sleeve insignia representing the Skaraborgs Regiment/Brigade.
Cheese wedge tank, that is stupidly unpenetrable from the front
Just imagine this Swedish tank destroyer as A playable one in Wot Blitz videogame...
I have this tank in Tank Company game...I call it Swedes Doorstopper
@@robocopvsterminator4594 it's in *real* wot.
@@robocopvsterminator4594It's not a tank destroyer they literally use it as a main battle tank 💀
@@yolobathsaltsThe video we are watching already shows it too like what 💀💀💀
That is arguibly the best ambush/defense thank ever built, I wont field it on open terrain but used on its designed tasks that thing is terrific.
It was not built for ambush and defense, it was built for attack. The main task of the Swedish armored units was to attack and eliminate the bridgehead of the amphibious and airborne landing of Warsaw Pact forces in Southern Sweden. There was not a lot of armored units and the ones that existed should use their main advantage over infantry units, their mobility, not be stationary for defense. There were 6 armored brigades and one armor battalion in Sweden when it was introduced, all of the brigades were located south of Stockholm only the battalion was in northern Sweden. The brigades were designated assault brigades because of their intended usage. Two of the brigades were in the most southern province of Scania that is quite flat and both of those were Strv-103.
Centurion and Strv-103 were intended to do the same task, the handbook for platoon-level operation is the same for both, the only difference is in is practical handling mostly because of the autoloader. There is not difference in how they are intended to be used, the only difference in how to use them for the attack is that Strv-103 is amphibious and water crossing in offensive operations is possible.
So the idea it was designed for ambush/defense is simply not correct. Infantry units can do those tasks a lot cheaper with anti-tank guns, missiles and mines. Amoured units should do what they were best att, attack.
0:35 that animation 😮👍
The 3D animation was so perfect that i started flying 😭👌
One thing not mentioned in the naming of Swedish tanks was the number.
The first one or two digits is the rounded caliber of the gun in cm, and the last digit is the number of the design that carried that gun size.
So the Strv103 is the third tank design with a 10cm gun, rounded from 105mm.
The Leopard 2 tanks the Swedes use are named Strv121 & Strv122, being the first and second designs with a 120mm gun.
Fun fact is that they fudged the numbers with Strv 121 and 122 as the 122 was originally the 121, but when it was decided to buy some older tanks as a stopgap while the "121" was delivered so didn't the military want the older one to be the one with the more modern number so swapped them around.
Nice touch with Ak4 and Ak5 shown at the correct time time periods.
All the war thunder players gotta like this is comment
Yes
Like who TF plays WOT🤣?
@@Tomppi666rage bait?
@@sus-zz9hd Nah...
@@Tomppi666 ok
Slight correction, the Strv 103 did not replace the Strv 101/102 (Centurion) but both were used until the 90s.
There is a report where american evaluators compared it to the Patton. They had almost nothing but praise for it pointing out that it took months to train a Patton crew, to train an S-tank crew took WEEKS, high rate of fire, very accurate, hard to spot and hit, easy to maintain and while the Patton needed a crew of at least 3 to still be combat effective an S-tank could still fight even if it was operated by just 1 man.
It's main problem laid in the fact that it was not an "offensive" weapon. It lacked heavy armour and relied on the fact that it wouldn't get hit. It was a defensive tank for defensive operations and ambushes. While it was a great tank it didn't fit in with american doctrine at all.
It was designed to be dug down into the dirt as a mobile fortification of sort. It was designed to defend Sweden from a Soviet attack, offensive operations was secondary. When it was dug down the dirt in front of it was a very effective armour
@@andersmalmgren6528 Det också men det var inte en "grej" de tog upp i rapporten (eller kanske inte ens testade).
- That is a fact. But it wasn't a thing they mentioned in the report (and maybe didn't even tested).
What the report focused on mostly was:
Pros:
1. VERY easy to train crew for it
2. High rate of fire and very accurate
3. Long range, low visibility
4. High mobility
Cons:
1. Not an offensive weapon
2. Can't stand up in an open field battle (it was not designed to do this)
3. Rear driver will suffer from motion sickness when driving at full speed in reverse (this part just feels like they where just looking for problems)
Also in the report:
Argument: "No turret. The whole tank has to be turned."
Counter-argument: "This is not an issue. The S-tank has TWO very strong engines and is built to be turned in place. (The tank is a turret in itself)." (Den svänger på en femöring)
Total evaluation:
"Best tank we have ever seen. We love it. But it's not suited for US doctrine." :(
When they tested it had a few advantages,for example, it was on a average 0,2 seconds slower to aim with against the patton but it always shot with higher accuracy.
@@Vollification "Not an offensive weapon" sounds like a made up argument, did they say why ?
Could they not imagen going on the offensive with weapons that needs to remain stationary in order to hit ?
Then they obviously never been in the infantry, there is not a singel weapon that can hit while moving on the offensive (1960).
Just because infantry excel in defence doesnt mean you cant use them on the offense.
Maybe Im a genius having 1 group putting down covering fire while another group flanks the enemy , or they are really silly/stupid.
Im hoping for the former but sadly its more likely the later is true
5:52 Ah yes. The solid non-chemical HEAT round.
The fence destroyed the round
@@TheEpicNoob it won't in real life...
@@laibey_def9512 Physics works in real life as well.
@@laibey_def9512 it doesn't destroy the round, it triggers the rounds fuse and the round explodes, destroying itself.
@@kroatischedoge pretty sure in real life it can destroy the fuse
As a swede this video was wonderful keep up the good content Simple History👍👍👍
You forgot the fact that most tanks of the time stood still when firing. Making the drawback not so big. It took 20-30y more before stabilizers was good enough for firing on the move was a practical reality.
Hey, just wanted to say this, Stridsvagn is directly translated to combat wagon. However the correct translation would be just "Tank".
Love the fact that he says stridsvagen when it’s just stridsvang (stridsvagn in Swedish)
i think this is one of the if not the coolest tank ever
Therapist: 3D STRV 103 is not real, it can't hurt you
3D STRV 103:
One of very few tanks designed 100% for defensive warfare. Made by Sweden for protecting Sweden in Sweden under Swedish conditions.
One fun fact is that despite having good protection so was Strv 103 effectively a light tank as removing the turret saved quite a lot of weight.
This is also why I think this design could be used in the future as a Light Tank that gives up the turret might be preferable to one that gives up protection.
Also losing your ability to fire on the move and not being able to defend yourself with your gun after receiving damage to the tracks aren't very attractive prospects.
Yes! My favorite Cold War tank!
amasing work, absolutely love the new animation bits, yo uguys are wonderfull
11:01 What vibe does this outro give off
The word "stridsvagn" simply means "tank" as in MBT (Main Battle Tank). All MBT:s that are adopted into service in the swedish army gets that designation: Stridsvagn.
The "S" tank was the third tank to enter service that had a 10,5 cm main armament, hence the designation: Stridsvagn 103.
When Sweden adopted the german Leopard 2-tank, its swedish designation was: Stridsvagn 121, because it was the first adoted tank to have a 12 cm main armament. The improved version was designated Stridsvagn 122.
You should explain why it’s called a tank despite the fixed gun- the answers might be interesting like how using their unique hydraulics solution to get precise targeting quickly which goes a ways towards off setting the lack of 360 rotation and also how does their doctrine behind its use apply here?
The answer is literally they stubbornly call it a MBT. That is literally the entire reason it is a tank and not a tank destroyer. (despite that literally being what its role would boil down to since it can’t fire on the move thus making it do what ww2 casemate tank destroyers did)
When listening to a description of the role it is meant to play in a theoretical defense of Sweden all I can think is “you are literally describing what German tank destroyers or AT gun placements did: move to location, sit and wait, ambush enemy, hope armor is good enough to deflect rerun fire.”
Best 8.0 tank in war thunder
That front armor is bonkers
@@Thin03nah fr bru
@@Thin03yeah
The 8,7 br is also really strong
until anything sneezes and hits the transmission
Funfact: during the erlier stages of the cold war, Sweden was the fourth largest airforce.
They were also very close to creating their own nuclear arsenal, with the missile chassi already built and only needed a few more months to arm and start testing before cancelling the project.
"Stridsvagn" is directly translated to "combat wagon" or "combat vehicle" as said in 1.18, but the swedish word means approximately tank, combat tank or main combat tank (MBT).
Nej "stridsfordon" means "combat vehicle" , direct translation is "combat chariot" = stridsvagn.
Benämningen "stridsvagn"/"pansarvagn" används ibland felaktigt om alla pansarfordon. En stridsvagn är en specifik klass av fordon och klassas precis som alla andra markstridsfordon efter deras ämnade roll, snarare än konstruktion, vilket i sin tur betyder att fordonet behöver uppfylla vissa krav på eldkraft, skydd och mobilitet.
- - - -
The term "tank"/"armored vehicle" is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to all armored vehicles. A tank is a specific class of vehicle and just like any other ground combat vehicle is classified by their intended role, rather than design, which in turn means the vehicle needs to meet certain firepower, protection and mobility requirements.
@@matso3856 Chariot är mer av en dragen vagn, men nu talar vi om ett självgående motorfordon.
@@satanihelvetet Okej jag trodde det gällde direkt översättning till engelska
@@matso3856 Till att börja med så så har ordet "vagn" med tiden och införande av motorfordon breddats från det ursprungliga, men här ska man också förstå att en vagn, oavsett om den är dragen eller självgående, är en form av fordon. "Vehicle" blir då lite mer allmänt menad översättning medan "chariot" blir en mer specifikt menad översättning och som då stämmer dåligt med vad vi menar i det svenska ordet.
@@satanihelvetet Nu blev det galet ändå. Stridsfordon är en specifik klass , stridsvagn likaså. Så om du kallar båda samma stämmer det inte alls med svenskan ändå.
Vi menar inte husvagn eller släpvagn , om britterna vill kalla stridsvagn för combat chariot så är det upp till dom , vi kan alltid falla tillbaka på amerikanska och kalla en stridsvagn "tank".
Stridsfordon exempel : CV90 , BMP , Bradley , Warrior etc.
Stridsvagn : Leopard , T-72 , Abrams , Challenger etc
The main noteworthy error in this video is the claim that the 103 replaced the Centurion in Swedish service - it never did.
Rather, the Stridsvagn 81, the Mark 3 Centurion with a 84mm gun, was replaced by the Centurion Mark 10 with the 105mm gun as the Stridsvagn 101, and existing Strv 81s were also upgraded with 105mm guns as the Stridsvagn 102.
The Stridsvagn 103 came after that, hence the 3 in its designation, for being the 3rd Swedish tank with a 105mm gun. It had been in development simultaneously with the testing of the up-gunned Centurions and it was decided both tanks would enter service. The Centurion has the better ability to fire on the move with a fully traversing turret and stabilized gun, allowing it to fill a maneuver role the S-tank can't.
The Centurions and S-tanks continued to serve side-by-side up until both tanks were fully replaced in the late 1990s by the Leopard 2, adopted as the Stridsvagn 121.
Wonder how many millions Sweden has saved on naming it's military material with none "cool" names like Thunder Hawk 2000 turbo killer...
@@danielrosenkvist3445 I think we make up for it by having badass names for our combat aircraft, like Lansen (The Lance), Draken (The Dragon), Viggen (The Thunderbolt) and Gripen (The Gryphon).
That forward moving moon walk at the beginning was CLEAN
Finally some actual 3D animation. Keep it up.
Sweden had some tanks in the cold war Strv-103, Strv-74, IKV-90, Strv-81,101,102
It looks like a slice of Cheese.
The tank was pretty smart however technology killed it off like with everything pretty good design though.
I love how the STRV 103 poops out the empty case and farts out some smoke :)
Using gas in warfare is illegal
It’s still a good mobile gun. Perfect for dug in mountain defense. No wonder it lasted so long.
5:50 thats not how heat works... the metal bars wouldve set the heat round of(start charge) so that the charge (hot metal) would just tickle the paintjob😂
Might be low, but at least on the commanders place it actually pretty roomy and comfortable. I did my military service as a pluton commander on this tank (Being commander on one tank, commanding additional 2 tanks)
The upper plate was 40 mm, not 4 inches thick.
The Sweden understood that saying your neutral wasn't enough, you needed to be able to enforce it, they also knew that sometimes neutrality isn't enough,
I really like this 2D animation and cutout illustration.
In the late 90s there was a few test done with this tank to have it radio controlled. they did a few of them but the stupid idee to scrap "old things" in the very late 90. Sad thing that we scrapped so much back then.
I dunno whats more oddly satisfying: the tank's shape or that 180 degree turn like a Doom 2D Sprite 2:56 . .A.
Personally, the absence of tilting the weapon to the side is the most time-consuming for me, even though this does not have a weak point thanks to this, but it is a great Killer tank
So many disadvantages yet my favorite tank
The Swedes have always made innovative weaponry
We need a cross section of the Renault FT-17! Great video!
Guys! Attack the A points!
Thanks!!!
Such a impressive machine!
information from wikipedia:
The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), also known as the Alternative S and S-tank,[3] is a Swedish Cold War-era main battle tank, designed and manufactured in Sweden.[4] "Strv" is the Swedish military abbreviation of stridsvagn, Swedish for and tank (literally combat wagon, it also is the Swedish word for chariot), while the 103 comes from being the third tank in Swedish service to be equipped with a 10.5 cm gun.
Developed in the 1950s, it was the first main battle tank to use a gas turbine engine and the only mass-produced tank since World War II to not use a turret besides the German Kanonenjagdpanzer.[5] It has an unconventional design with a unique gun laying process:[6][7][8] it is turretless with a fixed gun traversed by engaging the tracks and elevated by adjusting the hull suspension.[5] The result was a very low-profile design with an emphasis on survivability and heightened crew protection level.
Strv 103s formed a major portion of the Swedish armoured forces from the 1960s to the 1990s, when, along with the Centurions, it was replaced by the Leopard 2 variants Stridsvagn 121 and Stridsvagn 122.[9]
While most turretless armoured fighting vehicles are classified as assault guns or tank destroyers, the Strv 103 is considered a tank since its designated combat role matched those of other tanks within contemporary Swedish doctrine.
what people forget about most neutral countries, if you have no allies, that means everyone is a potential enemy, so you need to heavily militarize just in case.
It is not like Sweden used to wage massive wars or anything... They did. They know what war is about pretty well.
@@hideshisface1886 yeah, the swedish empire and the Great Northern War, the Deluge, list goes on
1:04 Putin designer?
Do a 7tp cross section I’ll ask this as many times as I have to
I'm guessing the focus on frontal combat means it's weak to hits from the top or rear by artillery and drones. Also ambushes are no longer a thing.
Some way I like the design a lot and think it's beautiful. I hope Swärjes still have them stored somewhere as back up bonus in case of war. I mean, tank is stil tank and 1+1 tanks is better than just 1.
Dealing with these things sounds like a nightmare. Slapping you around from ambush, hitting, disappearing and digging in again like trapdoor spiders... They'd make every mile an expensive trade.
The cheese wedge of doom
it was meant to be the break through tank in symbiosis with the more Defensive centurions not to replace Centurion, Both served well into the late 90's.
it was meant to replace older Swedish light and medium tanks from the late 30's and early 40's,
It was also an exreamly offensive tank in it was used to Rush forwatd in groups of 3 fire 3 quick bursts which would have a high chance to hit the enemy thanks to the extreme accuracy of the system i would even argue only the challenger is more accurate to this day.
The reverse as quick as it entered the fray aka 60km/h or faster.
basically keeping the front towards the enemies at all time.
Swedish Doctrine puts almost extreme levels of focus on aggressive counterattacks at alltimes and has so since the time of Gustavus Adolphus and even earlier.
Whilst tiday having the main focus on defending the nation.
Basically best defence is an extrme brutal offence.
Best regards.
You seem to not understand that the S tank had a fixed gun, no elevation or traverse at all. While the JadgPanther you showed had a limited traverse and full elevation weapon. So it could be aimed in its frontal arc with the vehicle stationary. These are very different things.
my favorite tank in War Thunder
This is my spirit tank due to how angled slope, and smoothest of its armour resemble my brain quite well.
Funfact:
The STRV 103 is one of the only tanks that could be fully operational with only one crew member
There is a report on the tank written by a strv103 tank platoon commander that is called "The secret failure". It hightlights some trouble he had with the tank. One of it was the high maintenance compared to the centurion tank. And the soviet T-72 was only 8-7 inches higher (20cm) than the strv103. I like the looks of the tank but Im afraid it became to big to fail.
But those cramped Russian tanks have terrible ergonomics and situational awareness.
This is what you get when you mix a wobblegong with a tank
Do a 7tp cross section pls
Yes please
It’s like the Italian Tankette upgraded to Level 5!!!
A more accurate translation would be combat vehicle or fighting vehicle, similar to German kampfwagen.
Great animation 👍
I don't see it as that much of a disadvantage to be unable to shoot on the move. For long-range exchanges, it matters little compared to spotting the enemy first and being able to land a meaningful hit first... A turret used to matter more for close range engagements, especially in cities or driving out of cover and shooting and going back to cover. However, modern MBTs got so big and have such long cannon barrels that are a hindrance for such tasks. I bet that over time they will be replaced by ATGMs and AFVs with smaller sizes, but a lot of firepower and better elevation depression and turn rate (similar to SPAA).
Intact until the arrival of the first drone, then to the landfill.
Modern realities of war have shown how vulnerable tanks are to drones.
I was surprised WarThunder arent this videos sponsor, becaut the STRV103 is pretty good there and even a premium
Story on John Basalone❤😢
Yes!!!!! My Lovely Cheese Wedge tank in Warthunder is featured by Simple History
I also love this tank as it poops its munitions to the rear haha😂
Just to add, the Jagdpanther had some degree of traverse on its cannon despite being a case mate. The Strv 103 has absolutely no traverse on its main gun and why it had to aim using the whole tank. Honestly, even considering the time period, it was a less than stellar tank design idea. Goes to show flops can get through the design board too.
There are advantages with the fixed gun as it can have much higher rate of fire that haven't been matched since by MBT.
You can also consider the Strv 103 not as a turret less tank, but a tracked turret as it can turn and aim just as fast as other MBT, just not shoot on the move.
Don't use War Thunder to judge it.
It could turn and aim as fast as any main battle tank at the time.
And considering that stabilizers still wheren't good enough for tanks to reliably fire on the move it was more then good enough, better even.
One wonders when rough terrain -- trees, rocks, whatnot -- made it so that the Strv 103 couldn't traverse its gun. It was a concern with the WW2-era StuG III, which could traverse its gun independently to some degree. Ambush positions needed to be picked with extra care.
@@peabase Trees was actually one of the main reasons for the design as turrets doesn't work that well when there are trees nearby. Strv 103 wasn't that bothered by trees as the barrell doesn't stick out as far as from a turret because the gun uses the entire length of the tank not stick out from a Central turret.
It was also quite able to move both trees and stones while rotating if so needed. There are clips on YT showing that.
@@znail4675 Size matters, but all things being equal, I would argue that nearby trees and rocks would render a turretless design less effective than a turreted one. But what do I kmow, I've only been attached to a tank brigade as a reserve officer for thirty years. And we don't hurt pretty trees or squirrels when we go on exercises. As a forest owner and conservationist, I would get mighty upset, too.
And on the note of the amount of crewmembers, The military said that If the sent the tank out to war, with only 2 crew, if they did not get hit, they would not surivive due to the psycological stress. more or less what they said was " if we send them out with only a crew of 2, they will die, by their own hands. A third member was added, but i have heard that if necessery , this tank could be operated by one person. as long as they sat at one of the forward staytions. I think its a shame that Sweden did not continue this series of tank and bought and modded Lepoard 2s instead ( Stridsvagn 122)
2:20 Since when do you use 3d models like that?
Petition to make a video about the legendary Spitfire
The most beautiful tank there is in my opinion!
can you do a "life inside" video with the israeli idf tank "merkava", it was designed to keep the crew safe but i would really like a more in depth analysis of it
I want to tell the animator(s) a Very Well Dpne on the various Swedish uniforms both in colouring and in style.
"Attack the D point" ahhh looking tank
More "tenk destroyer" than proper tank. Really only able to be used in defensive abuses, not as flexible as a proper tank.
Becausr it has neither the turret nor any kind of horizontal traverse, precise targeting is extremely difficult, so yeah, you're right. It has ti be impenetrable from the front though, that angle is insane.
"Hear me out"
-The Panject 775
Stridsvagn = battle tank. Variant of the generic Swedish name for tanks, Pansarvagn (armored tank). Vagn clearly translate to tank, not wagon, in this context :-)
I have two of those tanks, very useful against squirrels and seagulls.... LoL 😂😢😂😢😅😅
why do your new videos have so many errors in them (been a fan for well over 2 years)
You'be struck by
You've been hit by
A smooth sctridsvagn
Ow!
World: "Yea so... Most tanks get disabled when hit on the turret... How we solve?"
Sweden: "Can't hit turret if there is no turret?" *opens can of surstromming*
Yes finally my favorite tank
Wow. What a great tank. I like it.
No ads just video
Nice animations!😊
The AK4´s that are depicted here did not have aimpoint sights during the cold war.
Hello. All I m wondering how come Sweden would design such tank thay the only draw back is having no turret but it does have a good hidden ok combat but if its tracks get disabled the tank is unable to turn. It almost looked like a SPG tank destroyer but the last one but modern. But its a good tank unless it did saw action at Ukraine.
Reason why? Im not sure if you are familiar with Sweden but majority of our country is covered in forests a rotating turret tends to not really be an advantage for a tank anyhow so why have it? of course our Leopard 2 have it currently and Im quite happy with them. But the S tank were designed to fight in a certain way and a rotating turret made no sense for such a tank.
"the Swedish lowrider"
"Cheese wedge tank"