Finally a good tank! - Swedish IKV 91

[@pavelslama5543]

"Ok guys, we need to make it work with this engine..." "But sir, that engine is too long." "Fine, put it in transversely." "But then it would be too wide." "Fine, fine, just stuff it in somehow." "Sir, we have stuffed it in. Somehow."

[@ivancho5854]

It's insane that they chose a straight six, rather than a V6 or even a V8! That's a major design fail when space = weight, such as in tank design.

[@Niinsa62]

But what about Diagon Alley?

[@ehsnils]

@@ivancho5854 Not as insane as you think - the most common commercial truck engine in Sweden has been the inline six for decades, regardless of if it's Scania or Volvo providing the engine. An inline engine is also often easier to maintain than a V engine because it's slimmer and on this type of vehicles you have to do all work from above.

[@ivancho5854]

@@ehsnils No, don't get me wrong. Inline engines, particularly the I4 for compact and efficient cars and the I6 for smooth power delivery, are excellent. You're correct that an I6 in particular is very easy to work on because everything is easily accessible. Indeed in the harsh Swedish winter a reliable, proven I6 may have been preferred to a V8 which was less accessible. Frostbite is a reality there. All design is always about tradeoffs. Particularly in tank design any volume must be armoured, hence the more compact design is inherently lighter because a large volume requires more steel to armour it. There may have been good reasons to adopt the Volvo engine, but I suspect that the main reason was that no Swedish company made a suitable V8, which possibly compromised the design somewhat. That may have been an acceptable tradeoff for Sweden at the time as reliance on any external provider is always a weakness. All the best. 👍

[@uranusismightybig5111]

Nice video👍 Love Swedish weapons design, they make the coolest stuff, always thought thru from top to bottom....thats quality

[@Forrest_for_the_Trees]

Awesome video, loving the always on captions. Excellent as always - thanks Bobi!

[@bobiwt]

@@Forrest_for_the_Trees Thanks for the feedback and thanks for the compliment!

[@pfridjonsson7021]

Very good video. Your mention of the winter spikes made me to remember an incident from 2001 when my platoon was conducting a road march in the north of Sweden. I stood in roof hatch of my sections BV206. Our metal-tracked vehicles had not put on their winter spikes and as we drove through a village (a lot of people had come out as our lead company already had passed through earlier). The vehicle in front of me, an PBV401, (an MTLB bought from Germany and refitted) lost the grip and skidded straight forward. Unfortunately, the road did not carry on straight forward but did a sharp turn to the left and instead of road there was a lot of onlookers instead. Fortunately, the treads found grip in the ice just in time so the APC made a very hasty turn to the left and did not continue in too the crowd. After that incident our platoon commander quickly ordered the crews to spike the tracks.

[@bobiwt]

@@pfridjonsson7021 First of all, thank you for the compliment! And thanks for adding this. That‘s actually crazy because it could have ended fatally. Why didn‘t they have their winter spikes on before this incident?

[@pfridjonsson7021]

@@bobiwt Winter was late that year so there was never really a need until that specific exercise. Until then the platoon had only operated in forested areas during periods of snow or ice and then the speed was too slow to cause any problem. It was pure dumb luck that saved the onlookers. I specifically remember one family with a stroller that stood where the APC would have skidded if it did not turn in time. It is a bit haunting, but in the end it al worked out well, the onlookers got a scare and we al learnt to prepare and not wait for orders to prepare. But I guess that the short answer would be laziness.

[@bobiwt]

@@pfridjonsson7021 Now that‘s a good life lesson for me as well since I’m still young have my military service in front of me. To prepare yourself and not necessarily wait for someone to come and tell you. Well it was good that it didn‘t end bad and I guess the whole platoon probably learned this lesson as well

[@JimCoupeTQ]

Operation snövit?

[@pfridjonsson7021]

@@JimCoupeTQ Det var slutövningen i fyrkantsområdet mars 2001. Jag minns inte vad den hette. Det jag minns att min sida på slutövningen hette Nordland och att vi slogs mot Sydland. Väldigt fantasifulla namn.

[@tofu9673]

Great video, personally i love th IKV-91 its a sick looking tank

[@johanmetreus1268]

Errata and elaboration: 1) vagn is similar to the German Wagen, but should be better translated into "carriage" as a LKW is lastbil (lit load/cargo automobile) 2) Knitpicking, but the Swedish forces measure in centimetres and not millimetres, so the Ikv 91 is the first vehicle accepted into service with a 9 cm cannon. 3) The main reason for the mobility needed wasn't speedy flanking manoeuvres against appearing enemy tanks, but to keep up the pace with the bandvagn 202 and bv 206, which was the main means of transportation for the Norrlandsbrigades that were specifically equipped to operate in the particular terrain in the far north of Sweden. This terrain is characteristicized by wide pine- and spruce forests, rivers, lakes, bogs and a notorious lack of roads. 4) The main reason for using the low-pressure gun is found at 4:04 , as the demand was for the amphibious vehicle to be able to fire while traversing bodies of water. The other benefits were a bonus, but came with significant drawbacks as well. The lack of a solid penetrator projectile and the low shell velocity (moving targets becomes increasingly difficult to hit the further away they are) would be the main ones. 5) The width and length of the vehicle is limited by the road regulations, as well as the less flexible railroad limitations. Strategic mobility depends on such transportation and thus diagonal mounting. 6) The training organisation in Norrbotten was I 19 (Norrbottens regemente)/ P 5 (Norrbottens Pansarbataljon) located in Boden, and it was the latter that were responsible for the Ikv 91. Miniscule detail as P 5 was a permanent attachment.

[@johanmetreus1268]

7) One very contributing factor behind the retirement and following scrapping (rather than mothballing or sending to the newly formed national forces in Balticum) was the light weight construction proving to not hold up to the abuse of decades driving in rough terrain.... the vehicle frames had become increasingly warped and bent, and the cost of fixing those issues would be extremely difficult to justify during the spring of Eternal Peace.

[@perandersson1244]

Additional nitpick: it’s said in the video that the external machine gun (ksp 39) is mounted on the commander’s cupola when it’s mounted next to the loader’s hatch.

[@thurbine2411]

but shooting while traversing water without a stabilizers just seems like a big waste of ammo. Even without a stabilizer just firing on the move is quite hard and when in water it will be even harder.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@thurbine2411 it is actually easier on water, as the movement there is easier to predict... but in fairness, the Ikv 91 was intended to have a stabiliser though in the end (just like for the CV 90 mk I) it got dropped due to cost reasons; more vehicles manufactured was deemed more important.

[@thurbine2411]

@@johanmetreus1268 yeah it is easier to predict and maybe easier than moving faster on land but wouldn’t it still be quite a waste of ammo? Did they train the gunners to do that?

[@warwarneverchanges4937]

1:14 "a more mobile wehicle" S does a 360 on a dime lol

[@MrOddball63]

180

[@Nick-rs5if]

Neutral steering in a stationary position takes around 12 seconds for a full 180 degree turn. Clutch steering while moving takes around 2 seconds for a 180 degree turn, as demonstrated in the clip. Quite good for a casemate tank designed in the 50's.

[@warwarneverchanges4937]

@@Nick-rs5if Very interesting facts you have there.

[@Mattiniord]

I saw them many times as a child during during military exercises in North Sweden. Seeing them come charging over a field in deep snow was a sight to behold! The snow cascaded left and right and they just roared through it. I also came into contact with them during compulsory military service in the early 1990:s. Such awesome vehicles. It was really, really sad that they just scrapped them. We would have use of them now trying to rearm. Making a new turret with a bigger gun would have been worth it.

[@megapet777]

1:10 damns that a nice move

[@bobiwt]

@@megapet777 Agreed

[@hansreftel4271]

Tank 103 had a driver at the front and a driver at the rear so that it could retreat very quickly and smoothly without turning around.

[@KaiserPatrik]

It's a good day when Bobi uploads

[@bobiwt]

@@KaiserPatrik Thanks! I appreciate it 😃

[@petter5721]

Excellent video 👍🏻

[@bobiwt]

@@petter5721 Thanks

[@MatteV2]

This was not a light tank, it was a turreted assault gun, intended for infantry support.

[@DaveSherry-z1w]

It would last 6.5 nanoseconds in the assault role. Slightly longer in the defence role which is exactly what it was intended for. It is very poorly armoured and just would not survive an assault. The gun is also vastly outdated and is not a HV gun, relying on HEAT as its main round. It's best role would be as training tank which is what it was actually used for.

[@MatteV2]

​@@DaveSherry-z1w You seem to be under the misconception that this is a modern vehicle. Its not. It's a cold war design, that, for its time, was more than adequate, and was designated as an Assault Gun.

[@DaveSherry-z1w]

@@MatteV2 You assume too much,. It never was a tank, never would have survived in the attack role. It might have had a momentary lifespan as a anti-tank weapon but the S-Tank was the tool for that. The IKV-91 is an accountant's weapon and accountants who have never heard a shot fired at them in anger. Frankly, a waste of resources in war time but a useful training resource as substitute for more expensive tanks. With a lifetime of estimated one shot, he T-55/62, 64, 72 family would have annihilated them

[@KamiRecca]

or also known as a IFV, a Infantry Fighting Vehicle ^^ Though i like the directness of Infanterikanonvagn. Very on point. It brings a cannon, for the infantry

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

@@DaveSherry-z1w When he says assault, he does not mean tank would rush forward first. Instead it would largely provide direct firesupport from distance to infantry, with secondary anti tank role. And considering what we see in every war, it would do more then fine in this role.

[@JohnHill-qo3hb]

Interesting video, lots of good info and a bit of humor, well done, sir. Please, make more.

[@bobiwt]

@@JohnHill-qo3hb Thank you, I appreciate it

[@Thenonsocial]

Eyy nice channel bro, subbed

[@bobiwt]

@@Thenonsocial Thanks man I appreciate it 😃

[@yamzhikaictss1297]

Thx for remind me to sub too

[@bobiwt]

@@yamzhikaictss1297 Thank you

[@PeterPersson-s2q]

I spent ten month in that tank and yes i loved it

[@janinsweden8559]

The "Wolverine"...I joined the Army in 1978 and the Infantry Brigades had these vehicles.

[@fooltaurus5161]

Lovely new format ! Soothing !

[@benim3166]

Personally always looked at it like a more refined and lighter Leopard 1. Even though it lacked a stabilizer, looking at comparable light tanks during the era clearly shows that it was nonetheless one of, if not the best light tanks of that time period.

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

A bit like a PT-76 but with a better gun and sight.

[@jamesharding3459]

@@mattiasdahlstrom2024 And no stabilizer. Lacking one when it was introduced in 1975 was a major shortfall.

[@Joewho99]

Excellent video thanks for posting

[@rasmuswittsell10]

We Swedes liked to mix things up. IKV91: Not a tank. Strv103: A tank. The rest of the world: IKV91 is obviously a light tank. And Strv103 is obviously "something else". The reason for the Swedish classifications is that it isn't the design but the intended role that determines what is what.

[@alexanderwingeskog758]

Yep (Also a Swede btw)... Strv103 (for me) is sort of tank like tank destroyer... and this is (IKV91) is sort of light tank (scout without the scout capabilities like sensors/communication). Or an IFV without any infantry to deploy :-)

[@konakona420]

very much love the addition of subtitles, thanks friend! also he to tear apart fathers and sons XD, nice. review croatian specific variant of m-84! m-95 degman! it is prototype tank but would still be worth talking about since it would possibly be one of the best T series tank upgrades if it was made.

[@osmacar5331]

longitudal not vertical lol. transverse is sideways btw.

[@badcam70]

I was at the Sodermanlands brigade 81-82 and we had the IKV-91 there and they where mixed with the mech inf to make a panzerjager company, 11 pbv302 and 6 ikv91. The Centurion tank was there also and we had 2 tank companies in the batallion, this batallion was a experiment and the ikv91 was not used by armored brigades later, every inf brigade got a ikv91 company as a antitank unit. But the training of the ikv91 vrews was made by the panzer troops so they where panzer guys but placed in inf brigades in war time organization. Ikv91 was the first vehicle equipped with a hunter killer cupola system so very advanced for it`s time.

[@bobiwt]

@@badcam70 Thanks for adding this! It‘s always very interesting when someone actually had something to do with the vehicle from the video.

[@thurbine2411]

And it is quite roomy inside with nice control panels for the gunner at least. Dont know how it feels to sit in when driving but it was more roomy for the gunner and commander than in the leo 2

[@jimmylarsson5667]

Doing my military service in the Swedish army back in-77-78 we often trained together with this IKV 91. The sound of their engines was absolutely fantastic. And to see them attack in deep snow in hig speed was really something extra. We tried to keep up with them in like 75 cm snow, on foot, but it was of course totally hopeless. :-)

[@bobiwt]

@@jimmylarsson5667 Haha that sounds like a cool experience

[@5chr4pn3ll]

Nice video, and good work on the Swedish pronunciation :)

[@bobiwt]

@@5chr4pn3ll Thanks :)

[@rs5974]

Nice vid!

[@bobiwt]

@@rs5974 Thank you 😃

[@1965Leonard]

Eight Infanterymen could sit atop of the motor compartment back to back. There is two tubes at the side of the motorcompartment that act as a footrest, clearly visible in the video.

[@jeriksson7686]

I have ridden on the back armour in 1meter of snow! So much fun ✌️

[@Pz.history]

Was it any good?

[@Mornomgir]

Some nice footage there of the 105mm gun testing.

[@mantori762]

There are two ikv91 acting as red side on Kvarn, or was atleast in 2018

[@laddtryck]

I belive they have four fully working ikv91 running as enemies is war games.

[@peterdammeliusosterode3424]

They still are. at least two years ago when my son was serving there.

[@johanbergqvist3939]

The IKV91 had straps on the back engine cover for infantry to hang on to while "hiking a lift". Tried that way of transportation during an exercise in the mid 80's. Quite cool but not to comfortable, or safe. 😉

[@ulfosterberg9116]

It is not a tank. It is vehicle made to support the infantery. A big difference. This vehicle was to go everywhere infantery went. Over swamps, lakes, rivers etc.

[@dennistofvesson6351]

It was also part of the mechanised brigades. Both together with infantry and as a fast moving support to tanks.

[@peterwesterlund9137]

Great video😀☀️ Thank you👍

[@bobiwt]

@@peterwesterlund9137 I thank you 🫡😃

[@laddtryck]

I just love the ikv 91

[@TimothySielbeck]

Very good video.

[@da206hbe]

I was in the Swedish army in the middle of the 80s. I have never in my life seen this.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

The PBV 302 is actually designed to be an IFV but due to it is age it is now considered an APC.

[@Merecir]

An APC with a turret and autocannon.

[@fishyfish6050]

Could you please do a video about the T-55s in Finnish service including the T-55m?

[@Rubensky44]

W vid as always

[@bobiwt]

@@Rubensky44 thanks 😄

[@pavelgaming5470]

I like the jokes in this video, they are really funny - unlike my boss 😅

[@bobiwt]

@@pavelgaming5470 Haha thank you so much 😃 Glad you like then

[@satanihelvetet]

Great video and your pronunciation of all swedish names are great aswell, even those with Ä and Ö in it (I guess you're not native swedish speaker). Did I miss the information of what the IKV 91 performed in speed or is that missed in the video?

[@bobiwt]

@@satanihelvetet Hey thank you! Well I guess it‘s not that hard for me to pronounce because my first languages are German / Swiss German which have some similarities with Swedish. As for your question, I did mention its speed as well as speed in water.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@bobiwt in that case, I'd expect you to have more problems with the o/u, as Swedish å ~ German o , while the o becomes German u and the Swedish u is roughly (but not quite) ü.... least if the woman I brought to Sweden from Österreich is of an indication lol

[@bobiwt]

@@johanmetreus1268 Haha okay. Well idk from what part of Österreich that woman comes from but they have a very interesting language. To me it seems like a mix between German and Swiss German

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@bobiwt Wien, aber mit ein schwak Deutsch accent (zu viel Fernsehen) Sidenote, anyone mistaking me for a German speaker is either really drunk or American ;)

[@perandersson1244]

Former IKV-91 commander here. The top speed depended on the setting of the diesel injection (rökbegränsare) which in turn depended on the quality of the diesel fuel used. The armed forces used two types at the time, one being more dense and one being more “eco friendly”. The injectors had to be turned up when the eco fuel was used and they were supposed to be turned down for the denser fuel. If turned up using dense fuel it could easily do 80 km/h (but that would wear the tracks down in no time). The other way around and you were lucky to do 50 km/h on a paved road. There could be a difference of 100 hp (330 nominal) between different tunings.

[@wj7158]

You did really good video! I am impressed how you pronounce the swedish words, that was really good! Where are you from? What I heard was that, they design just that platform (IKV Hull). After that, the need enginge and gearbox. There for searching for a strong enginge with the right gearbox. V8 couldn't fit in there. (Like Scania V8) But a Volvo engine could fit there, if that was turned a bit in this room area. They build the tank first than came the drivetrain

[@bobiwt]

@@wj7158 Hey thank you! I was born and raised in Switzerland and have roots from Pakistan. And thanks for adding the additional information!

[@alan-sk7ky]

No cameo from Director Karlsson...?

[@TheSuperKnug]

Subbed!

[@bobiwt]

Thanks!

[@TheNukite]

Awesome.

[@halcon2134]

You have to use them well, lately with drones everything becomes talk about tanks, but once you have air superiority they fulfill their function.

[@tony3998]

The strv 103B was a good one in it's time

[@andersdoverud9046]

Were are they now?

[@valterjansson1550]

This have i been in in1980

[@svengustavsson2146]

It actually did go in 90 km/h unplugged

[@Pz.history]

not bad

[@anderssundberg9892]

Correct, you could push it to 100k's an hour if you tried hard enough but it really buggered the engine and the tracks if you kept that up for too long. I was a test driver at P10 and got to do some crazy stuff with the IKV, out of all the Swedish, English and German tracked and wheeled vehicles that I got to drive in anger, the IKV is by far my favorite.

[@krotma]

As a Swede, I would say that the ONLY good thing about the Ikv91 was that it gave Hägglunds the experience they needed to develop the CV90. The Ikv91 concept, to build a PT-76 but actually good, was doomed from the start and should never even have gone to the prototype state. The gun was useless, the protection barely existant and it couldnt transport infantry (unless they sat on top of the vehicle, which is never a good idea)

[@1Reddd]

Light tanks are the future of armored vehicles in my opinion. With the introduction of FPV drones your MBT is just as vulnerable as any other type of armored vehicle, except it's a lot more expensive, resource hungry, and much less maneuverable. We are at a point where armor does little but add extra weight to the vehicle, making it harder to traverse off road (as we've seen with all of the western tanks getting stuck in Ukraine). I think that's why currently the most successful tank in Ukraine right now isn't even a tank, it's the Bradley. The introduction of the Booker is probably the smartest thing the U.S. has done in a while

[@bobiwt]

@@1Reddd That‘s an interesting take and worth some research

[@Merecir]

Drones will be dealt with by laser turrets. The US has already field tested such systems.

[@1Reddd]

@@Merecir I won't hold my breath

[@lars7935]

It's not the first time that way of thinking as (rightly) come through. The race between weapons and protection systems is constant and ever moving

[@cz1589]

Looks like the baby of a Tiger 1 and a sherman tank

[@bobiwt]

@@cz1589 i think it looks more like the baby of a Leopard 1 and an Object 685

[@Flyingfortress_b-17]

Some Guy Said not a tank 😭🙏

[@Stroopwaffe1]

Wonder when ut appears world of tanks blitz.

[@KamiRecca]

the IKV91 is not a Light tank, its a Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Perhaps a pedantic difference, but the concept of Light tanks didnt last that much longer than WW2, when the main battle Tank concept took over. Also, the "Tank Destroyer" mythos of Tanks not fighting Tanks was a... flawed concept that didnt realy survive reality. Instead Tank Destrouers were mostly Backline Support, either in defence or offence, there to give Extra capability for the anti-tank role. So tanks fought other tanks, but with the Aid of Tank Destroyers. Also, the IKV91 is not a Tank Destroyer. Sure, it can Technicly fight tanks, but its main use for its cannon, to the best of my knowledge at least, was to give Armor-piercing capabilities for the infantry, so bunker busters and so on. And of course if you could flank enemy vehicles, that was not a bad thing. But a Tank Destroyer, it was not. Tbh, its a vehicle that have a bit of a split personality, and not a clearly defined combat role, exept as a troop transport and infantry support vehicle. It was Lightly armored because it was meant to hold up against infantry Weapons, so basicly up to 20mm at optimal angles. Again, i cant stress this enough. Its main role is in no way to face tanks. Its to be able to tank low calibre weaponry, and dish out damage outside of its own weightclass if needed. But that "If Needed" is not a guiding principle. Main doctrine tells us, again to the best of my understanding, so feel free to correct me where im wrong, Not to face enemy tanks with IKVs, but if anything to Support tanks facing other tanks. Again, can be seen as a pedantic difference, but its there. From Sweden with Love - Kami P.S Smexy little bugger tho`

[@vicolin6126]

Yep, pretty much obsolete when the CV90 was introduced. It had a cool official name though, unlike the CV90 - which lacks an animal-name to go with the technical model name.

[@znail4675]

Yes, it wasn't designed to flank enemies, it's that by now the gun is too weak to pen modern tanks from the front.

[@perandersson1244]

@@znail4675Former IKV-91 commander here. It was never intended for anything but flanking attacks in its anti-tank role. We used its excellent off-road capability to ambush targets with two rounds maximum from a primary position and if time allowed one or two rounds from a secondary or alternative position. With a good loader the time between rounds can be as short as three seconds (round from the first ready-rack and firing from the loader’s safety switch). In its infantry support role it was often used (in training of course) for frontal assaults. But never against tanks. One major reason for the IKV 91 to be retired was that the chassis were worn beyond repair. The body of the vehicle is more or less just one big box. All the off-road use at high speed forced the alignment out of line so that the box weren’t rectangular anymore. That in turn caused a number of problems with the suspension and power train.

[@dennistofvesson6351]

@@perandersson1244 Nice with somebody ho knows ehat he's talking about.

[@DaReaperZ]

Your pronounciation of Infanteri-kanon-vagn sounded more like Infanterie-Kanonen-Wagen. The pronounciation is not very close to German which could be worth keeping in mind. None the less, a better attempt than many others.

[@Aendavenau]

How did you manage to insert Greta into this? Odd.

[@bobiwt]

@@Aendavenau I am ✨creative✨

[@ulfpe]

And it can swim in thevsame way the pbv

[@xahmadx6442]

Yo bobi I'm a native Arabic speaker from iraq If you want I can help you with research about middle eastern tanks or armies since I can get info from Arabic sources

[@qittfthegame6128]

Does this have stabilizer? I heard it doesn't have it.

[@bobiwt]

@@qittfthegame6128 No, the IKV 91 doesn‘t have a stabilizer. But the IKV 91-105 does have a stabilizer

[@Recat6217]

I love you please don't die

[@bobiwt]

@@Recat6217 I try my best every day

[@Recat6217]

@@bobiwt Please more BTR or T-64 videos or even a SU-24 video i love your content

[@bobiwt]

@@Recat6217 Thanks. And sure I‘ll consider making one about the BTR

[@robban057]

Not VagEn. Thats German. Vagn is Swedish.

[@TheGrace020]

NOT KANONEN WAGEN!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[@comentedonakeyboard]

This Tank was designed to work in the Winter? How dare you!!! 😂

[@ddanielsandberg]

Haha. Always funny when non-Swedish trying to pronounce Swedish. Vagn is not pronounced "vaa'gn". It's faster and one syllable - kinda like the word "reign".

[@bobiwt]

@@ddanielsandberg 😭 I put it in DeepL Translate and it pronounced it more like „Vang“.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@bobiwt And that is why native humans are still supreme to computers :)

[@bobiwt]

@@johanmetreus1268 Haha yeah absolutely

[@MrBoombast64]

Why is this a Greta Thunberg problem?

[@bobiwt]

@@MrBoombast64 It was meant as a joke because of how bad tanks for the environment are

[@ulfpe]

Who knows , it might resurface in Ukranie

[@perandersson1244]

All but a few gate guards, gifts to museums and a few red team vehicles have been turned into razor blades at Stena over 20 years ago.

[@Antesyd]

Why would Greta be offended? She never said anything bad about the Swedish defence.

[@bobiwt]

@@Antesyd No but I mean because of how bad armored vehicles (and basically everything military) is bad for the environment.

[@marcusaurelius3487]

Take a joke

[@Swedishrodder]

Jupp……not a tank….great anti tank vehicle though.

[@lasse3412]

Have no armor

[@Errors2149]

this sounds very much like AI voicework....

[@bobiwt]

@@Errors2149 Dude I‘m gonna start crying 😭 This is NOT AI. This is MY REAL VOICE

[@MrOddball63]

@@bobiwt Yeah that was a low blow... I, for one, liked the German accent... And the content earned you a new sub...

[@bobiwt]

@@MrOddball63 Thank you! And thanks for liking the accent I guess? 😂

[@MrOddball63]

@@bobiwt No worries , I'm Swedish so it hits close to home 😁

[@very_nice_gaming]

WHY DO ENGLISH PEOPLE SAY WAGEN

[@bobiwt]

@@very_nice_gaming Why? How is it pronounced correctly?

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@bobiwt Wang-n in German approximation, vahng-n in English. To answer OP, most English speakers in the field of armoured vehicles are familiar with the German Panzer(Kampf)Wagen, and since the Swedish pansarvagn resembles it they go to German by default.

[@bobiwt]

@@johanmetreus1268 Sounds like a good explanation to me, thanks

[@very_nice_gaming]

@@bobiwtvagn

[@very_nice_gaming]

@@bobiwt wagen is german

[@Sven...]

This is not a Tank😮😮😊

[@alvaroskarson6175]

the voce sounds ai

[@bobiwt]

@@alvaroskarson6175 It‘s not AI. It‘s ME 😭

[@iberiksoderblom]

Not a tank.

[@terok1711]

Greetings from the M10 Booker. 😂

[@JH-lo9ut]

One of these guys...

[@uranusismightybig5111]

Sure it is, a light tank.

[@thurbine2411]

Ok so it has tracks armour and a big gun. It even has a turret which some think is what makes a tank a tank. Yes it isn’t an mbt it is a tank destroyer but it is a tank destroyer built like a tank so it is also a tank

[@felixbui9818]

so the mark 1 isnt a tank either, its slow and has little armor which in your logic isnt a tank

[@ramranch18]

The only good swedish tank is the STRV74

[@osmacar5331]

ah yes, the bobble head.

[@Merecir]

Only tank that could hide behind a tree. 😁

[@KapitanPoop]

Phirst!

[@bobiwt]

@@KapitanPoop I guess

[@johanmetreus1268]

Thirst doesn't give you bragging rights, especially when you misspell it.

[@bobiwt]

@@johanmetreus1268 Bro‘s a menace 😂