Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Strv m/40

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

Something the Chieftain fails to mention here is changing the turret design allowed for an extra 5 degrees of gun depression and elevation, important in a hilly country like Sweden. This is a feature the Swedish army has always prioritized in its armoured vehicles whenever possible. This brought it up to 15 and 25 degrees respectively, as compared to the 10 and 20 degrees on the m/38.

[@hedgehog3180]

That's pretty good considering that 10 degrees is already a good amount and was a huge help for the Sherman.

[@osmacar5331]

@@hedgehog3180 and NATO standard too

[@CapnPort]

"The 37mm isn't cutting it anymore, can we get a larger cannon?" "No ... but you can get an additional machinegun."

[@Rommel_209]

SOLD!!

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

To be fair they were making medium tanks with 75mm guns at the same time aswell. This wasn't intended to fill that role. This was intended to fill the role of a light tank, not a medium tank or tank destroyers.

[@JustinTuthill]

You SOAB.. I'm in

[@michaelpielorz9283]

do not underestimate the power of the armour piercing Köttbullar!!

[@leighrate]

The dual machine guns tells you that they were much more worried about infantry, rather than armour. Given the local topography that's probably a fair assessment.

[@chrisgibson5267]

" It makes tidying up a lot simpler ". Spoken by a man who's had to do it. Hang on. How many does the engine deck sleep?

[@TheRainbowCarnifex]

I believe the APDS round had closer to 100mm of pen against flat armour straight out the barrel, if the document I read was correct of course

[@ditzydoo4378]

The opening with you leaning against the M40l struck me as, a Swedish salesman lauding the features of this tracked family recreational vehicle… I died.. ^_^

[@thurin84]

slaps side of tank; "this baby now comes with 2, count em, 2 machine guns!"

[@ditzydoo4378]

@@thurin84 double the fun.. >_

[@ErwinPommel]

@@thurin84 Why buy one when you can have two for twice the price?

[@armedbrit493]

Still wating for the graceful swandive out of a swedish drivers position...

[@joebidenshairyleftleg6344]

By any chance was that Mr Doyle in the background on the upper walkway??? Does he live in museums or just appears in them all over the place like a sort of tank spirit 😁 respect from the ould country keep up the great work!

[@BAZZAROU812]

Looks like him.. 👍

[@bigblue6917]

Oh but which one. It's a little known fact but they have been cloning him for years.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It was not. I don't know if he's ever been to Sweden, now I think about it.

[@genericpersonx333]

Nah, you are just seeing that very Swedish thing some like to call Dwarfs. Not actual Dwarfs in a medical sense, but rather short and stout men, usually with lots of thick white hair, that seem everywhere as if placed by the government just to contradict the international stereotype that Swedes are all big and tall. My Great-Grandfather was one such Swedish dwarf at 5'6'' and maybe 200 pounds. That said, he had three sons all over 6'3'', so I guess stereotypes are not entirely without foundation?

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@genericpersonx333 That's the kind of person we like to put in tanks^^

[@gusgone4527]

Two things jump out about this tank from what your big man said. Firstly, design engineers really need to listen to users before "improving" existing designs - turret. Second point is the engine air intake. Saab know engines of that there is little doubt. Adding a complicated air intake probably has to do with the Swedish climate. Directing air through what would soon be a warm engine deck cover, would negate the need for heating elements or warm water jackets etc. While giving time for snow and ice to melt and condense before hitting the carbs. There is also the possibility of applying external heat to the deck and thereby warm the air for starting in temperatures below minus 25C. A mild winters morning in northern Sweden. Karesuando on the border with Finland for example, where these vehicle would be deployed.

[@lavrentivs9891]

*Scania, not SAAB. SAAB were still an aeroplane company back then.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

The engines aren't made by Saab. They are Scania-Vabis engines, which is really what 90% of the armoured vehicles used during WW2. This specific one is a Scania-Vabis 1664. It's essentially a re-purposed bus engine producing 142hp.

[@Riceball01]

I've always felt that engineers should be required to operate and maintain anything they design before it goes into full scale production. All too often engineers seem to have no regard for either ergonomics of ease of maintenance, sometimes both. If they were required to spend a decent amount of hands on time with their designs then maybe they'll realize that sometimes sticking something in a certain place (particularly things that you'll need to get at farily regularly), just because it fits, isn't always the best idea when place it fits means taking out a ton of other components to get at it.

[@lairdcummings9092]

Designer was a Space Orc. "Moar Dakka!"

[@blueboats7530]

When you realize you're not getting your gearboxes from the country that might invade you . . .

[@lairdcummings9092]

Sweden was quite comfortably in bed with Nazi Germany. They had nothing to fear on that front. It was the neighborhood to the east that was worrisome; if the Finns had folded, they'd have the Soviets on their frontier. THAT is something over which to sweat.

[@HB45175]

@@lairdcummings9092 Germany somehow never missed a payment either, even up to the very end they paid their invoices with typical German diligence.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

This is just blatantly not true if you read up on all the things they did to help the allies. Germany was the single biggest threat to Sweden and there's no coincidence armoured vehicle production stepped up after Norway was occupied.

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@lairdcummings9092 Sweden were never "in bed" with Germany. The coalition government had to walk a very fine line refusing the germans and not getting invaded by them. You have to put it in the perspective of being quite literally caught between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, whom at first had a non-aggression pact. The former occupying both Denmark and Norway and the latter occupying the Baltic states and invading Finland. To make things worse, in 1939 Sweden gave Finland thousands of tons of equipment, including 1/3 of the airforce, to help them fend off the Soviet Union, equipment that was very hard to replace. So when Germany invades Denmark and Norway, the swedish army was no where near done replacing all that equipment they gifted to Finland. And we still sent over 10,000 volunteers to both Finland, to help fight against the Soviet Union, and to Norway, to help fight against the Nazis. It can also be added that by allowing Germany to use the swedish telegraph network, we gained a direct tap to german communications and could decipher them as quickly as they themselves could. It took Arne Beurling two weeks to crack the german "Geheimfernschreiber" using only pen and paper.

[@SoundAndFuryy]

@@lairdcummings9092 They barely allowed humanitarian aid to Finland in an effort to stay as neutral as possible so they were only "in bed with Nazi Germany" if you employ the good old "whoever isn't with us is against us" logic. It's a shame nobody cared for or respected neutrality in WW2. Allies absolutely had considered invading Sweden as well before the disastrous Norway campaign made it impossible so it's not exactly hard to see why would Sweden not be thrilled to fight on either side.

[@pew-pew2224]

The reason for the second machine-gun, if I remember correctly, is to increase the spread and fire fate and therefor increase suppresive fire. The 8 mm bofors was a quite accurate round and the machine gun didn't spread it out enough. And the RoF I think was around 650ish a minute. I think that Ian on his forgotten weapons page describe the water cooled guns as being a bit to accurate together with 8 mm Bofors making it hard to use as a area denial weapon.

[@nebfer]

The Panzer III with the 37mm guns had a pair of MGs in the turret, IIRC to make up for the lack of enough HE from the 37mm rounds. With the 50mm they dropped it to just one as they felt the 50mm had enough HE to not need the extra MG.

[@Rommel_209]

Is it possible that the twin MGs are the primary weapon of the tank and only use the 37mm for other things that the twin MGs could not handle?

[@lavrentivs9891]

The machine gun is not a Bofors product, but a modified Browning machine gun, license produced by Carl Gustafstads gevärsfaktori (same guys who made the Carl Gustaf AT Recoilless Rifle, the kpist m/45 and the AK 4 - swedish version of the G3).

[@genericpersonx333]

​@@nebfer That was definitely part of it, but probably not all. The fact that the 50mm HE shell greatly improved the ability of the Mk III to engage the antitank guns and other soft targets that worried them helped encourage the move to delete the second MG34. However, it also came down to limited space in the turret with the larger weapon, a lack of clear necessity to have two coaxial MGs based on experience, and the simple fact that MG34 production was far from adequate so it was desirable not to use more than was necessary to arm the panzers.

[@spottless]

I find that a bit hard to believe. We used the same mg (ksp 39) on the cv90 during my service and it had a nice dispersion pattern from around 200 to 800 ish meters. The reasons I can think of for two mgs is that they where notoriously unrealiable and jammed frequently (wich might be becouse they where 70 years old when i used them) so 2 for extra measure . Or the fact that it was a pain in the arse to change barrels on them even by 1940s standards .

[@potat1478]

5:00 2 people stop on the 2nd floor for a free lesson about the vehicle

[@BAZZAROU812]

I think that's Mr Doyle..

[@Treblaine]

Wait... do i have to pay for watching this?

[@Netjerenbau3000]

As someone who gets claustrophobic this one gives me the willies just watching.

[@bigblue6917]

I'm with you on that one.

[@alles213]

Really LOVE the 4k footage, watching your videos for a long time, really great content and a really great chap showing them to us. Thank you for everything

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

Watching Nicholas crammed into each crew position reminds me of whenever Doug Demuro tries the back seat in a 2 door exotic sports car. They're both about the same height too, 6'3" 6'4" or something like that.

[@neilwilson5785]

Some of these may have never seen the light of day in happier times. It's great to see the more 'obscure' vehicles, though.

[@brucermarino]

Appreciating pew-pew's excellent comment below could the mg's be independently fired? If so, then the awkward to access mg could be used as backup for overheated barrels and out of ammunition conditions. Thanks for another great presentation! Experience plus theoretical knowledge is a great combination.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

I believe they could be.

[@builder396]

They clearly can be as the solenoids can be switched off independently. Still hardly seems to justify all the compromises they went through for that extra machine gun.

[@brucermarino]

@@builder396 Agreed, but there a certain obsessiveness to the design that makes it a plausible explaination.

[@442dudeathefront]

I wish he’d do a video on the M48 Patton and the Tiger at Bovington

[@BA-gn3qb]

Imagine a prankster putting a pigeon into the engine compartment to scare the bejeezus out of the Chieftain. 😉☺️😁

[@mrturner4620]

I believe some German early Panzer III’s had dual MG’s as well

[@kglguy]

Yup. I believe they discontinued it with the F model.

[@timonsolus]

All models equipped with the 3.7 cm gun had dual coaxial MG's.

[@builder396]

There were also the M6 Heavy Tank (twin .50s as a bow MG), and the italian frequently going for twin Breda MGs, especially in bow mounts like on the M14/40 or the L3/33.

[@DornishVintage]

Early M4s had triple hull MG...

[@builder396]

@@DornishVintage Well, more of a single bow MG for the assistant driver, and 2 more fixed for the driver, that were utterly pointless.

[@nickmoore385]

This tank is automatic . It's systematic. It's hydromatic. Why it's grease lightning !

[@fabiogalletti528]

it should have two fins in the back fenders to be perfect.

[@dropdead234]

A bad quote from a bad movie, and you are a bad person for having suggested it. OK, maybe a little funny.

[@joshjwillway1545]

@@dropdead234 someone shit in your cereal jeez

[@ulfmoller256]

Close enough kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5uqhWaaqL1jmZI

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Dear sir: The 4K is excellent....Super fine video....Thanks from...Kentucky...! From an old soldier...!

[@wlewisiii]

This really seems to me to be more of like an A1 model of the m/38 than anything. Rather like the difference between the first M-60 with the early turret and the M-60A1 RISE tanks. This is not a bad way to do small batches and continue to improve the series. It will be interesting to watch and see where they went after this.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

That would be the m/39 that bridges the gap between them. They redesigned the engine setup on the m/40L compared to the prior vehicles.

[@dge4560]

I would love to see Chieftain make a "hatch" about the Daimler Ferret MK2.

[@gabrielpalileo3294]

Love the early Swedish tanks, they look so cute and tank-y at the same time. Chief, slightly off topic question, but do you think sloped armor can still be effective on modern vehicles? I know most modern projectiles basically make sloping somewhat irrelevant, but what about highly extreme angles, say 78+ degrees?

[@lillayoda4095]

A high enough angle will make even HEAT bounce

[@FeedMeMister]

Fuck it, knife tank.

[@lavrentivs9891]

There's still a lot of angle on most tanks. Look at the turret on the Leopard 2A5 or the front glacis of a T-72B3.

[@MrMexicanarmy]

Wow. 7000 views. 700 upvotes. 0 downvotes. Chieftain. Chieftain

[@Panzermeister36]

Thank you for another great video as always!

[@jamestheotherone742]

I wonder how much the off-center 37mm snatches on the gunner's crank if he has it engaged when it fired.

[@CheshireTomcat68]

Jeez, i thought the corner of my screen had somehow cracked at the start. Blooming whip aerials.

[@WildBillCox13]

I spent one of my leaves at APG. Good memory. Met a StuG commander. He told some interesting tales.

[@WildBillCox13]

Dual CoAx seems a throwback. Might be a WW1 warhorse posted to a posiiton where he had influence over design parameters. And, since a tank's main job is shooting up unarmored stuff, maybe it was felt at the time the trade-off was reasonable.

[@Ulmerkotten1]

The macnine guns are the same as we had in the Centurions. Called ksp-39 and just crap. If you could shoot 250 rounds without problems/jams, you were lucky. With two such guns and trying to fix all problems inside a small tank. We had one in the Centurions and trying to fix it in a small space with the tank and turret moving, was a real nightmare.

[@Valdagast]

We were breeding especially selected octopuses to work as Tank Commanders, so they had no problem doing all the things the TC should.

[@SnowmanTF2]

It seems like the m/40 variant was shifting from being designed as a tank to being a sort of anti-infantry concept.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

Not really. It was designed to fill the same roles as any early light tank. Double machineguns is just a design choice they went with for all of their tanks in the time period. Srv m/42 follows the same thought process and that was designed as a general purpose medium tank. They simply took a page from the US when it comes to sticking machineguns on tanks.

[@polarjet1833]

This will be very useful information for fighting a M/40 with a PZ III B, E, and L,

[@Cormano980]

The Streetvagin is massively underrated

[@Rommel_209]

Is it possible that the twin MGs are the primary weapon of the tank and only use the 37mm for other things that the twin MGs could not handle?

[@lillayoda4095]

Possible. Later in the 80s during the Strv 2000 project which was a project to create the next gen MBT for sweden they designed a tank called "T140/40" were 140 stands for 140 mm smoothboar gun and 40 is for 40 mm bofors gun. The ammo for the 140 mm is large so the tank can't bring much (around 40 shells) so for anything soft enough the 40 mm should be used to conserve ammo. So a 40 mm coaxial or a 40 mm main gun.

[@Rommel_209]

@@lillayoda4095 Wow, 140mm & 40mm in a single chassis. They really came out with all sorts of fascinating armoured vehicles...

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@@Rommel_209 that chassi was also a three man hull crew design with a big ass weapon station instead of a conventional turret on a two-part hydraulic waist steering hull. Much like the Hägglunds "Viking" ATVs.

[@TheSeraphim4]

Love this new format of part 1 and 2 combined together. All vids should be done this way mate.

[@MBkufel]

So I can comment a vid before it goes live? Amazing feature

[@roberthurley3974]

Great session 👍

[@Mattebubben]

Why a second machine gun?... MORE DAKKA!!! And its far from the only Tank design of the period where they wanted to add more guns then they really needed...

[@wj7158]

I know the strv/m40 never use to go against tanks only armored cars. That one was only for back up for infantry

[@imagremlin875]

Careful where you stand. The shadow from the barrel makes it look like you have a black eye.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Great job Chief! Nice video.

[@iamthebatmanxiii3574]

That knee trigger seems terribly unsafe, one little unexpected bump ant that gun fires.

[@xt6wagon]

my only thought on the turret changes is that its more of a "light" tank with its loss of equality with front line mediums. So bias it to anti-infantry because thats what it could be effective at. Maybe should have tried a good 20mm cannon instead of a bad install of two MG.

[@dropdead234]

Maybe a 20mm Gatling, backed with a .50 on the turret roof?

[@lavrentivs9891]

The initial L60 had both a 20 mm cannon and coaxial mg.

[@pew-pew2224]

I think they wen't with the 37 mm for better armour penetration - but this decision was made when the m38 was adopted. The 20 mm bofors would have had better Anti-personel use.

[@Pitchlock8251]

What is it with the cone headed bolts on the exteriors of tanks? Are they just trying to make up for having drilled a hole in the armor to install the bolt in the first place?

[@lanejackson4374]

Mr.moran i love the inside the chieftains hatch series, and I was wondering could you possibly do an episode on the Russian asu57?

[@treyriver5676]

Nice vid. as always. if you really needed a second MG run a solenoid to an external and make an armature to the main gun on a collar (much like the us T34 Calliope) of course that I can not find any one that did that may mean it was not a good idea.. ;) and give it a much larger ammo bin. If any one seen one please post !

[@RonI-qz2tz]

Great video!

[@keithplymale2374]

One of the Pz III versions had a 37mm and 2X7.92 MG's in the turret so perhaps that was an inspiration?

[@jcadult101]

Those open tracks, have you ever done a segment on flotation of the various track designs?

[@charlesadams1721]

Did the tanks designers go one to instruct the future designers of 1950's through the early 80's Saabs and Volvos? Not that the design is too similar, but with the post-war Swedish cars that I had (which for an American, I had five, almost six) and the cars worked, and worked well, but they had stuff that was a little, well, odd compared to most other cars. There were many times when working on the cars or looking at them to think why certain things were done, the question always that came up was, "Why did they do it this way?" Don;t get me wrong, I probably put nearly 500K miles on my Volvos and Saabs, but they were decidedly...different. Sadly for me, GM killed Saab cars and Volvo priced themselves out of my budget. Still great autos.

[@dropdead234]

Swedes are weird. Smart, scary smart sometimes, but WEIRD.

[@lavrentivs9891]

SAAB had a few odd solutions, perhaps not so much because they were swedish, but originally an aircraft manufacturer^^

[@charlesadams1721]

​@@lavrentivs9891 Understood, and the heritage of SAAB being principally an aircraft manufacturer fact was prominently featured in print and TV advertisements. And just because some, maybe most most of the engineers in Saab when it was formed post-war, in 1945 were aircraft engineers, does't mean they would have sourced and employed other engineers with automotive experience, possible from Scania-Vabis, which Nicolas mentioned built the engine for this tack. So, it was quite possible for Saab, ramping up production of a new automotive division wouldn't get the benefit of a good engineer, whether are tank, bus, or truck engineer as with someone from Scania which Saab would merge with somewhat later. Generally, it is common for automotive companies, even aircraft companies maintain a 'feel' or design philosophy throughout the years and models. Why not tanks and other automotive products.

[@andriosz]

No manspreading for the gunner :(

[@timonsolus]

Swedes should have trained female gunners for this tank!

[@williamforbes6919]

@@timonsolus Girls und Panzer? I jest.

[@petter5721]

70% of Sweden is covered by forests and then there are 70.000 lakes. Smaller lighter vehicle with great mobility was therefore favoured back in the days. A defender have superior terrain knowledge and can pick where to fight.

[@lillayoda4095]

I would love to see either an armored car or an Srrv m/41

[@lavrentivs9891]

The museum themselves did a video on the armoured car next to the m/40 just a day or two ago.

[@cpawp]

The hydrostatic (?) gearbox seems like an interesting innovation to me. I think of many ruined - manual - transmissions in German tanks, especially Panthers, when used by an inexperienced driver. How was this gearbox in terms of reliability and serviceability...?

[@cursedcliff7562]

This freaking thing... they have APDS... at 1.0

[@dropdead234]

BIG squirrels...

[@stevenwagner7520]

So instead of the turret monster, you have a propeller shaft monster?

[@64maxpower]

I have a question. How do you get in a locked tank if the crew unfortunately has died in battle within it? Tanks are cool but they aren't all about fun times

[@michaelpettersson4919]

Power tools?

[@m.kriddick2731]

13:15 in is flipping us off?

[@flyallen8165]

When will you be revealing that you’re actually the main actor in Netflix’s upcoming ‘Space Force’ show just with a different accent?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The buggers never called me. I'm most disappointed. Still, I'm curious to watch it. Could be good.

[@Deadly_DoRight]

1:18 Weren't the Americans using the M3 Lee and the British using its counterpart the Grant?

[@1970DAH]

13:06 ... It's easier to leave the outtakes *in* the video, rather than cut them out and append them at the end. ;-)

[@1970DAH]

13:15 ... Damn, it didn't take the Cheiftain long to give me the finger for my snarky comment.

[@glenmcgillivray4707]

Observed editing error: in those cutscenes in the turret we get some audio static. Presumably you 'added' the audio from those clips to the talk next to it. Whoops

[@stijnVDA1994]

Hey, Have you done a video of object 279 russian tank? If not would like to do so if you would ever have the chance to?

[@REn-nu8eu]

chieftan pleas do any of the KV's but i want to see the KV-2 pleas

[@drbichat5229]

It was designed for one legged gunners

[@michaelpettersson4919]

Hey, disabled people need to be given a chance to do their duty for king and country as well. 😉

[@zoperxplex]

The Chieftain does his review of Sweden's WWII Tonka toy tanks.

[@frankishempire2322]

The brawl-wagon...

[@azzazel225]

Are you planning to make a tank doctrine video for USSR? It has been a while since the Italians and feels like Soviet tank use had some influence on the war.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Next month, as it happens.

[@azzazel225]

@@TheChieftainsHatch awesome, thank you.

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

the first few seconds i thought chieftain had a big bruise on his face but when he moved it wasnt it was just the shadow of the barrel and the light thankfully it wasnt a bruise cus dang that would have been a big bruise

[@ekscalybur]

Is it safe to assume from the drips beneath the engine compartment that this is a running model? I mean there's no point to lubing an engine that's never meant to run, right?

[@sadwingsraging3044]

I seen no evidence of that tank having been demilitarized. How Swedish. Someone invades and the museum director pops open a vault, loads every vehicle in the display with munitions and you have a force to be reckoned with. It may be old but to combatants driving around in a pair of boots that old tank is going to be a problem when supported by all the other fighting vehicles and the local populace.

[@ExcitingTaste]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bl7MdX6ZrdN3Z9k

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Most Swedish AFVs in domestic museums are runners, and owned by the Defence Administration.

[@RobMcGinley81]

How are you meant to load the gin with the chute there? Not a problem on the 40 but up and over??

[@NainakaiAyita]

Wait, so the APDS penetration values that the War Thunder devs gave this tank isn't even correct?

[@chandra7681]

The war thunder value was at 0 degrees, the Chieftain's data was at 30 degrees. Still, I don't know if the difference is that much

[@kglguy]

Many of the WWII vehicles' pen values are off. They indroduced a formula for calculating values of modern weapon systems, most of which are classified, I imagine. For some reason, they decided to apply the formula for all kinetic rounds in the game. I suppose they did it for standardization purposes, but it really screwed some WWII vehicles over, and made others overperform.

[@sheeplord4976]

The warthunder numbers are all over the place. Penetration stats are wrong, velocities are wrong, and accuracy is wrong. Add to that the fact that their armor system fails to properly simulate things that have something other than just a flat plate of steel armor.

[@TheMarineGamerIGGHQ]

War Thunder bend's the numbers how they like because it's their only ability since they don't know what BR decompression is

[@williamforbes6919]

@@TheMarineGamerIGGHQ Though it would be magic if they just made the Swedish 37mm perform true to life. Mainly because it currently outperforms vehicles of the same BR... I also want armor fatigue, then we could finally have a heavy tank meta that doesn't include upteiring them into being useless.

[@watcherzero5256]

I guess the Swedes anticipated their most likely opponent as being the Soviets after the Winter War and so an extra machine gun was seen as a counter to human wave tactics.

[@lavrentivs9891]

Tanks were primarily used in southern Sweden though, were the germans were most likely to invade from. If the Soviet union were attacking by land, they'd have to fight through Finland and then the rivers and dense forests in the sub-arctic climate of northern Sweden which also was well fortified since the early 1900's.

[@livincincy4498]

I do not know how they deployed them. Did they use them as support weapons for infantry ? ( aka French ) Or did they have platoons & companies of them ? ( Germans ) As a mobile heavy weapons platoon it is impressive. It looks pretty good as a machine gun & infantry gun remover. It could also be efective against Mortar & Artliilery positions. I am thinking it is following the design of the Czechoslovakian T-38 design. Didn't they have a hull & turret MG with a 37mm gun ? The Germans enjoyed these vehicles until they were outdated in 1942. Might be a good desk top video comparing these.

[@clothar23]

Deployed ???? The Swedes remained neutral during the entirety of WW2. They even sold resources to the Germans.

[@lavrentivs9891]

Sweden ordered a number of czech TNH tanks before the war, but they were captured by the germans when they annexed Czechoslovakia (desiganted "Panzer 38(t)S"). In 1941 however, Sweden were allowed to finally buy their tanks from Germany (who found them obsolete by then anyway). So their designated Strv m/41 in Sweden.

[@HarrDarr]

@@clothar23 Yep, also licensed the Bofors 40mm to all of the Allies and sold vital ball bearings to the UK among other things. Also bought airplanes and military equipment from the allies and the axis. Sweden was just trying to get out of the war unscathed.

[@stefankarlsson9762]

@@lavrentivs9891 They did not buy them from Germany, they wer built in Sweden under license.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@@clothar23 they were still deployed as part of the neutrality watch mobilization.

[@sternencolonel7328]

2 MG = more Dakka, I guess ?

[@HumanityisEmbarrassing]

It's a good model, but a video on the full sized vehicle would be ... oh wait 😂😂😂

[@samholdsworth3957]

I like saying stridsvagn

[@lillayoda4095]

Try Granatkastarpansarbandvagn

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@lillayoda4095 Spårljuspansarspränggranat is an aquired taste ^^

[@hollywoodslaves1757]

What you really need to do is do a 360 view from inside the tank at every position or stand outside of the tank and put the camera through the commander hatch and do a 360 view

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Surprisingly, when we tried that over at World of Tanks, it didn't seem all that well received.

[@hollywoodslaves1757]

Ok I understand

[@connermiracle8833]

oh cool

[@doopa3218]

The verso... The vision ports...

[@Butternades]

The Swedes must’ve been listening to the Americans too much and tried to go the “moar dakka” route

[@bigblue6917]

Ah. American tanks and machineguns. The worlds only assault hedgehog. You've got to love 'em

[@lairdcummings9092]

M2 Scout "car." Up to *eight* .30 caliber machine guns.

[@dropdead234]

If you think the US Army is bad, go have a look at WW2 US Navy ships. "Is there a square foot of deck space? If so, place a gun mount there IMMEDIATELY."

[@lairdcummings9092]

@@dropdead234 ah, but that made sense. Swarms of enemy aircraft need a proper greeting.

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@lairdcummings9092 Doesn't beat the up to eleven machine guns on the M2 Medium tank^^

[@BattleManiac7]

With a small gun for the time I assume the Swedes at least had a punchy anti-tank gun? They were worried about having to fight defensively, not offensively, so I can see that as a penny (or w/e the Swedish equivalent) pinching measure. Not ideal of course.

[@lavrentivs9891]

There weren't really any mid-sized AT guns in the swedish arsenal at the time. So swedish tanks basically went directly from 37 mm to 75 mm.

[@leifnordh9109]

We got 57mm AT gun at from 1944 But it was never mounted on any tank

[@paulcervone516]

Is that a black eye on the left?

[@marcinfrostymroz]

A reminder about Steve Zaloga's channel: kzbin.info/door/uVS1xvcMP9mTDZueC3o5bA

[@YXTT19N]

Чифтен красава! Всю жизнь по танкам лазит и нам показывает, молодец!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Thank you, Sir.

[@kristijanmedved6066]

Get inside obj279 its my dream tank

[@guido2810]

I miss the music

[@d.a.3902]

Is the silver like paintjob on the inside accurate? And if so, does anybody know why the Swedes did that?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

British did as well. Light is limited inside a tank, painting the interior silver or white reflects it about a bit so that the interior makes the most of what little light there is. (Also is useful for spotting hydraulic leaks and the like)

[@d.a.3902]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for the reply. The overall reason for a bright colour inside is in general clear, just the chosen one (silver/metallic grey) looks unusual to me and I am especially surprised, that this was applied in war time, when even for a neutral state ressources were limited and production of a metallic colour is more elaborate than of a simple flat one. Was also not aware, that even the Brits chose silver in wartime.

[@randycollins87]

More daka is not always more

[@thomaslinton1001]

"Befores" [and after?] vs. "Bofors

[@Sensekhmet]

Saab-Vabis, not Scania-Vabis?

[@exactinmidget92]

Wouldnt be surprised if the crew just ran 1 mg in order to avoid all that nonsense.

[@doubleducks814]

Chieftain looks bigger than the tank

[@flamingogaming4582]

Is it just me or is chieftain the Doug demuro of tanks 🤔

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Some have said that. I've never met the man.

[@flamingogaming4582]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I just thought was funny how I watch your channel and his and both of you review vehicle him are cars and your is military vehicles both are similar in a way when reviewing

[@doubleducks814]

It's so cute

[@Revener666]

No more tram gearboxes from germany.

[@SootHead]

Interesting tanks but not really proven in battle... or not much anyway.

[@meanmanturbo]

@Mialisus Sweden at the time was way to busy panic rearming to consider exports. Especially since most sources of imports had dried up, that was the whole reason for the creation of SAAB for example. And it being next to impossible to send anything away on ships without them being sunk anyway.

[@Zack_Wester]

@@meanmanturbo and the few things that could be sold could more or less only be sold to Germany on a good day another and it would get sunk as stated. do find it hilarious when I hear the not totally actuate stories about Sweden and there Ball bearing shenanigan to Germany...

[@secularnevrosis]

@Mialisus Bofors 40mm? Used by every-one and their dog. Most was license builds of course.

[@pew-pew2224]

Actually ... This - or maybe the strv m40 variant was actually used in combat ... in the 1980ths againts US Marine corps armed with M60 tanks and for the time modern AT-weapons ... It didn't go well ...