Lars Gyllenhaal | Strv 103 | Arsenalen Swedish Tankmuseum

In this film we meet the Swedish author and historian Lars Gyllenhaal.
He will talk about the Strv 103 from an user perspective.
Don’t forget to subscribe!
Follow us on:
/ arsenalen.sverigesfors...
Instagram: arsenalen_strangnas / arsenalen_strangnas
Website: www.arsenalen.se
TikTok / personalenpaarsenalen
Do you want to support us? www.paypal.me/ArsenalenSE

[@magnusfranzonuvebrant9519]

For all the non-🇸🇪 out there. ”Freestyle” was the 🇸🇪 name for a portable casette player, such as the Sony Walkman.

[@larsgyllenhaal9082]

Thanks for clarifying this, should have said Walkman myself. Too focused on the tank I was 🙂

[@thurin84]

i guessed so.

[@ptonpc]

Thanks. I guessed it would be a portable cassette player but I'm an old fa*t.

[@ptonpc]

@@larsgyllenhaal9082 No one is complaining! :D

[@hansmalm2801]

@@larsgyllenhaal9082 Clear your mind you must

[@kristofferhellstrom]

As a Swede I'm so proud of this tank.

[@eriklagergren7124]

Jag med broder, jag med

[@kristofferhellstrom]

@@eriklagergren7124 :)

[@lajo122]

me too

[@michaelbaysorensen]

Vi er os i Danmark!!!

[@echohunter4199]

Wow, very informative presentation. I’m a retired US Army 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman) where I used the TOW system to engage enemy armor. I served in Aschaffenburg, Germany from 1984-85 and it was common for us to also tie in a cassette player/Walkman to our CVC system (Crew Vehicular Communication) and enjoy some music when appropriate. I operated the M-113 and M-901 ITV but later in my career I transitioned to 11B and trained on the Bradley IFV. For anyone a bit curious of how a conflict would unfold during the Cold War and in Western Europe, check out the fictional book “Team Yankee” which was very accurate on our policies and tactics. The US Army has long forgotten tactics we used to fight the hordes of Soviet armor that would come screaming through Fulda Gap and other avenues, facing 7,000 tanks is no joke and even after constant air strikes, enough can make it through and present a serious threat when they hit our line of defense let alone after their CAS and artillery hit us.

[@metalfacedude5024]

Very cool tank! A personal favorite

[@axewolfjack]

Only learned about this tank in the last few years. Now it’s my absolute favorite.

[@larion3296]

Thank you Lars and Arsenalen for an interesting presentation of the S-tank. For me this gave a slightly different perspective, probably because Lars has direct experience.

[@brucewilliams6292]

The S-Tank is one of the most innovative tanks ever produced. I think a simplified version could have been even better. I appreciate the video.

[@hansmalm2801]

Awesome! I've seen a LOT of these kind of videos but seldom someone has actually used the vehicle they're talking about.

[@sailonstellarwinds]

Whatever opinions one might have of individual pieces of Swedish military gear, I think it's clear that the Swedish designers tended to never take anything for granted, and never do something a certain way just because "that's the way you do it". That heritage of thinking for ourselves is something we should be proud of.

[@Swellington_]

One of the prettiest tanks ever built and I didn't know it had the flotation curtain looking thing but knew it was amphibious,very interesting

[@cpawp]

Let's be optimistists, the S-tank design enabling a one-man driving&fighting position is the real revolution, imho, you need much less of an armored compartment, and you can build a smaller, lighter, more agile tank. I think the concept will reappear, maybe as a wingman concept, or autonomous. Thank you Lars.

[@Aphain]

It did reappear very recently with the KF51 Panther where crew members can switch tasks with another crew member.

[@TheDiner50]

Let's be realistic. The S-tank design has flaws too. Even now it is my favorite tank there are real flaws. When it was built/designed it was a expensive but in almost all aspects the best tank in the hole world. Due to fire on the move was still not a thing really the S-tank trading the turret for a reliable auto loader and so on it was a odd tank but very much the perfect tank/anti tank vehicle. But far from not having flaws. The moment fire on the move started to to appear in competitor tanks the S-tank design made it only really a tank for defending a attack. It had to stop to hit anything and so the lack of a turret ruined the design. But even if we stop even talking about that part. The design was just not feasible. The S-tank hydraulics are crucial to the design of the S-tank. And the hydraulics weight and problems was and still is a real concern today in tank design. Why pure electric driven turrets are more likely to be found in tanks then hydraulic ones today. And the S-tank even with the turbine engine was under powered. The engines where upgraded but it was to late for the S-tank. It had gotten a reputation of a gas hog, under powered etc etc. And since fire on the move was becoming reality in turreted tanks, well it was the end of the S-tank. Just to expensive and just not fit for modern battles. S-tank was being shown off as radio operated back in the 90s or whatever. It was made for nuclear wars, it had excellent characteristics all around. But trying to protect the crew and still be fast AND also compete with tanks that was now able to fire on the move was just to much. Lepord and Centurion won. It was really expensive to run and maintain. Even now the 1 crew operation and auto loader is such a cool aspect of it. Not to talk about how it can expose very little and still engage a target. Only thing S-tank can do now is become a remote controlled BEAST. But why not just do that with a turret design today. So no S-tank is dead. It was not really possible to remote control it back then. And now we can do it with a turret. But I love the idea of a single crew tank taking on overwhelming odds or just go HAM on a supply line. The rate of fire and mobility of the low hull S-tank together with excellent crew design is just magical. The view out of the driver and commanders optics are still today some of the best in tank design. You can drive it like a regular car/SUV! Not really but still it is the best tank. Even if reality says something else.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@@TheDiner50 the main feature of the 103 that might tip the scales in it's favour as a heavy armed ground drone would be if it could be made submersed amphibious with ducted propellers for propulsion and flotation pods providing neutral buoyancy at roughly 2-3m depth and the gun shortened to not extend past the hull to avoid barrel damage on traversing ditches or steep shores. Such a drone could be a terrifying ambush asset forcing an enemy to dedicate significant resources to either scout and patrol every lake, dam and other sufficiently wide and deep water feature along their attack and supply routes over time OR revise their acceptable loss thresholds for their entire operation. It could also have variants configured as a mine layer or mine clearing drone for laying mine fields behind enemy lines and clearing or recovering the mines if/when the area is reclaimed by friendly forces.

[@crunks2955]

Loved his lecture he had in Luleå a few weeks ago! He's awesome!

[@CthulhuInc]

nice seeing another user giving his opinion on the vehicle - thank you!

[@MrIwan18]

Very nice edition of the S tank! I really would like to see more of this innovative piece of engineering, greetz from Groningen 🇳🇱

[@moggridge1]

Fascinating, thank you. 👍😊

[@christoffertrygg]

I did the same on our bgbv 81 connecting my cassette player to the radio :)

[@knickebien1966]

Sweden has some interesting tank, automobile and aircraft designs. I attribute this to it's independence and autonomy.

[@SgtStinger]

For anyone wondering, "Freestyle" was the name of the Sony Walkman in Sweden :)

[@johanmetreus1268]

Nope, the Walkman was a freestyle, but not all freestylar was a Walkman :)

[@SgtStinger]

@@johanmetreus1268 that was how it evolved. Just like Xerox or kleenex in the us. But the originator of the word freestyle came from Sonys Swedish branding of the original Walkman. It was just the first models that was called freestyle though, because Sony won the international right to the name Walkman, and after that the freestyle brand was abandoned, but by then all small portable kassette players from all brands were called "freestyle" in Sweden :)

[@davidmeek8017]

Aloha; BRILLIANT presentation! Mahalo

[@anumeon]

I may be crazy, but young tanker Lars looked an awful lot like the Chieftain.. Or am i the only one seeing that? Thank you for another interesting video. :)

[@Ethnarches]

They certainly do look similar, in that picture that is, not so much now. :)

[@anumeon]

@@Ethnarches No absolutely not now. True enough that

[@nonamesplease6288]

I get the feeling that we all kind of looked like that when we were that age.

[@carlholm7867]

This certainly isn't the best tank in the world, but as a swede and somewhat of a tank nerd it's so interesting to learn about. It sure was a trail-blazing design and remarkably well thought out. Sure, the capabilities aren't as versatile as any other MBT. But it must have been a monster as a defensive tank in the 70's.

[@elektronischemusik1903]

It is a niche tank, designed for a certain landscape and doctrine. I bet, used as intended in it's designated role, wating in ambush position in really rough nordic terrain for soviet tank hordes, it would have worked out super efficient with that low profile and it's two/three men crew. Would the Stridsvagn 103 be a better tank in large scale warfare in the Fulda gap than the Leopard 1 ? I guess not. But i am pretty sure that the Stridsvagn would have made pay the soviets dearly if they ever had to face them in svedish landscape. The germans had a crazy good cost/benefit ratio with their Stug's, i guess mainly the stug's waited in ambush positions for enemy Armor.

[@graemer3657]

I saw one of these last week used as a gate guard at the Swedish military base in Skovde. Pity we can’t refurbish them and send them to Ukraine - they were designed to kill T64 and T72. Even if they are lost in combat these beauties deserve a Viking funeral.

[@Zombie-fb5zf]

Great insight from someone who actually used the tank I will be subscribing

[@glhmedic]

My favorite tank in wot. Nice video.

[@matthayward7889]

Brilliant video, always enjoy listening to users of tanks talking about them

[@michaelmulligan0]

Had to be one of the best designed tanks ever

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

An ambush predator.

[@exharkhun5605]

Someone ought to do a video about how to tension the tracks. Apart from that a great video, nice anecdotes about swimming and the music. Thank you.

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you. Nice to hear from a person who did his National Service in the S tank.

[@ptonpc]

Thank you for taking us on this tour. I could imagine a future UCV using this idea.

[@Halibrand]

The rest of the world calls the portable casset player = Walkman. Sweden= Lets not use this already world-wide established name to boost sales, lets rename it and call it the freestyle! 🤣

[@kohlenklau399]

You know you are part of history when the historians are younger than you.

[@euplot]

Love it, thanks

[@michaelbaysorensen]

Keep making these videos really good and informative. Thanks for also bringing real life experience, and nice story with the freestyle 😀

[@gurra63able]

Can you do a upload video and explain something about the Swedish tactics of the armored brigade like the collaboration and function between 103 and Centurion 104-105-106- 81, during offensive and defensive manoeuvres, what I can remeber about the armored brigade's in the 1960s - 1980s was that the 103- and 104-81 was a mixture in most of them armored brigade's, like if the Centurion tank on offensive hade more of an center position and the 103 a more like a flanking position and more?.

[@TheApilas]

I would claim the tank that have been mostly inspired by Strv 103 would be the Israeli Merkava, with similar engine placement to increase the protection of the crew from frontal hits.

[@DaReaperZ]

I think it's interesting to hear that the crew weren't trained to make at least some kind of repairs. I imagine this is a skill they would have had to quickly pick up in a real war scenario.

[@mycroft1905]

Excellent! Fascinating! TFP

[@onyxzero3306]

This was beautiful sir, thank you so much on your experience with my favorite tank line the 103. Hopefully I'll get to see this beautiful piece of history in person, she is very innovative for it's time, I'd love to have drove it and seen it get shot. How was shooting the main gun? And have they ever wedged it in the dirt to hide?

[@TooManyHobbiesJeremy]

That was great! Thanks for sharing your story.

[@martincurran-gray2287]

Very interesting, thank you!

[@DaReaperZ]

It would have been very interesting if the panels in the back were also made to act as blowout panels. That combined with the ability for one man to control the vehicle completely would be quite impressive.

[@TzunSu]

They didn't sadly, the 103 never had blow-out panels. There were trials proposed, but don't think they ever actually studied it.

[@DaReaperZ]

@@TzunSu It makes sense, considering how relatively new the blowout panels were at the time.

[@TzunSu]

@@DaReaperZ Was probably also not considered cost-effective with the placement of the ammo very deep and in the rear. Your odds of surviving a close range shot from the rear in a vehicle without a turret is probably pretty much non-existent, panels or not, and if your vehicle has been penetrated straight through the tank, your probably also already pretty fucked. Swedish strategic thinking during the cold war was really only focused on one thing: Causing vast casualties on an invading Soviet force, by trading it for our own forces. Our military planning during most of that time expected that the Swedish airforce, 4th biggest in the world at the time, would be wiped out in the first 3-4 days, a week if everything went swimmingly well. This was no secret to the pilots, they were very clear about what their job was going to be and how their chances looked. The same went for our ground combat units, trading ground and conscripts for losses and time. Everything was focused on defense in depth, ambushes and short counter-assaults. Very heavy focus on mining and demolition charges, and of course a lot of light anti-armor weapons, Carl-Gustaf in 1948, developer of the AT4 and so on. It's actually fascinating how closely modern Ukrainian tactics match Swedish 60s-90s tactics, both armies having the sole focus of national defense against Russians.

[@DaReaperZ]

@@TzunSu Interesting indeed. I do wonder though why such a large air force was expected to be wiped out so quickly. Was it simply the fact that we couldn't match the sheer numerical advantage that the Soviets would have had against our pilots? I hadn't thought of it before, but it does seem like Ukraine has a similar strategy, albeit with way better access to manpower.

[@TzunSu]

@@DaReaperZ Yes, and with a time sensitive very specific primary mission: Sinking ships over the Baltic. You have to get fairly close to fire missiles, and you're up against SAMs and heavy fighter cover, whilst your expecting heavy losses to your airbases in return, ergo the Base 60 system of road bases to try to mitigate that. Ukraine has a similar type of system, although i don't know how much it is used. We now know after the fall of the iron curtain that extensive spetnaz operations would likely precede any invasion, and targeted killings of pilots was one of many contingences the USSR had. Yes, although the numbers we see in the Ukraine armed forces so far aren't outside the scope of Swedish conscript numbers at it's peak. Remember, everyone served, almost to a man, to some degree. Ukraine could mobilize a *lot* more men if they had the resources and time, though.

[@davec5153]

I think its a great design, if its optics and gun were updated it could take on any modern tank, if its suspension was fixed.

[@rolandmclovin1499]

6:19 now we know what inspired Mr. Bean to drive on the roof of the car

This was an excellent Presentation. It is a shame that there doesnt seem to be a good Book on swedish tank history in english out there :)

[@Echoes-]

Maybe Lars as an historian and author can make one for us. :)

@@Echoes- go Lars! 👍

[@paoloviti6156]

Very interesting video on S-tank that I always liked it very much since I first heard about it! I believe that it was a good tank, expensive and complicated to build the Strv 103 with an equally complicated hydraulic hydraulic system, that apparently works only on the first and last suspension to rise and lower the gun. But also it's complicated system that permits any of the crew to drive the tank, including reversing at full speed in his own seat. Despite all this it was very reliable but I was surprised that the suspensions often gave problems meaning loss of pressure on the hydraulic links of the suspensions? Anyway you did an excellent job 👍 👍👍👍

[@tonymirarchi]

4:40 Innovation with the autoloader, no need to reinvent the wheel.

[@sigurdivar4227]

I don't belive it's turretless - it lacks a chassis. The turret is mounted directly to the tracks. 😀

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

That is how it was officially described in the proposals, as I recall.

[@sigurdivar4227]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Yes, and it has been a debate about that, among other things about this tank.

[@thurin84]

i can just picture you all bebopping along to "highway to the danger zone"!

[@ivoferin8176]

Great they leave the vehicle dirty inside the museum!!! Much more enjoyable to see a "real" look!!!

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

Where is my favouite Swedish Curator? :( I hope he is well. This guy is ok though..

[@birgerjohansson8010]

What if you had loaded one type of ammunition and suddenly needed to switch to another kind of round? If you wanted to keep the element of surprise, you could not just fire the unwanted round, but instead pull it out. Could the autoloader handle that? Could it even replace the removed round in the correct ammunition compartment?

[@akmzd6938]

The autoloader could not remove a round once it was loaded, so the only way to switch from one type of ammunition to another was to fire the gun. Of course, if you had the element of surprise, you could simply approach with the breech empty and select HE/APFSDS/smoke once you acquired a target - if you have the jump on your enemy, a few seconds to get the gun loaded won't change the fact. Besides, no other autoloader can extract a loaded round either (the experimental Abrams autoloader apparently could, but that didn't enter service). Some autoloaders enable the crew to operate the gun manually, including loading the gun by hand (and unloading, but you might not necessarily have anywhere in particular to put that shell). However the Strv 103 doesn't, because the breech and autoloader is so far back in the hull in a separate compartment, but the radio operator/rear driver could at least cycle the action by hand-crank if the automation failed.

[@N_Wheeler]

@@akmzd6938 were all 50 rounds available to the autoloader? Or did the crew need to move the rounds from storage to the magazine.

[@dmg4415]

It is not a tank, it is a tank turret on tracks!

[@jari2018]

i wonder how thick the frontal armour should have been to protect to the then new soviet 125mm smoothbore gun

[@paogene1288]

What about tactics? How do you move and shoot with it along in support of other S-tanks?

[@ognjenbegicevic6298]

You don't move and shoot as in being on the move when firing as far as i know. Otherwise it's like any other armor doktrin you cover those on the move than you move.

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

Do you drive it like a motorbike or a trike?

[@F-Frytek]

On my KZbin channel I put also video with STRV 103 from Arsenalen Museum.

[@WLX-Snugla34]

I see it on your channel 👍💪😎

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

Did the Swedish army operate with the LRDG?

[@guttormurthorfinnsson8758]

long range desert group ?

[@larsgyllenhaal9082]

@@guttormurthorfinnsson8758 The LRDG actually had Swedish Bofors AT guns on Chevy trucks and in the book we highlight these and LRDG member Bill "Swede" Anderson. In North Africa the British Army also operated a lot of 40 mm Bofors AA guns. Cheers, Lars

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

@@guttormurthorfinnsson8758 Yes. I was being a little bit flippant.

[@petter5721]

Här finns fem filmer om STRV103 i Tyskland, intressant: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4maooJ5bNh8qc0

[@CheshireTomcat68]

So, you are going to be a soldier. OK, that's fine. But it's gonna be a bit weird. Err...what?.....

[@Wernerrrrr]

I think this design had no future because it cant fire on the move.

[@larsgyllenhaal9082]

Thats a key factor, indeed. To understand why the S-tank was built it is important to understand how much better modern tanks are at firing on the move, i.e. in comparison to the tanks of the 1950/60s when the S-tank came about. Thank you for your interest in my old tank 🙂

[@ArmadilloGodzilla]

Reliability was horrible. Normally you could throw it further than you could drive it.

[@gitfoad8032]

Depressing to hear constant question intonation.

[@larsgyllenhaal9082]

They should have used Jake but unfortunately he wasnt a Swedish tanker 🙂

[@alexanderfenning8648]

it's a SPG like the STUG not a tank

[@drumtum]

Actually it´s not a tank.