Life Inside The Flattest Tank - STRV 103 (Cross Section)

[@Simplehistory]

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 KZbin!!: tanks.ly/Tankfest

[@Account_abandoned-q7m]

No.

[@mako_reverse5838]

Yes.

[@Sreenivas-r6o]

I like your videos simple history

[@davidspencer8373]

Like video

[@princeinpve]

At least I don't have to choose 1 nation for my whole game. (WT so good)

[@Idontknow4]

"Shoot me all you wish, my tank is too smooth, the smoothest there is, your shells simply slide right off!"

[@Ironknuckle100]

YALL CAN CALL ME SLIPPRY DAN!

[@Kuro-mg8vc]

Where is this from?

[@paogene1288]

A meme spoofing the "my brain is the smoothest there is. Your insults slide right of".​@@Kuro-mg8vc

[@CloudyClobain]

Heat will destroy this tank

[@ShiningDarknes]

Hehehe high-explosive go boom.

[@millanoire]

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.

[@MaxCroat]

Functioning with 1 crew yes, but certainly not 100% effective.

[@GregorianMG]

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.

[@tomstock9546]

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]

I guess the 1 man solution is only viable as desperate, last ditch effort in defence.

[@MaxCroat]

@@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.

[@datweaks9417]

You forgot that the tank can still be manned by one person. That can still shoot and drive.

[@Bot2985-n6g]

Rambo?

[@yi_hou3092]

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

[@znail4675]

@@yi_hou3092 Close, the rear guy can't shoot the gun only drive.

[@Goodboi939]

@@znail4675 he could change seats

[@bjornnylander8754]

@@yi_hou3092 True, if 2/3 of the crew was taken out, 1 crewman can drive and shoot from the commanders seat.

[@Mark_nobody3]

That has to be the most smoothest Tank turn I seen in 2D animation, The animation team has experienced now 0:36

[@cr0sad3r70]

We need a video about the evolution of simple history animation

[@jacextreme6432]

3d model rotoscoping

[@HomingRocket1]

the team have pioneered the art of *2.5* Dimension or 2.5D

[@EC-ki5wv]

​@@HomingRocket1 no its been in cartoons for a while think about it

[@hussarzwei6223]

Postwar Stug doesn’t exist, it can’t hurt you. Postwar Stug:

[@limer.6355]

dang you were faster than me with that ,cheers

[@MatteoBelongsInAmentalHospital]

as a swedish person (that sat in an STRV-103, yes it's cramped) i am offended. Not actually. :)

[@Blank55600]

Sweden took the phrase 'if you want peace prepare for war' seriously and I love it.

[@peabase]

In that case Sweden failed recently, by disarming while Russia did prepare for war.

[@thecursed01]

"And be nice to the nazis and let them walk over you, literally, instead of fighting

[@yollmanontherun9074]

​​@@peabase Yepp but thats been a problem since th fall of the Soviet Union so thats nothing new

[@yollmanontherun9074]

​@@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 🥁

[@peabase]

@@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.

[@dr_steel-m3e]

Cheese wedge tank, that is stupidly unpenetrable from the front

[@robocopvsterminator4594]

Just imagine this Swedish tank destroyer as A playable one in Wot Blitz videogame...

[@TwoFoxPlays]

I have this tank in Tank Company game...I call it Swedes Doorstopper

[@yolobathsalts]

​@@robocopvsterminator4594 it's in *real* wot.

[@WatermelonDog202]

​@@robocopvsterminator4594It's not a tank destroyer they literally use it as a main battle tank 💀

[@WatermelonDog202]

​@@yolobathsaltsThe video we are watching already shows it too like what 💀💀💀

[@freddiebox]

Small detail, but I appreciate the accuracy in the uniform designs for the Swedish army in the video.

[@svartorivigt5016]

I especially love the inclusion of the shoulder sleeve insignia representing the Skaraborgs Regiment/Brigade.

[@cesaravegah3787]

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.

[@target844]

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.

[@juanlu3958]

@@target844 how the heck this stupid tank can attack??? i

[@Bannditbunny]

The Strv 103 is probably one of my favorite tanks of all times, it’s so unique and fascinating

[@ReddyRedz]

3:22 Sweden really took the creative way

[@ernstschmidt4725]

heh, it pööps

[@adrianperalta2425]

I can see enemy drones in the back waiting for the tank shoot…

[@fizzco3373]

@@adrianperalta2425 That would never happen lol

[@FurryCruz]

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.

[@subsidingjoshua9354]

0:35 that animation 😮👍

[@Cod_fan-ed6re]

The 3D animation was so perfect that i started flying 😭👌

[@foznoth]

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.

[@znail4675]

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.

[@Vollification]

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.

[@andersmalmgren6528]

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

[@Vollification]

@@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." :(

[@aceette5231]

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.

[@matso3856]

@@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

[@Electric_Devil]

Nice touch with Ak4 and Ak5 shown at the correct time time periods.

[@Stridsvagn-PanzerKommandant]

The Strv 103 did not fully replace the Centurion in Sweden, it supplemented the existing fleet, many centurions would be upgraded to the Strv 104 and Strv 102R variants.

[@negativenancy9482]

i think this is one of the if not the coolest tank ever

[@Belligerent_Herald]

That inclusion of the aurora in the backdrop was a very cool attention to detail.

[@joonasnaski9513]

5:52 Ah yes. The solid non-chemical HEAT round.

[@TheEpicNoob]

The fence destroyed the round

[@laibey_def9512]

@@TheEpicNoob it won't in real life...

[@znail4675]

@@laibey_def9512 Physics works in real life as well.

[@kroatischedoge]

​@@laibey_def9512 it doesn't destroy the round, it triggers the rounds fuse and the round explodes, destroying itself.

[@TheEpicNoob]

@@kroatischedoge pretty sure in real life it can destroy the fuse

[@TheSimon253]

Slight correction, the Strv 103 did not replace the Strv 101/102 (Centurion) but both were used until the 90s.

[@nimrods4380]

As a swede this video was wonderful keep up the good content Simple History👍👍👍

[@Goc4ever]

My most sincere congratulations Simple History, well done. I found the history of STRV 103 very interesting and i have to be frank, it would have made an exceptional sniping tank because of its reduced design and the Swedish's emphasis on accuracy.

[@danielkarlsson9326]

it was not uncommon for regular crews to be able to hit the same hole with multitude shots of a range of 2km and longer making it look like there was only one entry hole yet finding metal for many more. Whilst it could fire on the move she accuracy was only usefull for suppressing fire on a close range. it is probably the most aggressive tank design/doctrine ever used in a modern army with the iodea beeing to charge forward at max speed in groups of 3 fire 3x3 shots fats and then reverse back at the very same speed.

[@89RASMUS]

One of very few tanks designed 100% for defensive warfare. Made by Sweden for protecting Sweden in Sweden under Swedish conditions.

[@svartorivigt5016]

I just love that the soldiers in the video is represent being part of Skaraborgs Regiment/Brigade (P4/MekB 4).

[@V16PER]

Love the fact that he says stridsvagen when it’s just stridsvang (stridsvagn in Swedish)

[@MyDogFulton]

This sitting in a ditch along a road would be a horrifying thing to see. And probably see too late.

[@znail4675]

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.

[@Wimbold]

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.

[@Cheezepuffs_]

Hey, just wanted to say this, Stridsvagn is directly translated to combat wagon. However the correct translation would be just "Tank".

[@MarksmanDynamics]

gyatthunder

[@02nightowl]

what makes this tank actually scary is how it could be used in a trapdoor spider ambush style, a hole could be dug and the tank/crew hide in there and purposefully let the enemy tanks pass so they could ambush them from behind or at night, i could only imagine the horror an invading force would feel finding out that these assassins could be hiding underground waiting to destroy them

[@Wimbold]

To be fair, you can kind of do that with any tank.

[@quintrapnell3605]

It’s still a good mobile gun. Perfect for dug in mountain defense. No wonder it lasted so long.

[@MrDanieleThiella]

Omg! It's the Cheese Wedge Tank! Me and this funny looking tank have one thing in common, when it was retired from service, I was born 😱

[@martinlund9524]

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.

[@SlyCooper1920]

Therapist: 3D STRV 103 is not real, it can't hurt you 3D STRV 103:

[@daviddavid5880]

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.

[@corymorimacori1059]

"We have lost many brave men, but their sacrifice is not in vain. Our tanks now form a line of steel so powerful that all German resistance will be crushed beneath its mighty treads. Today - we will watch as Seelow falls. Along with all those foolish enough to stand in our way." Viktor Reznov

[@HellbirdIV]

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]

Wonder how many millions Sweden has saved on naming it's military material with none "cool" names like Thunder Hawk 2000 turbo killer...

[@HellbirdIV]

@@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).

[@schlirf]

Before the Swedish military throws away that Tank, they might consider that at 7 foot tall, and some modifications, it would make an excellent recon vehicle or even an IFV.

[@sirjohndough8575]

Unfortunately, all of these tanks has been scrapped by the year 2000, as the "eternal peace" and no wars in Europe would happen again.

[@schlirf]

@@sirjohndough8575 As in "The War To End All Wars"...

[@Zacharoni4085]

@@sirjohndough8575Silly idealism

[@Regarded69]

​@@sirjohndough8575Sweden did scale down their military after the cold war ended just like most nations. But the Strv 103 wasn't scrapped beacuse of belief in eternal peace, it was scrapped beacuse it was concidered outdated and was replaced with the Strv 122. Sweden never really liked to keep huge reserves of old equipment. Swedish doctrine basicly states that the military should be a deterrent that destroys the enemy at sea and in the air air with aircraft, navy and ground-launched cruise missiles before they ever get to Sweden and then have to fight elite forces that throw them back to the sea if they land. But if they establish a frontline in Sweden and Sweden ends up in a protracted war where they have to tap into old reserves, the war is as good as over and Sweden isn't willing to invest the money and manpower to prepare for such a scenario.

[@JohanLofgren-jc4mh]

CV90 has that role today. The two engine configuration made it unnecessary complicated. In it's first years, the main gun outperformed the competitors in precision. So the need to halt the str103 when shooting wasn't a drawback. Furthermore it's role on the battlefield was basicly to be an ambushhunter, digging itself in position (yes it has a shovelblade at it's front doubling as an extra shield for incomings). Hit and run to a new location and repeat the process. Once you revealed your position by shooting, MOVE!!!!! This thinking goes for Archer aswell.

[@joshuazafe1247]

"so uhh how do you aim the turret" "the tank IS the turret!!"

[@someguy7805]

"People have referred to it as a tank destroyer or an assault gun". That's because it IS one. A STUG by any other name...

[@bradleyrichter4669]

I knew world of tanks would be sponsored. Literally grinding right now trying to get this exact tank.

[@davidk6269]

Yes! My favorite Cold War tank!

[@MrBlipman]

The Jagdpanther isn't a fixed gun vehicle. Tank destroyers such as the StuG's and Su-85/100 can rotate their barrels without moving the vehicle, the Strv 103 is locked completely in place.

[@BearzGGaming]

Best 8.0 tank in war thunder

[@Thin03]

That front armor is bonkers

[@user-phoenix-A69]

@@Thin03nah fr bru

[@LunaLunara2904]

​@@Thin03yeah

[@nils1539]

The 8,7 br is also really strong

[@MaticTheProto]

until anything sneezes and hits the transmission

[@markolysynchuk5264]

Finally some actual 3D animation. Keep it up.

[@RandomMercenary1]

Really love these cross section videos. Hope these turn into their own little small series!

[@kwyoushyt6356]

amasing work, absolutely love the new animation bits, yo uguys are wonderfull

[@JohnnybrosYT]

11:01 What vibe does this outro give off

[@JoaoSoares-rs6ec]

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,

[@petter5721]

A mechanical masterpiece for its time 👍🏻

[@Hansiwansi]

The STRV is in my eyes one of the best tanks in the world! The design is so unique, i am sure, back than the strategy would have worked out 100%.

[@LoLa-zx6dg]

"Strv" is an abbrieveation for "stridsvagn" (litt. combat wagon) it just means tank. Could be any swedish tank. Like "Pzkpfw" you know...

[@Confirmed105]

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.

[@wj7158]

Sweden had some tanks in the cold war Strv-103, Strv-74, IKV-90, Strv-81,101,102

[@logynxmiosstonesword]

amazing video but please use kmh instead of mph or use both.

[@tylerrodriguez9233]

That forward moving moon walk at the beginning was CLEAN

[@GoofyHK416]

All the war thunder players gotta like this is comment

[@johncheng1204]

Yes

[@TOMPPI-official]

Like who TF plays WOT🤣?

[@sus-zz9hd]

​@@TOMPPI-officialrage bait?

[@TOMPPI-official]

@@sus-zz9hd Nah...

[@sus-zz9hd]

@@TOMPPI-official ok

[@satanihelvetet]

"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).

[@matso3856]

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.

[@satanihelvetet]

@@matso3856 Chariot är mer av en dragen vagn, men nu talar vi om ett självgående motorfordon.

[@matso3856]

@@satanihelvetet Okej jag trodde det gällde direkt översättning till engelska

[@satanihelvetet]

@@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.

[@matso3856]

@@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

[@HuckerDuck]

Another thing to note that is missing in the video is the fench that was placed in the front of the tank that also acted as extra protecting to the tank

[@simonleclercq4554]

What is missed here is that it could be operated by only one of the three crew members. And that one of them sat backwards so that he could steer the tank as it retreated making it an ambush and retreat focused tank.

[@huibertlandzaat1889]

You made a very nice, interesting video. Thank you for uploading.

[@OsVf770]

I really like this 2D animation and cutout illustration.

[@dsandstrom93]

I love how the STRV 103 poops out the empty case and farts out some smoke :)

[@filipinordabest]

Using gas in warfare is illegal

[@pokefan-ix7sh]

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.

[@KyleLarsen-bw5hw]

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?

[@ShiningDarknes]

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.”

[@HomingRocket1]

I dunno whats more oddly satisfying: the tank's shape or that 180 degree turn like a Doom 2D Sprite 2:56 . .A.

[@Angelthewolf]

Funfact: The STRV 103 is one of the only tanks that could be fully operational with only one crew member

[@tufstuff2586]

The tank was pretty smart however technology killed it off like with everything pretty good design though.

[@Elbereth_TV]

apart from the randomly strewn in 103s with MG42s ontop this might be the most accurately 'modeled' video you've done xD

[@Pihnes]

The upper plate was 40 mm, not 4 inches thick.

[@Mello.Gamer.studio]

So many disadvantages yet my favorite tank

[@Hozq3D]

"Stridsvagn translates into combat-wagon". In a literal sense, yes, but in reality its just our word for "tank".

[@gregsutton2400]

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.

[@edi9892]

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).

[@sailordude2094]

Cool "tank" thanks for the video, I was wondering if they laid down. "The Stridsvagn 103 never saw combat and so its design remains unproven." The tankette was big in the Polish and Italian Army before combat.

[@kajn3206]

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

[@animandi6363]

Intact until the arrival of the first drone, then to the landfill. Modern realities of war have shown how vulnerable tanks are to drones.

[@1234redwing]

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.

[@hideshisface1886]

It is not like Sweden used to wage massive wars or anything... They did. They know what war is about pretty well.

[@1234redwing]

@@hideshisface1886 yeah, the swedish empire and the Great Northern War, the Deluge, list goes on

[@matthewwilson5548]

love it! really fascinating!

[@3746463]

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.

[@Echelon06]

It is also the Swedish word for what in English would be called a War Chariot. So "Combat Wagon" is not only a literal translation. In modern use it means Tank - not MBT which would be translated as universalstridsvagn or huvudstridsvagn, as compared to a Light/Heavy Tank (lätt/tung stridsvagn in Swedish). The term MBT or huvudstridsvagn has never caught on in Swedish however. All tanks, regardless of classification have been designated Stridsvagn, i.e. the Landsverk L-60 light tank was designated Stridsvagn m/31.

[@3746463]

​@@Echelon06 Nej, där har du fel. Jag talar här alltså om nutida svensk militär nomenklatur/terminologi, där (strv) stridsvagn betecknar det som man på vedertagen engelsk nomenklatur kallar MBT. Det stämmer att alla stridsvagnar har kallats för stridsvagn, även de lätta tex m/31. Men i modern (nutida) nomenklatur är stridsvagn (strv) samma klass som det man internationellt kallar för MBT. Begreppen "universalstridsvagn" eller "huvudstridsvagn" har aldrig funnits i officiell svensk militär nomenklatur. //Mvh 20 år i Försvarsmakten

[@thermalserpent4269]

This is what you get when you mix a wobblegong with a tank

[@ultrajd]

I personally think a tank like this could be viable to day. Now, yes, as a offensive tank, it probably isn’t that great. But if you work through defensive operations, I would think a vehicle such as this would still be useful. And nowadays with the continued digitalization of the battlefield one could argue that tanks like this would make excellent GROVs.

[@Schmats1]

The STRV103 was actually equally as good at shooting on the move as the leopard 1 found out in a tank competition between the two. I don't have a source but have heard from people I trust on this. edit: fun fact the "mesh" on the front on the STRV103C was so secret that not even the crews knew about it during the cold war. Only after the tank was put out of service was it put on display tanks.

[@romanvarcolac2238]

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.

[@znail4675]

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.

[@Luredreier]

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.

[@peabase]

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.

[@znail4675]

@@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.

[@peabase]

@@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.

[@ghost_geek_yt-german9096]

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😂

[@gamingmoth4542]

It looks like a slice of Cheese.

[@gunnarc3055]

We need a cross section of the Renault FT-17! Great video!

[@hideshisface1886]

"The gun in a fixed position was not a new thing" It kind of was, though. Assault guns and tank destroyers usually mounted guns in casemates but the guns were not exactly fully fixed - they still had some degree of horizontal and vertical traverse. Char B1 is probably the closest thing here - with 75mm gun having no horizontal traverse, but still having vertical. S-Tank has no ability to traverse the gun at all without using the tank's own suspension.

[@Kottekungen]

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)

[@ShadowsOfTheSky]

5:50 The metal bars on the front were far more about protection from HE (High-Explosive) rounds than from HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds. This is because HEAT, much like more traditional tank rounds, penetrates along the slope of the armor, typically causing it to be deflected and leave little damage. That’s why the armor was so incredibly sloped, at such extreme angles even very thin armor can protect against the most powerful of penetrative rounds. HE however, will always distribute its force directly perpendicular to the armor profile, meaning that even at a slope, a thin piece of metal is just a thin piece of metal, and a medium enough caliber explosive would have no issue rupturing the hull. Against the 125mm cannons entering service in Russia, and even against the older 100mm cannons would have still been in service, 40mm of armor is nothing. However, with the bars in front, the high explosive will detonate on contact, keeping it well away from getting close to the thin hull, effectively nullifying any threat from HE shells. The fact that the metal bars could help protect against HEAT or traditional rounds was just a useful benefit of the position of the bars, their real purpose was to protect the tank from large caliber HE rounds that the S-tank was extremely vulnerable to. The side skirts did however protect against HEAT, both HEAT and HE, by placing distance and mass between the impact point and the actual armor profile.

[@znail4675]

No, the idea with spaced armor (and that is what the bars works like) are to detonate the HEAT away from the armor.

[@surinderjitsingh8954]

The Swedes have always made innovative weaponry

[@johnnymadrazo1997]

Guys! Attack the A points!

[@FreedomFighterEx]

This is my spirit tank due to how angled slope, and smoothest of its armour resemble my brain quite well.

[@NathenArcher]

No ads just video

[@nippon19]

This design was really cool !

[@sirjohndough8575]

I want to tell the animator(s) a Very Well Dpne on the various Swedish uniforms both in colouring and in style.

[@armourplays1149]

Great animation 👍

[@rschneid1996]

The STRV-103 is my favorite "modern" tank. Its beauty lies in its simplicity. While I am happy it never saw combat against the Soviets (or Russians), I would love to find a performance report from a wargame exercise.

[@mrhakwan]

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)

[@Runar_Tvalfager]

the STRV 103 was designed, not as a tank destroyer, but as a main battle tank or (MBT) and it could do this role exceedingly well for a turretless tank. as they did do a tank trials with it against i believe russian tanks (not sure which) and Leopard 1's, and it did perform just as good, if not better from what i remember. this wasnt just a turretless tank, it was a tank, that could perform as most other tanks, but without needing a turret. which is fascinatingly amazing for its era! and a bonus, this is the ONLY tank in history that can be driven, shoot, and recon with as a single operator!

[@peabase]

An MBT crewed by a single coperator is not combat-capable. That operator would be too overloaded to put in a meaningful performance. Being able to evacuate the tank successfully from the battlefield, e.g. to get urgent medical help for the other incapacitated operators, would be the main benefit.

[@thelaughingstudio1504]

Petition to make a video about the legendary Spitfire