Stridsvagn 103: Sweden's Turretless Cold War Super Tank

After WWII, Sweden relied heavily on tanks produced in other countries. But when they became too expensive to repair, the Ordinance Department decided to design its own tank that was better suited to Sweden's terrain - the Stridsvagn 103.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other KZbin Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373

[@hafden]

As a S 103 tank commander I thank you. Small correction - we had three forward and reverse gears.

[@kristofferhellstrom]

As a Swede I'm so proud of this tank! Berätta gärna hur den va att köra, skjuta och underhålla :)

[@PlumSack79]

Sweeeeeeden, IKEA Meatballs Volvo Saab and weird outdoors/camping pornography

[@wombatwilly1002]

@@PlumSack79 Dude,how can you forget Smoking Hot Blondes?

[@More_Row]

@@PlumSack79 huh

[@More_Row]

@Räche SD honey is yummy for my tummy

[@hattyfarbuckle]

My favorite tank of all time- - brilliant design for a specific set of Swedish circumstances and requirements

[@youtoob4life]

I really love this tank as well, not sure why, but it's definitely one of my top 5!

[@P4hko]

@@youtoob4life It's very different from everything else but so perfectly suited for the enviroment and doctrine it was made for. It's like a perfectly placed brushstroke on a masterpiece or a perfect clear in tetris.

[@davidk6269]

Yes! The Strv 103 is one of my favorite cold-war tanks! The Stridsvagn 103: coming soon to an Ikea near you! Come for the Lingonberry meatballs, leave with the Strv 103 (some assembly required).

[@888johnmac]

Lol , I’d does look like a flat pack assembled incorrectly

[@isidorsvenvik999]

Hihihihi

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

The tools delivered in the box are the wrong size!

[@loke6664]

Unlikely, we have moved to German Panzers ourselves since then. We might sell you some Gripen though (and lots of shoddy furniture). I was in the Airforce myself, but I have friends who crewed the 103, it was an odd piece of machinery but it had it's advantages. It was very lightweight for how good protection it had but it was pretty vulnerable to infantry anti tank weapons since it was weak on the sides. Not the best cold war tank but not the worst either, but you really don't want to use a 60s tank on a modern battlefield. The turret is still a tanks weakest point but it do makes targeting easier, a large percentage of the destroyed Russian tanks in Ukraine have their turrets destroyed but it is so darn convenient that most tanks in history had it anyways. No turrets makes defense better and lowers price but it has an offensive disadvantage.

[@AndersJackson]

@@loke6664 but out army is all about defense and no offense.

[@PantsuMann]

My absolute favorite tank since I was a kid and my dad took me to an military exhibition where Försvarsmakten had all kinds of systems and vehicles to show. Me, being 7 years old climbing into a Strv S had me happy for months, years even. Really cool experience.

[@TigreQuiMiaule]

Le plus difficile a du être de ne pas pouvoir repartir avec.

[@PantsuMann]

@@TigreQuiMiaule English ffs

[@TigreQuiMiaule]

@@PantsuMann traduction bro.

[@BadYossa]

Sweden has had one of the most capable military forces amongst western nations since WW2. Their proximity to Russia has made that necessary. Cue jokes about IKEA etc., but they are extremely highly regarded amongst Western military. Same with the Finnish.

[@Turinnn1]

As a Finn I've always been a bit jealous of the Swedish ability to design and build their own military hardware (tanks/aircraft etc.) Finland got the troops and Sweden has the Steel. 😁👍

[@andersgrassman6583]

@@Turinnn1 That's why we should always fight together!

[@VisibilityFoggy]

@@Turinnn1 Don't sell yourselves short. A Finnish-designed surface-to-air missile system defends Washington D.C. 24 hours a day here in the USA!

[@bpomowe224]

@@VisibilityFoggy NAMSAS is Norwegian, not Finnish :) Finland has good small arms and armoured cars though.

[@VisibilityFoggy]

@@bpomowe224 Ahhhh, yikes, sorry! The "N" in NASAMS literally is "Norwegian" (at least until we renamed it "National" lol). Kongsberg made me think of Finland for a moment, for some reason! It's been about 6-7 years since I've been in that region, ha.

[@KA-dx2kz]

Centurion didn't have a 150mm main gun, a version was made with a 153mm to counter soviet heavy armour but was only a prototype.

[@2KOOLURATOOLGaming]

I think it was just a typo of 105

[@target844]

The centurion in Swedish service did have a 105mm gun at the time. This is the reason this tank is named Strv 103. The number is the gun caliber in cm and then a number per adopter tank with that caliber. strv 101 was a Centurion purchased with 105mm guns and strv 102 was an older Centurion that initially had a 84mm gun that was upgraded to 105mm. Upgraded centurion lager becomes strv 104 in the1980s The current Swedish tank is strv 122 so a 120mm gun and the second model with that caliber. Strv 121 was leased German Leopard 2A4 and Strv 122 is an improved Leopard 2A5 build for Sweden

[@History_with_Sirius]

Figured it was a typo. I first heard it and had to do a double take. Then was like oh yeah 150 and 105 are easy to mess up. Also the strv 103 is one of my fav tanks in World of Tanks 😂

[@jonathanfalkman6041]

The FV 4005 was even fitted with a 183 mm Canon mounted on the centurion hull;)

[@Zerox88]

@@target844 There was a project to slap a 120 L/44 to a Centurion in sweden tho only a few test vehicles where made (1 or 2).

[@Krogenator]

Would also love a video on the "Bandkanon 1" swedish self propelled gun. the swedes had a lot of interesting stuff during the cold war.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Many have "Railed" against it for offensive use. But the defensive mode, it would be pure hell to dig out. The S-tank & MBT-70 (Kpz-70) are my top 2 favorite AFVs, warts & all. Many thanx Simon 👍👍

[@gattonero2915]

>"Many have "Railed" against it for offensive use." Swedish military doctrine literally says that they are to be used as offensive vehicle. It's even written explicitly in their field manual. If anything, it's the enemy that will be at a disadvantage trying to take out this vehicle, especially the said doctrine will have the tank spearhead the attack to defeat VDV threat or bridgehead defenses lol

[@Kefito_]

Absolutely my favourite tank ever conceived and built! Ingenious, unique and stylistic, they really are something to marvel at and praise Sweden's engineering among its other wacky and wonderful war machines! I would absolutely love to see something expanded on with the Strv 2000, and just how morden and futuristic and ingenious it could've been if was ever produced, great stuff as always!

[@Vinterloft]

It reminds me of a Lancia Stratos :D

[@scruffy7760]

Best history lesson on the Strv103 on YT. An offensive main battle tank, not an ambush tank destroyer! Good job!

[@berryrijnbeek5938]

nope, so much wrong information.......

[@scruffy7760]

Really? I'm glad you pointed them out 😅

[@coenogo]

@@berryrijnbeek5938 Such as…?

[@andersjjensen]

"You have no rear armour, so your best chance is to just ferociously attack them head on. We are the sons of Vikings after all, and our battle tactics should reflect that!".

[@viceralman8450]

@@berryrijnbeek5938 STRV 103 was a MBT in rol and Swedish doctrine.

[@rex9502]

Ah finally my country's wacky machines are put to show. Always happy to see the 103 in a video

[@Zeithri]

Agreed!

[@vanguard9067]

And also a country that spent very intelligently on their national defense!

[@josephalexander3884]

The Centurion had a 105 mm cannon, not a 150. Sweden did not use a 155 mm main gun, that would classify it as a self propelled howitzer.

[@johanmetreus1268]

The Kranvagn )KRV) has a 15 cm gun for the main alternative. "Howitzer" has nothing to do with calibre though, it's all about trajectory, like the 10 cm howitzer version of the Sherman.

[@TransGirlGaming]

yep, as Johan said the caliber in mm isn't the deciding factor on howitzer vs gun but rather velocity, a good example is Russia or rather the Soviet Union with 152mm howitzers such as the D-10T in the KV-2 and the SU-122 with the M-30S and then 152mm cannons such as the SU-152 which had the ML-20S Gun-Howitzer as it performed both anti-tank capabilities also howitzer needs, there were also the experimental BL series guns two of which being 152mm those being the BL-8 and BL-10 these were both proposed as upgrades for the ISU-152 series Self-Propelled Gun the BL-10 being a upgraded BL-8 tho the end of WW2 saw the program put to a end, another example now popular due to War Thunder is the Object 120 SU-152 "Taran" which used the M-69 152mm gun which was a 9.45m long barrel designed for anti tank use firing APFSDS projectiles, and also if you want to get specific with the Sherman howitzer it's a 10.5cm or 105mm

[@bluebanana6753]

So i have gotten this from a guy with first hand experience. After the cold war we had friendly relation exercises with the russiand. He said the russians always said (after some alchole) that they where always afraid os the s tank. Then never figured out how to actually combat in

[@Goat-vy2bi]

Do a story about the Swedish Coastal Defences during the cold war! It was MASSIVE

[@josefstalin4532]

I mean was it though? For neutral Swden it was substantial sure, but from the rest of the world's perspective it was kind of just an ordinary coastal defense.. When compared to US coastal defense during its peak for example, it had 1/50th the manpower and a tiny fraction of the number of guns, as well as WAY smaller guns. The coastal defense just seems massive because it's what remains of any war preparations from that time in Sweden, as the air force, which was actually really impressive is gone.

[@kraftstationen228]

Lägg av greta!

[@Goat-vy2bi]

@@josefstalin4532 it was massive, no country can compare to the US tough, people lived in concrete caves 2 people on islands and was just waiting to release the minebelts they had to their disposal.

[@Goat-vy2bi]

@@kraftstationen228 Hur vågar du!!!

[@Denamic]

It's the first tank child me ever saw, and it has cemented the image of what a tank looks like in my mind. I think I even had a phase where I was drawing nothing but turretless wedge-shaped tanks.

[@Algabatz]

I once rode in an "S" when it went full speed through a pine forest, cutting the tree trunks right off. It was hardly noticeable inside.

[@spectralcoffee5177]

Great video mate, thanks for the effort put into this!

[@AZREDFERN]

My favorite tank in WarThunder. It’s a 0 death sniper if you use it right. The velocity and auto rangefinder is an insane combo.

[@guythomas7051]

Wat Thunder is not real life.

[@AGENTA909]

@@guythomas7051 he didnt say it was

[@pvtj0cker]

Soviet tank commander: "Tank, 3 o'clock, 1200m" Soviet gunner frantically rotates in the target's direction and spots it: "That's no tank."

[@schwabbel_di_babble3253]

Love your vids, really helps relaxxing after a hard day

[@alvinkwok587]

Just one small correction, HEAT shells should be called High Explosive Anti Tank instead of high energy. Also unique trenches in the ufp also increases protection.

[@rolffalt219]

The long canon was also an advantage. The long barrel due to the tanks design made precision and range better then basicly all counterparts. I think. #Krigshistoriepodden

[@eaphantom9214]

Yay! There it is, the Swedish 🇸🇪 tank we've all been waiting for! Ja! 👍👏👏

[@nimrods4380]

Do you know swedish?

[@eaphantom9214]

@@nimrods4380 I'm British 🇬🇧 born of Swedish 🇸🇪 descent mate, so a few basics Så, korrekt!

[@nimrods4380]

Okej jag förstår.

[@eaphantom9214]

@@nimrods4380 And no I didn't use Google translate haha so Tack så mycket herrn!

[@nimrods4380]

Varsågod

[@moendopi5430]

Is this a reupload? I swear I saw a notification for this the other day.

[@sanginius3920]

Sure i watched this the other day, but I've slept since then so im not sure! Uploaded under same title 3 days ago. Problem with the upload now, new information?

[@TalesOfWar]

I think they had problems with the thumbnail on the last upload.

[@geodkyt]

Sweden's defense doctrine could best be described as "geopolitical and strategically defensive", "operationally (the brigade and battalion level of warfare, where the focus is mire on manuever and position to get your actual shooters into place where they can shape the firefight) offensive", and "tactically (the actual trigger puller level stuff from individual soldiers to about the company level) a mix, depending on circumstances". It's a good plan, fairly common even for nations that don't have a tradition of neutrality. Strategic & geopolitical - try to avoid the war altogether, but make sure if the war happens, it happens on terms most favorable to you as possible. Operational - sieze the ground the enemy *must* take or traverse to win, and set up your front line shooters for success. Tactical - depending on terrain, enemy composition and actions, and your own maneuverability and survivability, either hold from chosen positions or assault at the most vulnerable enemy points, as appropriate. This is literally Sun Tzu stuff, hardly unique to Sweden. But Sweden has done a very good job at the first, and a credible enough job at preparing for the last two that it has reliably reinforced the strength of their strategic and geopolitical goals - Sweden has managed to look like invading them is simply *way* to expensive and risky for an aggressor to bother.

[@GrowlingRB24]

" Sweden has managed to look like invading them is simply way to expensive and risky for an aggressor to bother." That was actually the same mindset Karl XI (Carolus Rex's father) had when he decided to reforge Sweden's forces with a standing Army (Caroleans) and Navy after the battle of Skåne.

[@tor2919]

Nice video! One thing worth mentioning is that because of the turret less design the gun barrel could be much longer than turreted tanks. The resulting projectile speed and accuracy was unmatched.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:25 - Chapter 1 - Background 3:05 - Chapter 2 - Design 7:30 - Chapter 3 - Engines & performance 9:25 - Chapter 4 - Flaws 10:10 - Chapter 5 - Service - Chapter 6 -

[@bpomowe224]

Thanks, mate!

[@daviddevlogger]

People often say that motivation doesn’t last. Well, neither does bathing. That’s why we recommend it daily

[@MaskinJunior]

It is not turetless, It has the tracks mouted directly to the turret, so it is hull-less.

[@redkite8377]

😀 It does not have a cannon turret, however the tank commander has a small turret for an external smoke grenades launchers and a machine gun (M-58).

[@MaskinJunior]

@@redkite8377 Well, it was capable of moving the gun as fast, or even faster than contemporary tanks at the time, so it is fair to say it has a turret, but no hull, like the tank museum in Sweden say about the tank.

[@foo219]

Genius! I just love the idea of a gun turret roaming around on its own!

[@Jim54_]

Would love a modern version of this concept if practical

[@Gabriel3244]

1:28 - 1:34 Just a small correction there. The later model Centurion tanks used the 105mm cannon not the 150mm.

[@luckyleo8751]

ah yes, I’ve been waiting for this one.

[@ditzydoo4378]

Ah a moment if you please. The Centurian tank had a 17 pdr (76.2mm), a 20 pdr (84mm), then the L7 105mm main gun. Not a 150mm canon, it wasn't the Deathstar. 0~o

[@RedXlV]

That was a typo in the script that he read without noticing.

[@ditzydoo4378]

@@RedXlV proves the point, never trust the script. you just know some joker was laying in bushes to pounce.

[@doc70rdwng62]

At 1:31 he made a small mistake. Centurion actually had a 105mm gun, not 150mm.

[@elroyfudbucker6806]

Correct. Ever seen the recoil from a 150mm artillery gun?

[@badtothebone7613]

Awesome! More Swedish/Scandinavian tech please!

[@DavidCurryFilms]

I like how it poops the shell case out the behind 😊. Great tank.

[@petter5721]

One benefit the 103 had with its long Bofors main gun was that it could open fire long before the T55, T64 and T72 could because of its range and accuracy. This is why this tank was one of the first to use a laser range finder and ballistic calculator for precision hits. The fast auto loader made it possible to hit each target twice to inflict maximum damage before changing target. It was a complex machine for its time, built for one thing, stopping a numerical superior Soviet tank force at the border.

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

Irish/American: "The Chieftain" tried one of these in his films about tanks and vehicles, and liked it very much, also for its automatic tension-system for the bands! Also the Jerry Cans on each side, which by being hit, eventually would burn outside, or just loose their content. And it is so low.

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

I saw one in Munster some years ago, and they also have one in Kubinka. Hopefully it isn't sent to Ukraine to be used there, as the Russians seems to soon have run out of new tanks? 🤔

[@peartree8338]

Well...if it must die, then at least it should be by a CG. 😄👍

[@lex1945]

This tank seems almost impossible to take out head on, considering it's shape and low profile. Brilliant!

[@gattonero2915]

Armor Piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot says hi. the profile made it quite easy to bounce the older generation APDS. Not APFSDS. APFSDS ignores angling, and the Swede find this out themselves when they managed to acquire some T-72 samples from ex-Warsaw pact country, and the 125mm sabot round, while has shorter penetrator length than standard NATO saboted penetrator, was more than enough to defeat the Stridsvagn 103 frontally even on its upper frontal section.

[@Dunken88]

@@gattonero2915 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrOiZmEart0ndk

[@gattonero2915]

@@Dunken88You do realize T-62 has a 115mm kinetic penetrator right? I'm talking about a 125mm kinetic penetrator, kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3mchZ1jg5hra8U

[@UglukGPZ900]

@@Kuningaz_Kvltist When I was a kid in the 80-ies my best friends older brother served as a tank driver before becoming a fighter pilot. He claimed the s-tank could actually dig itself a shallow trench with the blade, and use the hydraulic suspension to raise itself on tip-toes so to speak, fire on a target previously located by periscope, and then lower down out of sight in a few seconds. Don't know if it's true, but he was certainly the coolest big brother in the neighbourhood.

[@Vinterloft]

@@gattonero2915 You could defeat the tank, sure. But the crew is another story, as both engines take up the front third of the tank with an additional armour plate behind them.

[@pajasrajkukreja2552]

Love your videos, especially the aviation ones. Wondering if a video on the Rafale is in the works.

[@Sandhoeflyerhome]

British 105 main gun. Very well thought out design, still able to track a vehicle by moving the entire vehicle in yaw. Super special hydraulic suspension made it really work in a static defensive position. But of course not on the move. However they were a none aggressive country so these were self defence only ...

[@SilverionX]

They were designed to work like any other main battle tank. If Russia was going to attack Sweden they couldn't just sit around and wait for them to come around to static defensive positions, for obvious reasons. Sweden would have to hit them before they were ready. There were platoons that had Stridsvagn 130 and those that had Centurions, and their roles were pretty much the same with a few minor changes. No tanks could shoot on the move at the time, so that didn't really matter. Later on tanks could shoot accurately on the move, which is why they were phased out and replaced by a more conventional tank design.

[@bpomowe224]

Swedish 10,5 cm gun, the L7 was too short. Basic rule for all tanks of the era, if you actually want to hit something you stop the tank before you shoot. Self defence in this case was to aggressively wipe out bridgeheads of invading forces before they got a chance to consolidate and expand.

[@jiggsborah7041]

Cool looking tank that..Very futuristic looking. I wonder how it would have done on the modern battlefield. The Stug was pretty well represented on the eastern front.

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

tank destroyers were trash, there are reasons why they're not athing anymore and neither is this one. especially nowadays, with gun stabilisation and electronic aiming making shooting while driving viable. these things can only shoot forward while driving, proper tanks can shoot all around while driving.

[@jiggsborah7041]

@@Ass_of_Amalek ..I suppose so. Yet that low profile would make them excellent defensive weapons and their mobility would be a good asset. I dunno. I personally think that heavy armour has become more of a liability than an asset in the modern battlefield. The Ukraine war has revealed this. You would need a hell of a lot of very expensive tanks to maintain momentum. The 2nd world war already proved that. It was said that the T34 never finished a tank of fuel

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

@@jiggsborah7041 in WW2, tank destroyers were indeed mostly used for anti-tank ambushes. they would be hidden, fire at enemy tanks, and then get out of there because they would generally lose any exchange of fire. tank destroyers were mostly built because their simpler design made them cheaper and faster to produce than tanks with moving turrets. I like the flattened sharp shape of the stridsvagn, but I think the merkava does that much better. and the stridsvagn is only 10cm flatter than a T-72.

[@jiggsborah7041]

@@Ass_of_Amalek ...Yes i agree with you about the stug.. that's why vast numbers were produced. The Merkava is a superlative example of heavy armour. Israel is just about the most experienced people out there in armoured warfare. That turret is awsome and the vehicle keeps evolving as more experience is gained.

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

@@jiggsborah7041 merkava is my favourite tank entirely because the turret looks like a flying saucer xD

[@sweden4thewin]

Great video, thank you

[@Lord_Squirrels]

Can't wait to see a video about the Bkan 1

[@poodlescone9700]

I love the Strv-103. I am working on assembling a model of it right now.

[@TheCimbrianBull]

The Trumpeter one in 1/35 scale perhaps? 😁

[@Kottekungen]

Ive been told that the Stridsvagn 103 could be used by one person, effecive with two, but sinze only two ppl in a fighting tank would be a strain on any two individuals, so a third member was added, becuse if the war dident kill the two crewmen, they themselfs would. Please correct me if im wrong I would have loved to serve on one of thees beauties, jävla snygg vagn

[@JarlBSoD]

Yes, the tank would be fully operational with just 1 crew member though allot less effective for obvious resons :)

[@josefstalin4532]

​@@JarlBSoD What does "fully operational" mean? Because the driver having to climb to the gunners seat every time he has to fire isn't exactly operational right?

[@JarlBSoD]

@@josefstalin4532 The driver is the gunner.

[@bpomowe224]

@@josefstalin4532 Both the commander and driver stations have a duplicate set of all controls, and gunlaying was done with the driving controls. Only time anyone would need to climb around was to use the radios, as the rear driver was also the radio operator.

[@florianstock376]

Germany also experimented with turretless designs: During my service in the Bundeswehr, I was stationed for some time in Augustdorf, and in front of our barracks was a prototyp tank: Turretless with dual (!) cannons (if you search "Kampfpanzer 3 (BW) GVT" you find pictures and some story).

[@TransGirlGaming]

Oh yeah the VT1-2 (or potentially earlier version) depending on the version it was either dual 105mms or dual 120mms which should have been able to be elevated and depressed independently if I remember correctly, very interesting prototype!

[@foo219]

@@TransGirlGaming I get a mental image of a battleship turret roaming around on its own! Love it!

[@TransGirlGaming]

@@foo219 yeah that's roughly what it was like lol, tho if it was a battle ship you'd have like 280mm+ cannons

[@foo219]

@@TransGirlGaming Yeah. More like a gunboat I guess. Man, now I have to model this in From the Depths...

[@MrNebbers]

How about a megaproject on the Severn Barrage? Massive opportunity for tidal power... if it ever gets built

[@rogerbartlet5720]

A World of Tanks legend!

[@eaphantom9214]

Try armoured warfare too at some point

[@salsheikh4508]

These have the ability to be BEASTS in the right geographic areas.

[@konzetsu6068]

6:31 the slat armour is actually the fence like thingie shown In earlier pictures.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Below hedge level up lanes, rapid movement. Lateral thinkings. 😎 🇸🇪

[@FiveTwoSevenTHR]

My favorite tank. I love using it in War Thunder.

[@deltavee2]

If you are going to get into a gunfight in the forest this is the tank for you. Short wheelbase, low profile, gymnastic for a tank and you could drive it backwards which was a hell of a good idea if you are going to be fighting in Sweden's forests.

[@Ulgarth]

A little dyslexic today. The Centurion had a 105 not 150mm gun. No biggy. Wow I did not realize it used the 6V53 diesel, that was also used in the M113 and AVGP family of vehicles.

[@cynicaltroll6057]

This tank on the defensive side of a battlefield today, has so many possibilities of being a very effective weapon for sure. 👍

[@dwarfy_sweden]

Big problem is that the gas turbine light up as a Christmas tree nowadays in thermal vision and are easy to spot from far away

[@Mithirael]

Unfortunately, time has left the gun in the dust, and while it was capable of surviving direct hits from expected combat ranges from most contemporary APDS, today's APFSDS would slice right through the entire thing like a hot knife through butter. It is of course possible to modernise it, but it would be far more costly than what you would get out of it.

[@chugachuga9242]

While there were some centurions modified for experimental or demolition roles with their guns getting up to even a bore diameter of 183mm, most main line centurion variants had either a 84mm or a 105mm gun, with Sweden never operation any centurions that had guns bigger than 105mm.

[@danielkarlsson9326]

I thankyou for this treat .

[@andersisacson8262]

As a Strv 104 Centurion driver in the Swedish army I can vouch for their lethality. If you knew the S-guys were waiting for you in a defensive position you were in for a real fight. The gun was almost the only part sticking up. If you couldn't find the flow of heat from the turbine you were shit out of luck. The gun was very accurate and with the right gunner things could get uncomfortable real quick.

[@aquaman3874]

2:03 The Strv 103 was not intended to replace the Centurion and never replaced any foreign built tanks. Sweden needed a newer tank to replace the aging fleet of Strv m/42 tanks from late WW2. It eventually replaced the Strv 74 (Strv m/42 with new turret and gun) in the armoured brigades.

[@Mrgunsngear]

Thanks

[@ridgecrestwack9746]

You better step it up Simon I need more content!! Feed me!

[@davidgill3356]

His tempo is sooo lazy right? I hear he actually goes home twice a week.

[@ridgecrestwack9746]

@@davidgill3356 twice a week?? What an outrage! I demand he stays in his studio 24/7 pumping out content for me to consume till he drops.

[@MrAnonymousme10]

one of my favourite tank

[@fr3088]

The L/62 you refererred to is not a designation but a "caliber length ratio" indicating that the barrel was longer than the centurions standard L/52 gun. The "designation" you refer to is actually L74.

[@javiermoya2801]

I am trying to think of it would be a better side project or if it would be mega project for T54/55 tank. It was so mass produced amd sent to every which buyer the Soviets could find

[@martinstallard2742]

1:18 background 3:01 design 7:23 engine and performance 9:22 flaws 10:05 service

[@martinstallard2742]

5:38

[@iansheppard6735]

Tanks a lot 😁

[@charlesmoss8119]

Wonderful - thank you

[@markusb3712]

I think Chieftain from Inside the Cheiftain's Hatch did a better job of explaining both the history and functions of this tank. Not once was Sven Berge mentioned in this video. You could also watch the British Tank Museum's video as well.

[@foo219]

He did, though he is a tank specialist, too.

[@Michael_OBrian]

Any chance of a video on the Merkava family?

[@absaxoclar]

please do Project Galaxy next! swedens largest industrial project at the time and the originator of many automotive safety innovations. also my volvo 850 originated from the project

[@282sleeper]

This is true. I live in a swedish county that is called the county of a 1000 lakes. And with lots of lakes comes alot of swamps. Hence the specialisation of equipment and machinery.

[@Pekkamannen]

För Kung och Fosterland! 🇸🇪 Thank you for showing our beloved Strv 103!

[@ZappaSheik]

My dad woke up an early morning in the early 90's. Sleep drunk he started to do breakfast, while preparing he looked out the window and it was a thick fog but something wasn't as it usually is in a small rural village at 05:45. A Stridsvagn S was parked right outside our house in the slope. Of course he went out to look at it cause he is A Russo-Swede and didn't care, while walking up to the main road he turned around to look at the tank and he could hardly see it. S is the most fun of a tank ever, anything is a parking space and that's why we are going to buy one.

[@michaelemory552]

Any fan of this tank wants a role for it if only that it looks so cool. With modern guided munitions, computer assist targeting/re-acquisition I wonder what could be. The low profile and self-revetment in a forest is sensible. I once lifted a good sized snapping turtle from a road and placed it by the wooded lake and on firm mud. Rather than move away, it swiveled and lowered right down into the earth to leave only a bit of snout exposed. I watched and was impressed and disturbed. I also thought of the s tank.

[@Ynffy]

Reading tip if you want to know more: "Strv 103 Photo guide till stridsvagn 103 "S-tank"" by the Swedish Armour Historical Society. Text in Swedish and English. It is probably out of print but you may find it on eBay or at armour museums.

[@Leatherface123.]

Could you do a video on Big Muskie or The Captain The 2 largest single bucket digging machines ever built

[@user-mv6he6gl8m]

Tanks with turrets of that era had to stop in order to shoot straight so getting rid of the turret wasn't a big disadvantage but a great plus.

[@tvgerbil1984]

The Swedes already had Centurion Mk5s and then Mk10s with stablized main gun in that era. They could fire their main guns on the move while the Stridsvagn 103s couldn't.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@tvgerbil1984 The 103 could fire on the move at distances up to 200 metres, while the Centurions could do the same at 400 metres with the same expected accuracy. Stabilisation made it a lot faster to take accurate shot after coming to a halt, but main rule for all tanks of the era was that if you to actually hit, you stop your tank.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

@@tvgerbil1984 The 103 is fully capable of firing its gun on the move. It just can't do so accurately. Which the Centurions couldn't either for that matter. Hence the practice of stopping for an aimed shot to actually hit anything with any kind of reliability. The stabilizers of the time weren't good enough to allow for any kind of guarantee of a hit at combat ranges.

[@tvgerbil1984]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJS1oZiJiNyjrKc Maybe the Swedes used their Centurions differently but the latter marks of Centurions should have decent stabilizer installed.

[@westerngothia59]

Make a video about Karlsborg Swedens backup Capital.

[@waynemangan9925]

Here in the US I rarely get to hear a man of around my age speak in such a proper British accent, also well dressed. Great work on all the vids Sir!!!

[@louhodo5761]

A few other minor corrections. It had a 105mm not 150mm cannon. Also... HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. Not High Energy.

[@feppfepp]

In a way it is the tank version of a world war 2 fighter aircraft. This simplifies some aspects of use and means a single person can at least shoot and move.

[@Sevo-]

The Canadian Avro Aero is an interesting one, The story is the us bought it and burned the plans. I believe the fastest jet of its time. The alloy used on almost aircraft was invented for this Jet. 1 is MIA to this day stolen by a pilot.

[@maplesyrup7959]

Apart from Ikea,Saab (partly dead company) Koeinigsiegg, Volvo, meatballs and the author - Stieg Larsson - I wasn't aware of any other significant thing made in and by Sweden 🇸🇪 Now this tank is added on to that list! 👍👍

[@lasskinn474]

Nokia is not swedish. Ericcson is. Edit: they export a bunch of weapons to usa etc too.

[@TalesOfWar]

Saab is still a thing, just not the automotive branch. Their defence division still lives on.

[@PrinceAlhorian]

SAAB still exist, they build fighting aircraft like the SAAB Gripen, which is powered by a Volvo turbine.

[@terryv.2531]

Never heard of Bofors?

[@maplesyrup7959]

@@lasskinn474 That latter half - Interesting... 😮 The former - Damn I stand corrected Nokia was/is Finnish! 🇫🇮

[@ZETH_27]

1:30 - 105mm L7 cannons were used on the later Centurions, not 150mm cannons. 2:37 - The Kranvagn tank concept was of a Heavy tank, not a medium tank (one of the reasons it was dismissed). The vehicle was to feature a 150mm (could explain the confusion at 1:30) Additionally, a significant reason for motivating domestic development in Sweden was the fact that Britain's forecast when it came to delivering Centurions stood at 0, meaning in the event of a war, Sweden would be stuck with only the tanks they had available at the time. This is also the reason why the project was later cancelled, and Great Britain was able to deliver Centurions to Sweden which were cheaper and still showed military promise. 3:49 - The last S-tank production model (Model C) weighed 42 tonnes as indicated in the video, yes. However, the earlier variants were 37 and ~40 tonnes for the A and B models respectively. 6:05 - The S-tank featured 40mm thick plates on the upper and lower front. Not 70mm plates. Sode armour was limited to only 20mm, not 40.

[@yuanxinwang8219]

please make a video on the xm-1/mbt-70 program

[@zaubermaus8190]

ha. it's back! what was wrong with the first video?

[@johanmetreus1268]

About the Kranvagn (KRV) , the issue never was light armour but armament. HEAT-rounds, basically a cone of metal with explosives on one side, that on detonation gets formed into a metal spear travelling at 6000-10000 metres per second, was regarded the future of anti-armour, but it has a few particulars. One of them is that the penetration is proportional to the diameter of the cone, siply put the wider the cone, the longer the resulting spear. The second is that rotation (like the one used to stabilise projectiles) distorts the spear and makes it less efficient, which is why the Soviet tanks who heavily relied on HEAT had smoth bore barrels in their guns. The Swedish army wanted a HEAT round that was cheap, accurate with good penetration and short travel time even at long distance. Bofors engineers never managed to solve this, as fast shells require really fancy fuzes to be able to detonate the charge in the fraction of a second between impact and the shell smashing itself to pieces against the armour... while a highly accurate shell would rotate so fast that the penetration got severely reduced. Before a round was decided on, no one knew what cannon to pick (imagine finding out that the gun you installed in all you tanks are the wrong type for your shells!), and without a final gun, there was no point in making a turret as the exact shape and construction depended on what weight and dimensions the gun would have. In the end, one of the KRV chassies built became a test bed for the S-tank suspension, while the other was rebuilt as a SPH, that served as a concept for what became the Bandkanon 1.

[@johanmetreus1268]

Also, Stridsvagn 2000 never got further than a wooden mockup. Here is a clarification to be made, in 1980 the Swedish army requested the S-tanks and Centurions to be replaced with a future tank expected to be in service past the year 2000. For convenience, this unknown design was referred to as strv 2000 in official correspondance. Budget restrictions (these were the years of high inflation that followed the energy crisis) saw the Army make due with a REnovation and Modification program of the existing tanks instead. The REMO finally brought the S-tank up to the standard it was intended to have, but they were still fairly old, and originally only intended to be in service for 10-20 years before being replaced as the technological development rapidly progressed. In the late 1980s, the usual suspects (Bofors, Hägglunds et all) were involved in a pre-studies of a new, domestic tank together with FMV, the military procurement agency. Different configurations were considered: turretless, conventional turret, unmanned turret and so forth), and a wooden mockup of the most promising alternative was made under the name Stridsvagn 2000. Meanwhile, the Berlin wall came down, Germany reunited and the Swedes got their hands on some T-72s. Results in the gun-tests were shocking, as the modern longrod penetrators went straight through the Swedish tanks, front to rear. Mobility was also far higher in the bogs and forests up north than predicted, further empathised with the trials of Abrams, LeClerc and Leopard 2. Swedish tanks were not just outdated, they were obsolete. Projected development time for the Stridsvagn 2000 was between 4 to 8 years, and that was its doom. The replacement was needed soonest possible, and Germany not only have a really good tank they were willing to licence, but could also offer stopgap Leopard 2A4 to be used meanwhile.

[@immortalsofar5314]

Sounds like, from a fundamental design POV, the turret could go the way of the biplane wings - more manoeuvrable, sure, but not as big a game changer as the extra speed/armor/decreased profile its removal enabled.

[@Zeppathy]

5:37 In case you ever wondered what a tank pooping looked like. You're welcome.

[@grahamhunt5847]

The video did not go into detail about all of its abilities. 1) In western tanks sharp angles caused by sloping armour wastes space as it is unusable. This either means cramped interiors causing crew stress and inefficiencies like the Russian tanks, or caused bigger tanks (easier to spot and easier to hit) which meant more heavy armour meaning more weight creating a slower underpowered tank with extra costs in manufacturing and maintenance. Instead the S-Tank used the sharply angled and unused space at the front of the hull to put a rubber fuel cell in the wedge area at the front, using the otherwise useless space as fuel storage and as spaced armour. Rubber fuel cells were stuffed elsewhere too in unused spaces adding extra spaced armour and using all free space. 2) The hull was split into 3 separate sealed compartments each acting as spaced armour with the crew being in the third and last compartment, being safe at the back of the tank. 3 layers of spaced armour instead of one as in other tanks. 3) The engine and transmission were in the first two compartments acting as extra spaced armour for the crew. 4) The crew were in the largest compartment and the safest being the last compartment and hardest to hit. No swimming pool and holo deck for the crew but nonetheless roomy and comfortable compartment compared to Russian and other tanks. 5) Using an automatic loader reduced the crew size making for a smaller and cheaper and more manoeuvrable tank. The ride was very uncomfortable though because of the short wheelbase but then longer wheelbases increase the chance of throwing a track when turning. 6) The auto-loader gave it a VERY HIGH rate of fire. 7) Reloading was done in the safety of behind the tank. 8) The plastic fuel drums attached to the sides over the tracks added extra spaced armour. Diesel is very good for this. 9) The high angle of the frontal armour more than doubled the effectiveness of the thin armour, giving reasonable protection without the weight plus the added advantage of a chance of the shells ricocheting off and HEAT rounds not forming a proper penetrating jet. 10) The spade added extra spaced armour as well as for digging a defensive position to fire from providing extra protection and cover. 11) The fence set off HEAT rounds before the shells hit the tank or destabilized the shell’s trajectory causing a chance of ricocheting or HEAT rounds failing to form a penetrating jet properly. 12) The stepped ribs up along the hull front were a very light yet highly effective spaced armour that destabilized the incoming shell causing it to ricochet or break up before hitting the tank’s hull armour. Such an insufficient looking and minor thing but with major effects against HEAT and solid shot beyond belief. 12b) The ribs also stopped shell splinters from sliding up the hull taking out sighting and ranging gear on top. 13) The low height of the tank makes it hard to spot, and hard to hit. During WWII over 50% of hits were to the turret. The S-Tank did away with the turret. Being the size of a large family car instead of a country barn made it a very small target, hard to spot, hard to hit. 14) Had a river-crossing screen that after being erected enabled it to cross any river. No stuck in the mud for this tank. 15) Duplicate controls at all stations allowed a single crewman to drive or fire the tank in emergencies. 16) Designed to fire and kill large numbers of advancing enemy tanks like a shoot-em-up arcade game until the Russian hordes were nearly on top of them then be able to skoot backwards at high speed to another pre-prepared defensive position to start the killing all over again while keeping their hull front (thickest armour) always towards the enemy, as the third crewman faced backwards and drove the tank to the rear at high speed (Most Russian tanks even today only have one reverse gear and can only move in reverse at a couple of miles per hour meaning they can not dodge by quickly backing back into cover in a hull down position, and the Russian driver being in the front of the tank can't see where they are going backwards). Shooting while halted greatly improves accuracy while the rushing Russian horde either had to stop to fire and make themselves a target or fire on the move and have an inaccurate fire, as the Russian fire control/gun stabilisation/ turret stabilization, ballistic computers, range finders, etc., we're either nonexistent or no better than their WWII tanks. 17) Highly efficient and cheap diesel engine plus a gas turbine engine for that super power and speed when needed. Only the US Abrams tank has a gas turbine engine too, and it earned the nickname ‘The Whispering Death’. But it took the US decades to add an aux power plant to run when idle to keep the turret powered and operating, as a turbo engine spins at a constant gas-guzzling rate even in idle. The S-Tank had the best of both worlds. 18) having the gun mounted so the breech was at the back of the tank instead of the middle meant a longer barrel could be used and most of the barrel was protected. 19) Like hot women and hot sports cars, sexy makes for a very dangerous and fast tank, and the S-Tank has it all, in spades.

[@Mithirael]

One note, 12b is correct, but 12 is not. The ribs were simply welded in place, and would have no noticeable impact on the shells at the time. They were only for protecting the gear on top of the tank.

[@TheRedLocker]

You manage to release this on my birthday, great day to be born and better to be in the swedish armed forces! :D

[@raintubalinal5380]

My favorite door stopper

[@NuubiTuubi1000]

7:41 Do I hear correctly? Finnish road? Also the HEAT round stands for High-Explosive Anti-Tank

[@mrwoo1]

In the start of the video he said the Centurion had a 150mm gun too. It's clearly a mistake but not well checked... At 1:30

[@gustavostensson1048]

Finished road, so unfortunately not Finnish:)

[@NuubiTuubi1000]

@@gustavostensson1048 I knew he meant that but I just don't hear the "-ed" in there.

[@NuubiTuubi1000]

@@mrwoo1 I think Simon just read 105 mm wrong

[@Lasenggo]

@megaprojects 1:32 105mm and not 150mm

[@GrievousReborn]

Is this a re-upload because I swear I watched this already

[@pontuswendt2486]

A video on the strv 2000 next?

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

Small corrections: HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank, and NOT “High Energy”. Secondly, the L7 is the “Royal Ordnance L7” not “Royal Armament L7”.

[@JustMe-gz4pu]

I love this tank.

[@andersgrassman6583]

In view of recent battle experience of N-LAW and JAVELIN anti tank weapons hitting from above, perhaps the flat top design feature might have renewed relevance, although for slightly other reasons?

[@Mithirael]

The future of tank defensive capabilities lay in APS, Automated Protection Systems, to shoot ATGMs out of the sky.