World of Tanks - The Tank Destroyer

[@JOlsson01]

I was in the Swedish army in the early 80s and we had S103s. Out on manoeuvres, the S103s were so dug in that you the only time you found them was when you almost feel over because you stumble across the gun barrel in the bush They could even traverse lakes and was purpose built for defending against a large scale invasion from the east. When it came to defending from an invasion on Swedish terrain, there was nothing that came close. It had a (WoT term) intra clip reload of 3 seconds and a magazine of 50 rounds. You wouldn't want to be caught broadside by an 103. Yes, we also had some modified Centurions but their only advantage was that the broke down less often. The Swedish defence doctrine was that the USSR consisted of an A-team and B-team, The A-team was the top tier and mainly stationed against NATO troops. The B-team would be used against non-NATO members like Sweden and Finland. We used to say that if the A-team attacked, we'd be f****d, but if the B-team invaded, we would make them regret that day they were born.

[@Dr_V]

Well, considering what the Russian "A team" achieved so far in Ukraine I'd say you had far better chances than you thought. But the washing machine robbers are probably still terrified about messing with any Scandinavian nation after what the Finns did to them in the 40s 😉

[@SgtMclupus]

@@Dr_V It hasn't been their A-team, or even their B-team that's invading Ukraine.. The purpose of the invasion of Ukraine is to provoke NATO into going to war, so Russia has a reason to field their T-14's

[@antisoda]

@@Dr_V Considering the Soviet Union included the Ukrainians, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, I can only hope for the sake of cold war era authors (I'm looking at you, Clancy) that they used to be more of a contender than what they seem to be today.

[@deleted4328]

Idk why but I find very funny the idea of finding a tank by falling over because you hit your shin on its main gun. Also sounds very painful

[@gard86]

@@Dr_V Would be true, except Finland isn't Scandinavian :) They are way fiercer than us! Regards from Norway

[@ukaszgrzesik7231]

That was indeed quintessential WoT finish.

[@zoecornish]

they weren't Russians by any chance ?

[@hdezn26]

@@zoecornish Yes, and also submarines! That's what happens when you are in too much of a hurry.

[@Daves_Not_Here_Man_76]

ledeleedleedeldeledeleldelel

[@gaborfabian1239]

This should be in the Game of Throws series. The enemy literally threw the game...into the river.

[@garyb.4834]

Hahah, good point

[@thitsugaya1224]

They threw that, and their tanks in the water.

[@castingshadows282]

I had to rewind to where the last two fatalities that somehow managed to go over the edge of the wall & into the river because I blinked. the second I sneezed and missed the other do the same. Never have I seen such disastrous endings to a battle of tanks. Brilliant ending, and a well-deserved win.

[@winoodlesnoodles1984]

Someone wasn't around for the "good old" days. These used to be quite common. Often the way it happened was someone noobed out and fell down a slope, but not far enough to be in the lake or river at the bottom of the slope. In a desire for youTube fame, the opposing side would attempt to ram them into the lake or river instead of capping out. When they tried, they missed and proved themselves to be the bigger noobs. 😁 This is partially from personal experience. Once I was the noob sitting on the slope unable to get out. There were three opponents left. Two of them tried and missed. The third accurately guessed how dumb the other two might be and did the smart thing, took the cap and won the game. The other two ended the match in the river below me having both missed ram attempts.

[@castingshadows282]

@@winoodlesnoodles1984 Cheers for the input Noodles. I took it also. that they may have been caught up in one of those lagging periods that sometimes frequent the internet, now and again.

[@stephenlawrence554]

I’m not so sure it was a well deserved win so much as the enemy’s well deserved loss

[@rifqihadi1860]

The ending, oh man, that the real WoT that we love so much

[@strawhatnick2616]

Some additional info. The S103 was purpose built for the Swedish terrain, where it would have taken up position on a hill and fired at the incoming soviet tanks before falling back to the next hill. To help with this the tank could not only drive as fast backwards as it could forwards, but the driver would also be facing backwards in the tank. The S103 was so specialised for the defensive situation Sweden had that it was never exported.

[@HarverTheSlayer]

In fact, the tank has two driver positions, one facing forwards and one facing backwards. And, actually, three if you take into consideration that the commander also has driver and gunner controls. The Chieftain has a great video about this thing, it's quite fascinating.

[@nolanmonke4330]

correct, an excellent design for their terrain.

[@Zummeli]

I'm willing to bet that if Finland's mean neighbour to the east someday attacks, Sweden will send a few of these thing to us!

[@NilsPotter]

Straight facts. Loads of useful info about it

[@57thorns]

@@Zummeli Not anymore, it is discontinued since many years. If nothing else, there is so much top-down munitions in the fields now that the sloped armour would be practically useless. But it does look like the tank in WoT is missing the anti-heat slat armour (which was effective up until about the early 1970s, which was the end of cope cages).

[@samwisethesoulless9734]

aside from the incredibly good talk about what a tank could be, it has been a looong while since I've seen people throw that hard. I blame myself for not having good situational awareness, but it takes a special kind of person to dive into the river like an olympic swimmer

[@Unther]

The discussion about "tank" or "tank destroyer" is also language-specific. Example: In German, a "tank" is called a "Panzer" - which you all probably know. A "tank destroyer" is a "Jagdpanzer", like in "Jagdpanzer IV", the German T6 TD. This basically means "hunter tank" - so the defining part of the name is "tank", not "destroyer". The name indicates that this is a specialized tank. Another example is the M104 Wolverine of the US Army. In English, it is called an "armoured vehicle-launched bridge", so basically a specialized bridge. In German, it is called a "Brückenlegepanzer", which means "bridge-laying tank" - so again the defining word is "tank", but a specialized one - not a hunter, but a bridge-layer. So this discussion is not just depending on your own philosophy and opinion, but also on the language you use.

[@57thorns]

You Germans, you know that our Gnome Overlord has a special soft spot for you?

[@cferguson37]

exactly so! the US Army's M1 Abrams is considered a Main Battle Tank, but its primary role is anti-armor - no one calls it a tank destroyer tho that is what its mostly used for.

[@Zergling.]

@@cferguson37 To be fair modern tanks are a bit of everything, you dont call the M1 Abrams a tank destroyer because he can do more than that, so we call them main battle tanks, they are tanks that can do a number of operations and be versatile. For me the classification of tanks is the name like the og comment said, if its a tank destroyer is a tank that was created for the job of killing tanks, if you have a heavy tank then its job is not only killing tanks but surviving hits and being able to assault positions, at least this is how i see it. Modern tanks do it all.

[@stitch77100]

I would even argue that "Panzer" would initially be translated as "armour" or "armoured" and that's where Panzerkampfgwagen comes from. But with the evolution of language, Panzer became "self-sufficient" to describe the modern concept of tank. And they say German isn't fun... XD

[@novocainDaimon]

@@stitch77100 "armor" or "armored" would be translated as "Panzerung" or "gepanzert" - its either an objective or adjective. "Tank" on the other hand translates as "Panzerkampfwagen" and in german use of language was shortened to "Panzer" 😘 If you mean Panzer like in Schildkrötenpanzer, then it's translated into "Shell" or "Carapace" - the latter imho is the fancy version of a shell 😉

[@CMDRSweeper]

For an ending like that, he needs to get the new "Tank Washer" medal.

[@ElamunFTP]

The double swan dive off the high wall. 10/10 for grace and form

[@apollyon3982]

The fact that tweedledee and tweedledum both placed top 5 on the enemy team is just the cherry on the cake

[@bodan1196]

I am painfully aware of _manuver kills_ in World of Aircraft... but this... I wouldn't have been able to imagine.

[@ewetoo]

Jingles knows what's going to happen at the end but is still utterly delighted by it. I have to go back and watch it again for more laughs.

[@Kurosaki990Ichigo]

This game is almost 12 years old now! Players are experts! Wargaming player base: Hold my beer while i take a dive..

[@Ackalan]

Sadly, a lot of the matches contains bots to fill out the que.

[@nightowlarchive]

@@Ackalan only at tier 5 and below, this is a tier 9 game

[@Ackalan]

@@nightowlarchive Strange how there's no difference in gameplay then.

[@nightowlarchive]

@@Ackalan you’re gonna have mentally deficient players at any tier. Especially on the NA cluster.

[@Ackalan]

@@nightowlarchive No clue about that one, I've only played EU.

[@Spreadie]

The last minute of that battle provided the biggest laugh I've had watching WoT, ever. Brilliant!

[@jariheimoluoto4959]

Berlin map, strv103, good game? This is so rare. The end reminds me of old derpenberg matches. Sweden also has another defensive tool to help against the russians, bunch of angry finns. 🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

Sweden has always fought to the last Finn.

[@5oclock_Charlie]

Knew someone had to mention derpenberg and the corner of fail.. oh A1/2 what a joy 😂

[@iloreplica]

@@XtreeM_FaiL Spat out my coffee. Kudos to you, internet stranger!

[@Zeknif1]

I miss old Derpinberg… 30 seconds into the match, and up to half of the players x have already drowned.

[@Ackalan]

@@Zeknif1 "I can do it, I can do it, I can't do it, shit."

[@NorEazter]

That ending was priceless. They also suffered a sudden attack of lack of spatial awareness. The first guy wasn't even being pushed or nudged, he just drove straight over the edge! LMAO Now to top this one, you're gonna have to find a match where the last 3 opponents suicide over the edge of something. Good luck with that Jingles 😂

[@wotaddictglobal]

Nothing too difficult for Jingles - lol 😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@Cobra-King3]

We truly are the laziest of people on the planet, thankfully the Gnome Overlord doesn't know

[@jasoncp3257]

Haven't been down the mines in weeks. Nobody's noticed yet

[@jarroddraper5140]

That's why im pulling dabble shifts

[@Cobra-King3]

@@jasoncp3257 haven't been caught slacking for 6 months now, won't be needing another shift

[@timeforgottenprince8271]

In other words, the whole tank or tank destroyer thing is down to your own personal opinion. But only Jingles could explain nitty gritty details of the "is it a tank or tank destroyer" thing and still make it interesting.

[@pirig-gal]

More like the particular country armoured doctrine, but sure. SU-152 was not a TD, it was a Self-Propelled Artillery, for example, because it was deployed as a SPG by the Soviets. And Strv 103 is an MBT, because Swedes decided it is one.

[@leeedmunds2539]

I think the tank, tank destroyer and self propelled gun argument really comes down to the level of integration between gun and hull… doesn’t get much more integrated than the s103, I say it’s a tank! Cheers Jingles

[@DevSolar]

Hm. StuG III over there would like a word with you. ;-)

[@HarverTheSlayer]

@@DevSolar Nah, the StuG at least had limited independent gun traverse, as well as gun elevation and depression, which the S tank doesn't. Indeed, there no vehicle with a gun more integrated into the vehicle than the Strv 103.

[@emberfist8347]

That doesn't make it a tank. A tank needs a turret.

[@ZeroneAngel]

@@emberfist8347 By your logic the 103 is most definetley a tank. The 103 has a turret. The fact that the turret is tracked and does not have a hull is irrellevant.

[@leeedmunds2539]

@@ZeroneAngel +1

[@neilevenden3481]

Great ending!!! LOL! However, it was nice to see a player play to the strengths of his TANK throughout the game. Move up, playing hulldown, retreating, using cover. Well played. The end was just a bonus!

[@keithplymale2374]

Jingles that was one of the best video's you have posted lately. What an ending. Talk about being focused on the target.

[@dressydressy6246]

Glorious ending. Well worth the 'why is Jingles 'making' us watch this' internal questioning throughout the video.

[@theunwelcome]

ok but that ending was truly something speshul

[@J0hnnieP]

That ending had me laughing for about 20 minutes. Nice start to a Thanksgiving Day for me!!

[@gregorturner9421]

i do miss jingles history lessons on world of warships. my favourite by far was the tough as old boots carrier armor lesson on why the brits had armored flight decks where the americans and japanese didn't (the americans did by the midway class. prob impressed by a brit carrier being hit by a kamikaze and resuming flight ops 30min later) were as the american carriers usually had to go back to port for a complete rebuild. but getting one ready in 3 days blew my mind.

[@carlmcdaniels1675]

Yes, but the American "Fleet" Carriers prior to the Midway class could carry more aircraft the their British cousins. The Midway class was not fielded until 1945 or later.

[@dogsnads5634]

" but getting one ready in 3 days blew my mind." - The Yorktown's repair in Pearl Harbour has always been badly reported by historians. The Dockyard told the USN that it would need 3 months to restore it to full capability. They didn't then manage to do all that work in 3 days...what happened was they repaired everything they could in 3 days but left the rest untouched (understandable the reason for 3 months was that some of the parts had to come from the US by ship...). It wasn't really a miracle, more a misunderstanding by historians. The things they couldn't repair, including her engines, were some of the reasons she was sunk at Midway (she couldn't achieve near to top speed or manouvre well as a result when the Japanese dropped torpedoes on her she couldn't manoeuvre to avoid and took the hits).

[@robinhood1488]

That ending was classic. Enjoyed your very interesting comments Jingles.

[@FazekasPK]

There is an existential question: Is the strv 103 a turretless tank with a gun, or a tankless turret on tracks?

[@belmin137]

Thank you Jingles. These WoT videos make my day. For the past week I’ve been rewatching some old videos and truly enjoyed revisiting The Good, The Bad and The Ugly series.

[@JFKeNn3dy]

Definatley was not expecting that ending.

[@VosperCDN]

Neither were those two on the red team ... ;)

[@kirkleadbetter1093]

My God the ending was GLORIOUS! The rest was great as always, but the ending....a thing of beauty.

[@herpderp9774]

I knew there had to be a good ending to this battle when it was so unremarkable for so long. Jingles Senpai would not let us down and even was able to talk about something leading up to it that was somewhat thought provoking.

[@justandy333]

I think this has got to go down as my favourite tank. Just beacuse it was such a wildly different approach to tank design. I'd imagine there being many many arguements about the merits of this tank versus its drawbacks in the battle to get this thing approved for production. I bet alot of people just thought it was batshit crazy and dismissed it outright without giving it a second thought. But I love it! Its like they just tore up everything they knew about tanks and just started again from a different angle.

[@hughejass9461]

Wow, what an ending! I enjoyed the discussion but was indeed wondering how this replay made it onto your channel, until I didn't. Fun stuff.

[@Algaean]

Really love these discussions about design and doctrine, your carrier discussion video is one of my favorites! As for the battle: Oh. My. What an ending. Had to rewind, couldn't believe my eyes!

[@hamstsorkxxor]

The spatial awareness of the last two tanks sure is something to behold!

[@stefandeboer5019]

14.47 minutes to introduce the joke, 13 seconds to pull it off. Totally worth it, every second of it🤣

[@cgilleybsw]

I'm at 14:00 - and the dialogue you're putting out Jingles is gold. If you ever come through Atlanta GA - come to my place for dinner. While I cook, you just talk. :)

[@citomp1240]

"Speak softly but carry a very big stick." Teddy Roosevelt. Best policy period. And those last 2 tanks......awesome.....thank ya'll for your service!

[@anonemus2971]

I for the life of me couldn't figure out why you were show casing this video, right up until the AE phase1 drove into the river, and then I knew. Thanks for the laughs

[@Revkor]

that ending would have been in an old Heff to be mad clip....I MISS THOSE VIDS

[@jaywerner8415]

Sadly Copyright is a Bitch. I too miss those montages.

[@phoenixrising4573]

Part of the confusion, aside from WOT terminology, the S103 is a post WWII tank, when armor doctrine was largely redefined. By the time its built, the light/medium/heavy tank designatio s, along with the specialized roll of a specialized tank destroyer was out the window, and the MBT idea was coming in, with guns that can do it all.

[@zackakai5173]

Somebody get me the "HOW DO YOU FUCK THAT UP!?" soundclip for that ending 🤣

[@nk_3332]

Derpenberg reaches out across the server to collect its due.

[@kdog3908]

Ok Jingles. You had me. That was a (literal) laugh out loud episode.

[@hashkangaroo]

Actually Jingles, the Battle of Poltava, where the Russians finally beat the Swedes, was in July. The Battle of Narva, the biggest Swedish victory of the war, was in November.

[@markstott6689]

That ending was hilarious and tragic and any number of further adjectives. All I know is that it made me chuckle out loud.

[@DvdV1337]

I have to admit. Those 10 seconds made my day better.

[@dominges]

My father is retired army Artillery Officer and from him I know that ''tank'' and ''Tank destroyer'' are just useless terms. Instead when he was talking about ''tanks'' or ''tank destroyers'' he was referring to them as Self Propelled Artillery as that's what they actually are. You were right in your logic when you started to talk about the doctrines and specific roles and that's where the tactical designation of ''tank'' and ''tank destroyer'' comes from. What distinguishes the ''tanks'' and ''tank destroyers'' from what people call actually a ''artillery'' is the fire solutions and modes they primarily use. The first primarily use high velocity shells and they fire in what the army says ''straight aim/fire'' and the later due to the use of high drag and low velocity shells, what people see as artillery, is used for ''indirect/fire''. None the less, both groups are artillery pieces and can be towed or Self Propelled. Fact is that a battery of towed 155's can be a VERY nasty ''Tank Destroyers'' IF your recon is good and you have time to setup.

[@demonman0273]

I feel like we can pinpoint the exact moment he thought "I'm sending this to Jingles."

[@JohnSmith-gb5vg]

I like your discussion on tank vs TD. Helps explain why the T30 is a TD in the tech tree. Always thought of it as a tank and that’s the way I play it when higher tier.

[@noncog1]

Fun fact, when i started playing the t30 was a tank, and the usa's only t10

[@Thorr97]

I can see everyone else involved in this game - on both sides - looking at those last two enemy tanks drive themselves over the edge, drown, thereby lose the game and them all saying: "Seriously?" Truly, a perfect World of Tanks ending!

[@roberthart3305]

Wow! What an ending. He played well throughout the game and was saved by the mis-plays of the last two enemy tanks. What a laugh! Thanks for once again not disappointing us Jingles.

[@Skerrry]

A correction, the caliber of the shell must be higher than 3 times the thickness of the armor in order to overmatch it. Additionally, a shell doesn't automatically penetrate a plate even if the caliber of the shell is over 3 times the thickness of the plate. The shell still needs to have enough penetration to make it through.

[@jaywerner8415]

Well id say this was your Best and most informative World of Tanks video yet. I guess you could say the Udes 103 is a TANK designed for the role of a TANK DESTROYER.

[@chaoticinkinc.3145]

Jingles brought up the tank trading card trinity of attributes; don’t tell LazerPig! Also, the stupidity of those last two enemy tanks did physical damage to my brain

[@akoskovacs6391]

Actually Jingles, :D Your anecdote about the naming of the StuG is funny, but the real reason was that they were intended to be support vehicles for the infantry divisions. The first versions were armed with a short barrel 75mm gun and only after they encountered with the well armored Russian tanks did they equipped them with a long barrel 75mm. The vehicles of the Marder series were called Panzerjäger literally meaning Tank Hunter. So strictly speaking even the Germans did not have TDs, regardless of the large number of such purpose built vehicles. I think the Russians called their vehicles Self-propelled Guns but I am not sure.

[@kevinwatts73]

Wow Jingles.......I did not see that ending coming. Brilliant.

[@jonasarnell-szurkos4191]

When I did Swedish conscript service in 1989, our Lieutenant kept talkin about defending Sweden from the east. When I asked about defending from the west - the reply was with a stiff upper lip: "That would be one hell of a detour for the Russians". 🤣

[@FlippDogg75]

I love all 3 versions of this tank from tier 8 to 10. Unique play style, and super stealthy.

[@nephandi2316]

I feel this would have been great in a Why You Heff to be Mad video

[@Kwodlibet]

The match lasted so long they decided to quit and play "Sabnautica" 🙃 Don't recall last time I've laughed this much watching a WoT replay. Thanks Jingles.

[@lil_old_man202]

i love surprise endings. this was the best one ever in wot.

[@lukorito1670]

@7:20 i never really comment on your videos... but i just have to say u really open up my mind and ever since i subed i've been more wiser even though i dont play most of the games u do... this is a completely honest statement big fan from WOWs

[@erenjeager1058]

Hey Jingles. I am writing a master thesis about the US Navy as a instrument of US foregin policy with a particular mention of the power and meaning of aircraft carriers and the historical context of todays american Navy and its doctrin. I am obviousle starting with the basics like Mahan but I was wondering if you have some solid book recomentdations about the history of US Navy, their influence on global power balance upon history, something more modern than Mahan. Love the vids, have a good day.

[@charlesparr1611]

Have you asked Drachinifil? I suspect he would have some suggestions. I sont know if this is the best way to cointact jingles, you might tryu going to one of the 'mingles' posts andf asking again. Thats a broad topic, I am curious to know how you are going to narrow it down enough to make it work

[@llearch]

I would suggest that Drachinifel might be a good source to ask the same question of, as well.

[@jaywerner8415]

I mean, he served in the Royal Navy so he would probably be more helpful if your talking about the UK. But im sure he knows a thing or two.

[@erenjeager1058]

@@charlesparr1611 I am specificly describing the US Navy as a political tool. I am writing the thesis from the prespective of politics not military technique or history. These subjects are simply a short background. I will be focusing mostly on modern US foregin policy and Carries and their fleet as a power projector.

[@charlesparr1611]

@@jaywerner8415 Certainly is going to know people who know, and is known to be a helpful sort of fellow....

[@-boon-9062]

Love that Jingles is willing to do a 15 minute video for a 10 second ending...

[@flatophall]

Jingles!! You made a THEME video. It's Thanksgiving Day here in the States!! That S-103 was probably quite thankful once he stopped laughing.

[@Tigerheart01]

That was hilarious. Talk about tunnel vision. You know they were zoomed in trying to find weak spots and then moving forward to flank... not paying any attention to where their tank was actually going.

[@UNICORNSF3ProgameplayProRACER]

Awesome,destroyer is your favorite🙂👍

[@4tankdestroyers]

I only play tank destroyers in WoT. It says more about me than the machines because if I was playing football I would play in defence. The downside is that my only skill is in sniping, and in any other tank role, I find myself attempting to fulfil that role (be it medium, heavy or light) so that the team do not call me out as a noob. In other words, put me in a TD and I'll cause thousands of damage, but put me in a Medium and I'll barely cover my own HP. My WN8 and win rate is average, and that's probably because I have placed myself in a less aggressive role. So I would say that TDs are more of a state of mind than a machine.

[@CMKseven]

OMG, I did NOT saw that one coming 🤣 And thanks Jingles for the TD history class, very informative!

[@seangunn4772]

The only things that have all 3 characteristics are post-war MBTs. Some got it earlier than others, but the Strv103 is definitely one that's at minimum decent at everything

[@emberfist8347]

No the Sherman had all three.

[@seangunn4772]

@@emberfist8347 decent, yes. But not excellence. Sherman was kinda (as much as I hate this term) "jack of all trades, master of none" sorta deal, where it was outdone by other tanks in some departments but overall was decent at everything. What I'm talking about it just straight "master of all" tanks

[@gernhard.reinholdsen]

When I saw this vid in my recommendations, I first misread it as "the desk destroyer" and imagined it to be a tank that is especially frustrating and an infuriating experience to play.

[@cmdrzdenek-joerg5628]

Actually Jingles... :D My hometown in the Czech Republic (Bohemian kingdom under Habsburk monarchy at that time) was under siege of the Swedish army for four months (May - August) and defended successfully :) It was the only city that withstood the Swedish campaign in Europe, turning them back. It is known as the Siege of Brno in the summer of 1645.

[@gr8witenorth61]

the funnest one yet......... loved the ending......

[@jeffwickersheim195]

Educational and interesting, and good game play, AND Jingles jokes!? Ahh man this was a great one! Thanks Gnome!

[@kaleiohulee6693]

That ending though... 🤭

[@herm43506]

Oh WTF even was that ending?!? That was AWESOME!

[@vtr0104]

Watching these always puts some stuff in perspective in WoWS that normally I just overlook, like the fact that a 105mm gun is great in tank fights but people complain about them even as secondary guns on BBs, saying how they don't pen anything except DDs.... EDIT: By the end there, it looks like we can say for certain that the S103 deflects more than just incoming shells =))))))

[@acole5975]

I would argue that any weapons platform that is self mobile (no trucks) and intended to primarily deal with other tanks is a tank destroyer. A tank has a turret and large gun equipped for infantry, tanks and hard points while not dying right away.

[@nyxorelius]

I wish we saw what the enemy team chat was saying at the end there; must have been golden

[@gavinhammond1778]

I know quite a bit about the S tank, and I understand overmatch mechanics. Nevertheless I thoroughly enjoyed the history lesson about the vehicle and the tutorial regards the game...You really do tell a good yarn old man. No disrespect I think I'm just a shade older than you, thanks for the excellent content.

[@hansheden]

In Sweden it's the role that gives the name. Not the design. The 103 is meant to do tank-stuff. So it is a tank.

[@rossdavies8250]

The shade of Gustaf Adolph was watching over the 103 at the end. To drown one tank, might be considered a misfortune. Two, smacks of carelessness...

[@niki8280]

OMG!!!! I can almost ensure that none of us saw that ending coming.

[@Aksuuuk]

A fun this about the S tank is that they could and would have 3 KSP 58(Swedish version of the M240) and they had three crew members. So if the tank got knocked out but the crew survived they could each take one LMG and continue fighting

[@southtexasprepper1837]

The last two players on the enemy team were trying to win a bit too hard.

[@AllanHazen]

I think you are absolutely correct.... about the last two tank drivers.

[@alichaudhry345]

Haven't played the game in a couple years but the end made me chuckle and launch the game again lol

[@jamesmerriam1125]

One of the best endings to a battle I have seen in a while ;)

[@rangda_prime]

In Swedish, we call what's done at the end of that match to be a case of "Ha otur när man tänker", roughly translated as "Being unlucky while thinking". xD Incidentally, in Swedish we don't call tanks "tanks". The Swedish word is "Stridsvagn" or "Combat Wagon", more closely related to the German "Panzerkampfwagen", "Armored Combat Wagon".

[@alichinoalichino2283]

Yes, the overmatch mechanic, where it's better to shoot beach balls (typical diameter ~300mm, can overmatch 99.9mm of armour!) filled with nails at your enemy than an anti-tank shell.

[@Spankypenguin1]

A very standard and unremarkable fight until the 1 minute klaxon sounds, at which point a new definition of "Lemming Train" is born. It's been a while since I have genuinely laughed out loud at a KZbin video.

[@permafrostinsanity1799]

I look at it this way, if it has armor, a gun, a set of tracks, a stock of AP/HE shells, trained crew and it drives under its own power, in all intensive purposes, it’s considered a tank (in general), regardless if it has a turret or not. The only difference is, what class of tank was it designed for. Tank/Tank Destroyer/Artillery. In some ways, I class the S103 as a Tank Destroyer. It’s design, purpose and features more associates itself as a Tank Destroyer and not as a full fledged tank.

[@brianhuss9184]

The US Army also sent tank destroyer battalions to the Pacific Theater. On Kwajalein the M-10 crews in the open turrets were giving tommy guns and sent to clear out Japanese snipers from the trees.

[@singncarpenter6270]

Thanks for the history lesson Jingles. That ending lmao.

[@pip5528]

The arbitration of what constitutes a tank destroyer is the same as what people think a mechanical keyboard is. Dictionary definition of moving parts or machinery, membrane vs. discrete switches, tactility, rubber domes, etc.

[@clintonturner5545]

The ending was too well worth waiting for while listening to your voice. I LOLed once while clapping my hands, and then again. My wife was walking slowly into the living room on her two crutches, and I got up and explanded to her what happened.

[@shuckern7wgas622]

Yup the last two being kings of the Blather Skites 😂😂 And good point about the TOW's but let's face facts how good would Patten look straddling one of those

[@mrbrand4720]

I get Erlenberg vibes on this ending 😂😂😂 The river of DOOM , Erlenbergs curse on inattentive players LOL