This tank was just a peace of shit. I had the "pleasure" of serving together with these tanks and usually 50 % of them broke down during combat exercises. Anyone who says otherwise is a hopeless coldwar-romantic.
@DankoJonesRules I have heard from an expert (personal friend, now dead) that his evaluation of S was stamped as secret for 50 years to save heads far up in the government. I guess that time is out very soon and maybe any journalist can dig it up, if we still have any that not only expect others to provide them with articles.
This is a defensive weapon. I think the fact that it is built by the swedes gives its purpose away. Basically it's great for use in Sweden but unfitting for other parts of the world
NATO borrowed 10 S-tanks with crew to test this tank in Germany (mid 70s) and they managed to destroy 72 Chieftain Tanks without a single loss. After that the US also did similar trials and the report was classified. S-tank was always underestimated despite the fact that it was 10 years ahead in many technical solutions. See wiki for more info!
some claim that the s-tank was never intended to be a regular tank( for open battle ), closest comparison is a wheeled haubitser and its a bad comparison. Strictly defensive and quite har to hit and discover. Its one of the weardest weapons of all time
this tank is too limited in it's capability. This tank is good to be used in static targets, but not in a fight between tanks because the modern tanks can thoot while runing in the combat fiels. This tank have to stop before to engaje a target
@barbarotico The early versions of T-62 was not that good on hitting while on the move. T-62 being the MBT most likely to be met in combat at the time when S-tank come to be. As far as I know T-62 could obviously shoot with its turret wile on the move, but had a low hit prob. on the first 1-2 shots while doing so. I had to stop completely to get a good hit probability and then it was likely to NOT have its best protected side against the target (as the S-tank).
I thought one of the most important elements of a tank was to shot while on the move. How does this fit into the description of a tank. It looks like the perfect tank destroyer.
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1967 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator.
It could also fire 3 times faster and 1000m longer
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1967 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator.
It could also fire 3 times faster and 1000m longer than any rival!
It was made to ambush soviet tanks, take out a few targets then escape to dig itself a new ambush. Good tank for the guerilla warfare doctrine used by the swedes.
We weren't using the Guerilla warfare strategy back then. Just plain old invasion-defence.
But it was (and still is in theory) perfect for the watersoaked terrain of Sweden. Seeing as Sweden is allmost completely covered in forests, the enemy would have to use the roads. We blow the roads, they have to go through the woods where anything too heavy gets stuck. Then they have to use light vehicles and infantry. In comes the S-tank with some MG's and anti-personell mines. And they're dead ;)
No it didnt do 80km/h. But around 70 and thats fast for a tank of that size. It was a horrible thing. The gasturbine always layed off and the basic engine and the turbine had to connect in a way that was very hard to do. We wrecked several :)
But it´s fun to drive. Sportscar feeling and the 180 and 360 degrees turns are fantastic.
@ Rucksify: You are quite right. This tank was constructed to travel in forests to protect us from the horrible communism. The fact it also did go quite quick, correct me if I am wrong but I seem to reccon it did about 90km/h or about 55mph.
Actually, those are mortars to fire illumination shells. The S-tank never had any night capabilities, except crew night vision goggles and mortar illumination.
What a piece of junk! It would never have survived its baptism of fire. The Swedes are lucky push never came to shove because the Soviet T-64 and T-72 tanks would have made short work out of these steel coffins. A tank without a rotating turret is useless on a constantly shifting battlefield. The only scenario that would have favored the Strv 103, is a dug-in defensive/ambush position, which to succeed, would always require the enemy to come unsuspectedly wandering into its sights.
@2009Infidel The Germans used turretless designs very effectively during the second world war, the Stug III for example was one of the top tank killers in the Wehrmacht. And the Strv 103 was not the only tank in service with the Swedish armed forces, there were more conventional designs with turrets in use as well. Also Swedish terrain isn't exactly the most suitable for tank warfare anyway, nearly 70% of the country is covered by forest and there's plenty of lakes, rivers and streams.
@2009Infidel "The only scenario that would have favored the Strv 103, is a dug-in defensive/ambush position" No shit man. That is what it was built for, defensive!
This tank is designed for specific surcomstances. Especially for Swedish forrests. If another tank flanks you in a forrest you don't have any use for a turrent anyway. So they made the whole tank lower in height (no turrent), more adapted and mobile for those conditions. It's unsurpassed in dence woodlands. That's also why the barrel is so short.
And in an open terrain it would turn the whole tank towards the enemy, instead of just the turrent, also making itself a smaller target.
that tank is a hit and run tank, shoot, go back and dig down, shoot and stuff like that, not front attack and just assult and it is "perfect" for sweden and "bad" for every other climet,
It's debatable if this particular tank was battle tested. The main idea is definitely taken from German tank destroyers of 2WW. This doesn't proof, that this tank can be effective on a battlefield. And another thing. You say that it is powered by jet engine! Not true. It's powered by Rolls-Royce K60 multi fuel engine giving a top speed of 50km/h. Strv uses also second engine-Boeing 553 GAS TURBINE-to aid with cold-weather starting and to give an extra power in combat or moving cross-country.
deputymalloy, this tank is an old battle tested design which work perfectly with the swedish terrain. It was intended and only intended to operate on swedish soil and nowhere else.
Yes, battle tested. The germans used this design on their Stugs. The stugs or "Sturmgeschütz" in their full name was a good design in defensive warfare with alot of armor protection in the front.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This tank is designed by a country that doesnt go to war and has no clue what a tank needs or should be like. Guarantee in the battle all these tanks will be destroyed.
This tank was only made for defending Swedish territory against the Russians and nothing else. Its made for forest fighting wich's not suitable for a tank with a turret so this is the best tank for our Swedish climate and for defence against infantry it for an MG on top and I think it can carry 4 infantry soldiers but the main pirority was to be a Tank Destroyer.
And by the way, do you want to go to war and get killed? faggot...
Oh yeah I remember that "highly scientific" British Bullshit Show on Discovery Channel LOL. The S Tank however didn't make fifth place on that incredible list but came in sixth - before the extremely for its time advanced T-72 and battle-proven WW II models like the Sherman, Panther and Sheridan. Not very plausible is it? Discovery channel is alone in listing the S tank under top 10. It doen't even make top 15 in alternative studies.
@2009Infidel I've worked on those "Top-10" shows and... well, come on, its a fucking TV show, not the Judgement of History for All time. When you leave grade-school I advise not taking TV so seriously.
deputymalloy, yeah these tanks will be destroyed in battle... they're not meant to be main battle tanks they are meant to dug in and ambush the enemy and was only made for the Swedish terrain in Norrland to defend Sweden against Russia so its the enemys armor that will get annihialted not ours
I think these would be perfect for almost any type of defensive action all you need to do is put it in a hole just deep enough for the gun to be at ground leve and you have a perfect AT emplacment
The 103 tank concept were designed for active defensive tactics in purpose to delay a sea or air deployed enemy. The first two decades in service it was immune against frontal armor projectiles (LOT). Fully operative, with all functions, with just one crew if needed. Very easy (and funny) to drive & fire. Israels "Merkava" is in some part based on the 103 concept with engine in front of the crew and ammo storage in the rear. About 300 103:s were in active service between 1968-1992.
This tank was only made for defending Swedish territory against the Russians and nothing else. Its made for forest fighting wich's not suitable for a tank with a turret so this is the best tank for our Swedish climate and for defence against infantry it for an MG on top and I think it can carry 4 infantry soldiers but the main pirority was to be a Tank Destroyer.
The S-tank is really a bit of a misnomer. It's really a tank-killer more than a tank, in that it isn't well suited to supporting infantry, but simply for popping enemy tanks. Similar features can be seen on the M18 Hellcat of WW2, which was not armed with coaxial or hull-mounted secondary armament.
Exactly! Sweden wasen't attached to a "pact" during the cold war and had to build up an armament industry of it's own. Sweden built purposed built weapons for Sweden. Some of those inventions, like the "Fält Haubits (field howizter) 77" were suitable for other countries (but due to very strict laws not allowed for export in most cases) and things like "Striv. 103" were not.
It is a shame Sweden gave up on tank design, they were clearly innovative and interesting. I believe Sweden now has Leopard 2s, although they build the Stridsfordon 90 (CV90) by Hagglunds, jointly funded by BAE Land Systems.
We manufacture the Stridfordon 90-family, which is a quite good export success. The Leo 2's used in Sweden were manufactured here, and are greatly improved. Sweden were planing on manufacturing the Strv 2000, which would have probably been the best tank ever made. It was stopped because it would have been too expensive. There's still a possibility that the SEP program will start up again, which could result in a new generation of all swedish light and main battletanks.
Man weird construction. why do you have too turn the tank when you wanna fire at another direction..? But i think its got alot of things that wil be used in the swedish winter. it came on 6th place on The best tank ever on discovery channel i think. GOO SWEDEN<3! sverige äger!!<3
It is a fire and run tank, it was suppose to dig in, hide and ambush. At least that's the pitcher I have of the tank. so it don't need to have a turret, the designers wanted a tank whit low profile. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.
Something I just fought out, whit no turret the S-tank is always facing the enemy when confronting it, were the armour is strongest. But as you sew on discovery, the S-tank is too adapted to the Swedish condition. I don't want to be a wise as, but a fought that others could read this. Heja Sverige! ;)
The 103S was develop for swedish defencive warfare and had no turret which gave a low profile. When deploy in the forrest you have no use of a turning turret becuse of the dense forest we have in sweden.
There are 3 versions of the 103S 103A first generation,103B the 103A turned out to be underpowered.A more powerful version of the same gas turbine(Caterpillar).103C An upgrade program was started in 1986 to fit all vehicles with dramatically improved fire control systems and added a new laser rangefinder.(103D In the mid-1990s,only one prototype was ever made.The major changes were the installation of fire-control computer,thermal viewers for both the gunner and the commander).
Strv 103 was an exelent tankdestroyer (in northern sweden) but as a MBT it wasn't much to talk about, but it still finished in 6th place in "greatest ever tank" on Discovry Channel. Go Sweden^^
The man behind the concept of the S-tank also helped the Israeli to develope the Merkava and also consulted the development of the Leopard2 and M1 Abram and the Russians feared the S-tank untill the bitter end...
During a trial in Germany during 1978, 10 S-tanks destroyed 72 Challanger tanks in 3hours without one loss of a s-tank, pretty good. Later the US "borrowed" several s-tanks to study them.
This tank was an excelent tankdestroyer in defense. Kind of like the turretless german tankdestroyers of ww2. Difference is this one can dig itself in at keylocations and it also has a much lower profile. So if it's used for what it was designed for the engine noise and the fact it sucks at firing on the move is irrelevant. Back then all swedish weapons manufacturers focused on defensive weapons since unlike our goverment they seem to mind their own business and don't wage war for oil.
And yet it ranked number 6 on Discoverys "Top 10 tanks of all times". If you think about a normal tank like an infantry man, then the S is more of a sniper. It sneaks up, finds a good possition to fire from, take a shot or two, and then gets the hell out of there.
Agreed. In short, it was designed to help Sweden's defense against a Russian attack from the north. That would have meant fighting mostly in forests where you really don't want to be swinging a gun around. Luckily, it was never put to the test.
@PZSIX131 The tank swings around its own axis if there is something blocking the barrel when turning around. Do you seriously think that the engineers forgot about the trees in Sweden? This was the ultimate defence tank when it still was active.
The guy in the speaker says "it cannot fire on the move", which is false.
It can fire on the move just as any other tank, but since the gun is mounted in the hull, it's not gyro-stabilized, so it may not be all that accurate when fired in motion.
it certainly is an interesting design
jakelong429 4 months ago
awsome tank!
Ferrarifanlellewtc 7 months ago
The Dutch army could use them. Lots of flat country so we can hide behind the occasional dyke. Do they come in flat-packs like Ikea furniture?
Teeboppity 7 months ago
Hard to kill what you cant see....
10 S-tanks destroyed 45 UK tanks during an exercise in Germany 1973 without a single loss.
Pretty impressive machine...
SgtDrDeath 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look at it go! :-)
TheTonttu 1 year ago
This tank was just a peace of shit. I had the "pleasure" of serving together with these tanks and usually 50 % of them broke down during combat exercises. Anyone who says otherwise is a hopeless coldwar-romantic.
DankoJonesRules 1 year ago
@DankoJonesRules I have heard from an expert (personal friend, now dead) that his evaluation of S was stamped as secret for 50 years to save heads far up in the government. I guess that time is out very soon and maybe any journalist can dig it up, if we still have any that not only expect others to provide them with articles.
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@DankoJonesRules
When did you serve? Maybe the vehicles were old by then and the pneumatic suspension was giving way.
52111centrumcz 8 months ago
fixed barrel ..... no shooting on the move unless the target is straight infront
jitzero 1 year ago
@jitzero
This is a defensive weapon. I think the fact that it is built by the swedes gives its purpose away. Basically it's great for use in Sweden but unfitting for other parts of the world
atgskater14 1 year ago 2
@jitzero
yes but it can aim higer than a normal tank and the armor is thickest at the front mening you drive stright forward or backwords.
MrDrakir 11 months ago
NATO borrowed 10 S-tanks with crew to test this tank in Germany (mid 70s) and they managed to destroy 72 Chieftain Tanks without a single loss. After that the US also did similar trials and the report was classified. S-tank was always underestimated despite the fact that it was 10 years ahead in many technical solutions. See wiki for more info!
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
some claim that the s-tank was never intended to be a regular tank( for open battle ), closest comparison is a wheeled haubitser and its a bad comparison. Strictly defensive and quite har to hit and discover. Its one of the weardest weapons of all time
mannen33bast 1 year ago
Next up, the Ikea tank. Is shipped to your door in a box within a week.......some assembly required.
TaintedMojo 1 year ago
funny looking
StunnedMutha 1 year ago
@StunnedMutha funny now yeah :D but not if u stands right in front of the cannon :D
Eurozze 1 year ago
wo wo wo WAS THE S-TANK POWERED BY A JET ENGINE!
anden191 1 year ago
this tank is too limited in it's capability. This tank is good to be used in static targets, but not in a fight between tanks because the modern tanks can thoot while runing in the combat fiels. This tank have to stop before to engaje a target
barbarotico 1 year ago
@barbarotico This is a tank destroyer. It would never take an enemy on 1 by 1 if it could be avoided.
It's built for ambush, hit and run.
With it's low profile it would take several targets out before even get discovered.
This is a 30 year old machine so you cant compare it to modern techniques.
But in the 60-70ths it was a technical miracle.
Skalmans750 1 year ago
@barbarotico The early versions of T-62 was not that good on hitting while on the move. T-62 being the MBT most likely to be met in combat at the time when S-tank come to be. As far as I know T-62 could obviously shoot with its turret wile on the move, but had a low hit prob. on the first 1-2 shots while doing so. I had to stop completely to get a good hit probability and then it was likely to NOT have its best protected side against the target (as the S-tank).
ghanaboyz 1 year ago
@ghanaboyz
The S-tank had a shorter time to 1:st shot than the Leo-1
Under 2000m you hardly had to aim, due to it´s L62 gun.
The projectile parabel on that distance was maybe 2-3dm
Fastest to the first shot,usually win.And you are right about
The t-62 and at least early T-64 and early Leo 1. The US M-60
i acctually dont know.
kmzmmz 1 year ago
bigswe you have so right and dont mess with sweden
skyttemaster 1 year ago
I thought one of the most important elements of a tank was to shot while on the move. How does this fit into the description of a tank. It looks like the perfect tank destroyer.
ph11p3540 1 year ago
Does Sweden still operate these? they're so damn cool.
Ralroost 1 year ago
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1967 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator.
It could also fire 3 times faster and 1000m longer
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
The Swedes where thinking outside the box.
phildaguy 2 years ago
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1967 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator.
It could also fire 3 times faster and 1000m longer than any rival!
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Poorly designed "tank" for any sort of modern warfare
It's a tank destroyer which costs more, they would have been better off training and equipping troops for anti-tank ambushes
It would get absolutely demolished in modern "Deep Battle" and "Shock Awe" movements
adrastea99 2 years ago
I don't even think its a tank.
TruthAndKnowledge 2 years ago
Well, definitively not a main battle tank
It could be some type of tank destroyer
adrastea99 2 years ago
i dont like the latest version with this garden fence on.... destroys the sporty look
kreuzundquer 2 years ago
It was made to ambush soviet tanks, take out a few targets then escape to dig itself a new ambush. Good tank for the guerilla warfare doctrine used by the swedes.
tyskbulle 2 years ago 3
We weren't using the Guerilla warfare strategy back then. Just plain old invasion-defence.
But it was (and still is in theory) perfect for the watersoaked terrain of Sweden. Seeing as Sweden is allmost completely covered in forests, the enemy would have to use the roads. We blow the roads, they have to go through the woods where anything too heavy gets stuck. Then they have to use light vehicles and infantry. In comes the S-tank with some MG's and anti-personell mines. And they're dead ;)
Ze3g0 2 years ago 4
No it didnt do 80km/h. But around 70 and thats fast for a tank of that size. It was a horrible thing. The gasturbine always layed off and the basic engine and the turbine had to connect in a way that was very hard to do. We wrecked several :)
But it´s fun to drive. Sportscar feeling and the 180 and 360 degrees turns are fantastic.
janaxel1 2 years ago 2
Våra stridsvagnar äger.
eliteben4 2 years ago 5
@eliteben4 yep,det gör dom :D
danieltottie 1 year ago
Kind of reminds me of the German made Stug in ww2.. nice tank : D just not made for open areas where it could get flanked.
Rucksify 2 years ago
@ Rucksify: You are quite right. This tank was constructed to travel in forests to protect us from the horrible communism. The fact it also did go quite quick, correct me if I am wrong but I seem to reccon it did about 90km/h or about 55mph.
clabbe77 2 years ago 2
Jesus, its diesel smokes like hell!
Are those two tubes behind commander's cupola Lyran smoke mortars?
dragonzmaj1 2 years ago
what tubes?
sweJN 2 years ago
those two things pointing upwards. You can see them at 0:20 in the middle part of the tank.
dragonzmaj1 2 years ago
I think they're snorkels, for fording across a river. Just a guess, though.
Frost2k6 2 years ago
Actually, those are mortars to fire illumination shells. The S-tank never had any night capabilities, except crew night vision goggles and mortar illumination.
nygrenmagnus 2 years ago
Great Tank IF used in Swedish woods. Custom built for their purposes, not much good for open field, deserts, etc...
Those folks know how to build stuff. Never underestimate a Swede!!
randy95023 2 years ago 48
@randy95023 i thumb up becuse im a swede :D
izze97 1 year ago
@randy95023 true!
riverman33 8 months ago
@randy95023
What a piece of junk! It would never have survived its baptism of fire. The Swedes are lucky push never came to shove because the Soviet T-64 and T-72 tanks would have made short work out of these steel coffins. A tank without a rotating turret is useless on a constantly shifting battlefield. The only scenario that would have favored the Strv 103, is a dug-in defensive/ambush position, which to succeed, would always require the enemy to come unsuspectedly wandering into its sights.
2009Infidel 7 months ago
@2009Infidel The Germans used turretless designs very effectively during the second world war, the Stug III for example was one of the top tank killers in the Wehrmacht. And the Strv 103 was not the only tank in service with the Swedish armed forces, there were more conventional designs with turrets in use as well. Also Swedish terrain isn't exactly the most suitable for tank warfare anyway, nearly 70% of the country is covered by forest and there's plenty of lakes, rivers and streams.
jimmyn89SWE 6 months ago
@2009Infidel "The only scenario that would have favored the Strv 103, is a dug-in defensive/ambush position" No shit man. That is what it was built for, defensive!
Aztetos 6 months ago
you said it: "at the tank museum". that box wouldnt have lasted for half an hour in any battlefield. but you know, the gov said it would haha.
clustergarde 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This tank is stupid as shit. what happen if some outher tank flank him?...
sauenkalle 2 years ago
This tank is designed for specific surcomstances. Especially for Swedish forrests. If another tank flanks you in a forrest you don't have any use for a turrent anyway. So they made the whole tank lower in height (no turrent), more adapted and mobile for those conditions. It's unsurpassed in dence woodlands. That's also why the barrel is so short.
And in an open terrain it would turn the whole tank towards the enemy, instead of just the turrent, also making itself a smaller target.
UltraRebels 2 years ago 3
Watch the other film here on youtube named: Modern STUG Swedish "S" Light Tank Best for 21st Century War.
This tank is by the way ranked as the 5th best tank in the world...
So try to learn abit more about things before making comments like that... if you don't, then it's not the tank that's "stupid as shit"...
UltraRebels 2 years ago
that tank is a hit and run tank, shoot, go back and dig down, shoot and stuff like that, not front attack and just assult and it is "perfect" for sweden and "bad" for every other climet,
Teffe2 2 years ago
If someone flanks him, he cam make a 360 turn in 2 sec :)
buffepuff 2 years ago
same thing that happens when any tank gets outflanked.
rafen8705 2 years ago
tuff stridsvagn
GrodiPutin 3 years ago 4
@GrodiPutin jo hehe, vi hade ägt dom :D
danieltottie 1 year ago
It's debatable if this particular tank was battle tested. The main idea is definitely taken from German tank destroyers of 2WW. This doesn't proof, that this tank can be effective on a battlefield. And another thing. You say that it is powered by jet engine! Not true. It's powered by Rolls-Royce K60 multi fuel engine giving a top speed of 50km/h. Strv uses also second engine-Boeing 553 GAS TURBINE-to aid with cold-weather starting and to give an extra power in combat or moving cross-country.
Sniper221205 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what's that!!!! that be called " Tank ".ugly design
revinchan26 3 years ago
Military vehicles are not designed to be pretty, and the few that are tends to fail spectacularly when in combat.
BigSwede7403 2 years ago 2
deputymalloy, this tank is an old battle tested design which work perfectly with the swedish terrain. It was intended and only intended to operate on swedish soil and nowhere else.
onlypeaceindeath 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
battle tested ? hoo hoo ... merry xmas and quit homebrewing bad snaps, man! ;-)
canariojoe 3 years ago
Yes, battle tested. The germans used this design on their Stugs. The stugs or "Sturmgeschütz" in their full name was a good design in defensive warfare with alot of armor protection in the front.
onlypeaceindeath 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This tank is designed by a country that doesnt go to war and has no clue what a tank needs or should be like. Guarantee in the battle all these tanks will be destroyed.
deputymalloy 3 years ago
This tank was only made for defending Swedish territory against the Russians and nothing else. Its made for forest fighting wich's not suitable for a tank with a turret so this is the best tank for our Swedish climate and for defence against infantry it for an MG on top and I think it can carry 4 infantry soldiers but the main pirority was to be a Tank Destroyer.
And by the way, do you want to go to war and get killed? faggot...
YeahSure72 3 years ago 6
haha you wish man ^^ Sweden had military industry when you guys still hang in the trees
SSViktoria14 3 years ago 5
strange, because this tank is ranked number 5 in the top tanks in the world...
TrilskenAAA 3 years ago 22
@TrilskenAAA
Oh yeah I remember that "highly scientific" British Bullshit Show on Discovery Channel LOL. The S Tank however didn't make fifth place on that incredible list but came in sixth - before the extremely for its time advanced T-72 and battle-proven WW II models like the Sherman, Panther and Sheridan. Not very plausible is it? Discovery channel is alone in listing the S tank under top 10. It doen't even make top 15 in alternative studies.
2009Infidel 7 months ago
@2009Infidel discoverychannel? wtf?!? hahahah
TrilskenAAA 7 months ago
@2009Infidel I've worked on those "Top-10" shows and... well, come on, its a fucking TV show, not the Judgement of History for All time. When you leave grade-school I advise not taking TV so seriously.
GrecoSwede 6 months ago
@TrilskenAAA if philippines buy this tank they have same terrain just like the swedes but in the jungle only
aker1993 6 months ago
deputymalloy, yeah these tanks will be destroyed in battle... they're not meant to be main battle tanks they are meant to dug in and ambush the enemy and was only made for the Swedish terrain in Norrland to defend Sweden against Russia so its the enemys armor that will get annihialted not ours
MrSchweden 3 years ago 3
I think these would be perfect for almost any type of defensive action all you need to do is put it in a hole just deep enough for the gun to be at ground leve and you have a perfect AT emplacment
ninjaFAUST 3 years ago 6
The tank can only be used in sweden.
Kallefisa 3 years ago 2
The 103 tank concept were designed for active defensive tactics in purpose to delay a sea or air deployed enemy. The first two decades in service it was immune against frontal armor projectiles (LOT). Fully operative, with all functions, with just one crew if needed. Very easy (and funny) to drive & fire. Israels "Merkava" is in some part based on the 103 concept with engine in front of the crew and ammo storage in the rear. About 300 103:s were in active service between 1968-1992.
ubergstr 3 years ago
This tank was only made for defending Swedish territory against the Russians and nothing else. Its made for forest fighting wich's not suitable for a tank with a turret so this is the best tank for our Swedish climate and for defence against infantry it for an MG on top and I think it can carry 4 infantry soldiers but the main pirority was to be a Tank Destroyer.
MrSchweden 3 years ago 3
så sant
YeahSure72 3 years ago
The S-tank is really a bit of a misnomer. It's really a tank-killer more than a tank, in that it isn't well suited to supporting infantry, but simply for popping enemy tanks. Similar features can be seen on the M18 Hellcat of WW2, which was not armed with coaxial or hull-mounted secondary armament.
msrich1982 3 years ago
it looks like a Stug Iv and a Water Buffalo merged into one
engasal 3 years ago
this tank are made to fit the swedish landscape and nothing else,its only mission was to protect sweden in case they would be invaded
m93dape 3 years ago 3
Exactly! Sweden wasen't attached to a "pact" during the cold war and had to build up an armament industry of it's own. Sweden built purposed built weapons for Sweden. Some of those inventions, like the "Fält Haubits (field howizter) 77" were suitable for other countries (but due to very strict laws not allowed for export in most cases) and things like "Striv. 103" were not.
TheGoldenSphinx 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looks a bit like the german "stug 4" tank from WW2, ugly as hell.
slimshaddyyy 3 years ago
Well, war ain´t beautiful.
onlypeaceindeath 3 years ago
Look how low it is, great for an ambush, or street fighting.
Lamnont 3 years ago
This tank was designed to defend territory. This is not an "offensive" weapon as the Leo 2.
zama202bc 4 years ago 3
Not realy a tank but a self propeled gun i think
RippersToll 4 years ago
It is a shame Sweden gave up on tank design, they were clearly innovative and interesting. I believe Sweden now has Leopard 2s, although they build the Stridsfordon 90 (CV90) by Hagglunds, jointly funded by BAE Land Systems.
dcanmore 4 years ago
after swiden made the s tank they stop making tanks and now bye tanks
riflelord2 4 years ago
Say what?
We manufacture the Stridfordon 90-family, which is a quite good export success. The Leo 2's used in Sweden were manufactured here, and are greatly improved. Sweden were planing on manufacturing the Strv 2000, which would have probably been the best tank ever made. It was stopped because it would have been too expensive. There's still a possibility that the SEP program will start up again, which could result in a new generation of all swedish light and main battletanks.
hogge87 4 years ago 3
see they stoped making tanks point provin
riflelord2 4 years ago
Very ahead of its time.
zama202bc 4 years ago 3
GO check out the German Stug III and Stug IV
adobo777 4 years ago 2
This is a unique tank.
eclipseairforce 4 years ago 3
If it dosn´t have any turret, I think that the cannon is more power ful than your fucking abrams
ackesnack 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
s -tank sucks it dosnt even have a turret.
bagys101 4 years ago
dude its made for the relief in they country
it doesnt need a turet to go onto mountain dirt roads and to dig himself in a hole then to fire ;)
braete 4 years ago 4
So, it's for ambushes, looke at the tanks made by the germans during WWII the hetzer was used by the swiss army til the 1980's.
Lamnont 3 years ago
im swedish and that tank was made fore forrest terain thats why it has a freeky design
mikael12345 4 years ago
You're right about that. It's designed for driving in the north parts of Sweden that have a lot of forests.
PowerExpress 4 years ago 3
Man weird construction. why do you have too turn the tank when you wanna fire at another direction..? But i think its got alot of things that wil be used in the swedish winter. it came on 6th place on The best tank ever on discovery channel i think. GOO SWEDEN<3! sverige äger!!<3
enrandigsten 4 years ago 2
It is a fire and run tank, it was suppose to dig in, hide and ambush. At least that's the pitcher I have of the tank. so it don't need to have a turret, the designers wanted a tank whit low profile. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.
johand2 4 years ago
No i dont think your wrong it sounds really possible. thx for the information!
enrandigsten 4 years ago
Something I just fought out, whit no turret the S-tank is always facing the enemy when confronting it, were the armour is strongest. But as you sew on discovery, the S-tank is too adapted to the Swedish condition. I don't want to be a wise as, but a fought that others could read this. Heja Sverige! ;)
johand2 4 years ago
true
braete 4 years ago
The 103S was develop for swedish defencive warfare and had no turret which gave a low profile. When deploy in the forrest you have no use of a turning turret becuse of the dense forest we have in sweden.
KarILsson 4 years ago
There are 3 versions of the 103S 103A first generation,103B the 103A turned out to be underpowered.A more powerful version of the same gas turbine(Caterpillar).103C An upgrade program was started in 1986 to fit all vehicles with dramatically improved fire control systems and added a new laser rangefinder.(103D In the mid-1990s,only one prototype was ever made.The major changes were the installation of fire-control computer,thermal viewers for both the gunner and the commander).
KarILsson 4 years ago
Strv 103 was an exelent tankdestroyer (in northern sweden) but as a MBT it wasn't much to talk about, but it still finished in 6th place in "greatest ever tank" on Discovry Channel. Go Sweden^^
empalime 4 years ago 6
Why do i think of Stug when i see this...
Danm SWEDISH NAZI TANK lovers...hehe
85Barbarossa85 4 years ago
haha
rafen8705 4 years ago
The man behind the concept of the S-tank also helped the Israeli to develope the Merkava and also consulted the development of the Leopard2 and M1 Abram and the Russians feared the S-tank untill the bitter end...
SgtDrDeath 4 years ago
During a trial in Germany during 1978, 10 S-tanks destroyed 72 Challanger tanks in 3hours without one loss of a s-tank, pretty good. Later the US "borrowed" several s-tanks to study them.
SgtDrDeath 4 years ago
Do you got a proof for that?
(Nothing bad ment, i jsut want to see the source so i can brag about swedish stuff with my friends)
Klajnepojken 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2 month later and no source, I call bullshit ^^
Pottan23 4 years ago
But yes, I agree with slarmas on one thing... it sure is ugly as hell. ^^
kadaverhagga 4 years ago
I've yet to see a "pretty" tank :)
PZSIX131 4 years ago 3
Hehe well quite true but some tanks does look cool. This one mostly look like a recovery vehichle with a gun. ;)
kadaverhagga 4 years ago
This tank was an excelent tankdestroyer in defense. Kind of like the turretless german tankdestroyers of ww2. Difference is this one can dig itself in at keylocations and it also has a much lower profile. So if it's used for what it was designed for the engine noise and the fact it sucks at firing on the move is irrelevant. Back then all swedish weapons manufacturers focused on defensive weapons since unlike our goverment they seem to mind their own business and don't wage war for oil.
kadaverhagga 4 years ago
In the modern arena that thing would be like trying to hide a running chainsaw in a movie theater
slarmas 4 years ago
ugly, unweildy and whomever designed it should be fired.
slarmas 4 years ago
And yet it ranked number 6 on Discoverys "Top 10 tanks of all times". If you think about a normal tank like an infantry man, then the S is more of a sniper. It sneaks up, finds a good possition to fire from, take a shot or two, and then gets the hell out of there.
BigSwede7403 4 years ago 4
Agreed. In short, it was designed to help Sweden's defense against a Russian attack from the north. That would have meant fighting mostly in forests where you really don't want to be swinging a gun around. Luckily, it was never put to the test.
PZSIX131 4 years ago 3
@PZSIX131 The tank swings around its own axis if there is something blocking the barrel when turning around. Do you seriously think that the engineers forgot about the trees in Sweden? This was the ultimate defence tank when it still was active.
Pagelos 1 year ago 2
It's loolike the turtle ! ^^
Yancaneat 4 years ago
Lets flip it over! Yey!
Klajnepojken 4 years ago
6v92 I'm guessing?
ENYoriginal 5 years ago
Close... 6v53t
PZSIX131 5 years ago
C'mon dude, that had the groan of a big-block engine....6v53 could fit onto a big car!
At least the Jet engine helped give the tank a lil' juice....
ENYoriginal 5 years ago
All the Detroit has to do is run the 13 hydraulic pumps...Boeing takes care of the rest!
PZSIX131 5 years ago
What kind of Detroit Diesel engine is in this old tank?
ClassicTVFan82 5 years ago
It's a 2-stroke V6 with a turbo and supercharger.
PZSIX131 5 years ago
The guy in the speaker says "it cannot fire on the move", which is false.
It can fire on the move just as any other tank, but since the gun is mounted in the hull, it's not gyro-stabilized, so it may not be all that accurate when fired in motion.
But then no tanks of that age had gyro-guns.
It's an oldie - but GOLDIE!! :-)
DrSpritze 5 years ago