WHAT THE F!? A LIGHT TANK!!! I TOUGHT IT WAS A MEDIUM TANK!!! wen i saw this tank the first tank i tought it was a tank destroyer but it wasent!! its a tank!!!!
so they simply removed the lower part of the tank and re-designed the turret to be the ENTIRE tank. Genius... Sounds a bit awkward must say, but sounds like a nice piece of equipment
Is it a better tank than T-80 or M1 Abrams? No its not. But It was tailor made to fill a specific role in the swedish defence, and in that role it was and still is the best tank in the world.
And comparing it to the M1 Abrams is kinda irrelevant because its a much more modern tank. You should compare it to the M60 Patton or the Chieftain tank.
@Sarkelk NO, the S-Tank as a LIGHT TANK is a better tank for Airborne/SOF/Cavalry /Infantry Fire support missions than a T-80 medium or a M1 Abrams heavy tank THAT CANNOT GET TO THE FIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. You are making the common mistake of looking at everything like a technological gadget contest via the false yardstick of man's numbering of time instead of first by FUNCTION. Newer isn't better if its idiots making crap recently--look at wheeled LAV/Strykers trucks for example.
You can haggle over the definitions, but a turret does have a very valid function. The S tank is good for ambush; not very good in offensive (as were the StuGs and other turretless German designs).
And the T-34 was the most successful tank design of the war. It left a very lasting impression in post-war designs, and was actually used until the '90s.
@spongya77 when idiots in the U.S. Army do not understand what a TANK is, and that they can be light, medium or heavy it's not mere "haggling". Go to our M113 Gavin web page and you'll see a STUG with a super-elevating gun that would be great for hilly/mountainous Afghanistan.
To further your point, WWII tank ace Michael Wittmann first used a StuG III on the eastern front, getting 13 kills against the technically superior T34 in ONE DAY. Since a fixed-gun tank always turns its thickest armor towards the enemy, it is harder to penetrate. He later used the same tactics in his Tiger tank on the western front, turning the entire tank rather than the turret, and scoring at least 13 kills in 15 MINUTES.
Wow thats actually a beutiful tank, as an American i cannot say if it is better than a M1, and personally dont give a shit bc America and Sweden will never be at war with eachother. This tank def has some advantages over any other tank as well as disdvantages, as long as it gets the job done. nice vid though, thank you
I think, since most of the tanks in European armories are aging slowly, something like this should be designed as a sort of intermediate solution. Of course with, say, 135mm gun and seriously heavy armor + some ATGMs.
jeez and to think the first stug was invented by the germans in ww2 fuck is there ANY wepon systems in use today that are not derived from them lol :>
A really serious disadvantage of the S-Tank was the inability to fire effectively on the move, something the M-1 can do with great accuracy and effect. It did have some great features, though.
What have the Swedes replaced it with, then?
And as for the S-Tank defeating an M1A1 or A2, It well may be that the 105 may not penetrate the frontal armor. A lot would depend on the situation at hand.
the US tested one of these at Knox, unknown what the conlusions were.
@YEP321S 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. It 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).
No possibility to fire on the move makes out of Strv 103 a very bad tank in offensive operations. Nevertheless it is lethal in defense roles, the task for which it was projected
It's a damn shame Sverige phased out the S. For a defensive war in forested terrain it has no equal.......but I heard that aging hydraulic systems were breaking down en masse. I'd sell my soul to have a de-mil S to romp around in!
Because the main gun has zero deflection, It is impossible to fire accurately on the move, a huge draw back. A solution would be too give the gun about 20 degrees of deflection.
Another problem is its HUGE frontal hull overhang, which will get it stuck in ditches and trenches. Extending the track may alleviate this.
One last FACT; the U.S. has the capability to airdrop things weighing up to 30 tons (60, 000 pounds) plenty of capability to drop a LIGHT tank of under 40, 000 pounds
Logistically, fuel would be a major issue. Aside from that, even if you could airdrop it, how many could you fit onto a c130? What kind of combat power are you losing by dropping 1 of these as opposed to a platoon of airborne infantry?
You can fit one up-to-20-ton light tank and 9 infantry in a C-130 versus 64 dismounted infantry victims. 9 men with a light tank with cross-country, amphibious 60 mph mobility, armor protection and heavy firepower are far more combat power than 64 men on foot with mere hand weapons--exposed to everything and only able to foot-slog at 1-4 mph at best.
Fuel is NOT a problem; when light infantry narcissists want to ride in Humvee/Stryker trucks with 10/3 mpg they don't say jack shit about fuel; when a tactically sound light tracked tank with hybrid-electric drive and 7 mpg fuel economy to include solar panel emergency power options you hear nothing from them because its not about LOGISTICS its about their weak egos grasping for some excuse--any excuse not to be in a track they think is connected to the "mech pussies" they look down on
this tank is exelent in swedis forest.. the s-tank is werry smart think wen you look on the ground wer the swedis need to ficht in the forsts and a turret cant swing around..
i'm unfamiliar with this tank so please tell me, is the Armour, shock deflecting, absorbing or spreading, i am also a tank enthusiast, i like the panzer IIII (or tiger tank) but now i am starting to like turret-less ones , thank you for sharing this video
Military forces differentiate armoured vehicles by role. All M113s in German army service are not called minenwerferpanzers. The minenwerferpanzer 64 is simply a mortar carrying variant of the M113. The STUG was considered an assault gun by the Wermacht even though it was used in an anti tank role and was quite effective in static defense or ambush but was less valuable in maneuver warfare.
FALSE. The point is the Germans call ANYTHING that is TRACKED and ARMORED a "Panzer" (tank) so they keep a grip on functional reality. Of course there are different TYPES of TANKS (Panzers).
looks cool, but i'll take my M1 Abrams any day, cause if these two things ever fought, the guys in this would be dead before they knew what hit them. (or could turn.)
Turretless tanks regularly beat turreted heavier tanks in WW2 and the "S" tank against modern stabilized turreted tanks. Smart armies would have some turretless tanks but fortunately most armies don't fight and can engage in feel-good fantasies at taxpayer expense rather than be efficient.
1. We can't fly and parachute drop Leopard or any other heavy tanks...too heavy
2. We cannot maneuver heavy tanks through closed terrains
3. We CAN however, have a well-armored, LIGHT tank that can be air-transportable en masse and maneuver through closed terrains especially if we conserve weight by not having a turret. Learn from the STUG.
I DO believe the Brits beat the germans to the tank. They built them in WWI as a "secret weapon" and called them tanks because they wanted to keep their project secret ("tank" referencing a water tank of some sort). The germans may have perfected the tank in WWII, but the Brits invented it in WWI.
sorry dynmicpara, love you on many things but gotta disagree with you on this one. What happend to mobility and 3D warfare ( mobility requires firing on move which this can not do) were you on drugs when you saw this thing? What happend to you.
ya know if they made the turret able to fold out of the vehicle and point and lock in to place they could of made a reasonable defensive artillery piece plus the ability to raise and lower and the turret sticking out the front is good too
ya know if they made the turret able to fold out of the vehicle and point and lock in to place they could of made a reasonable defensive artillery piece plus the ability to raise and lower and the turret sticking out the front is good too
ya know if they made the turret able to fold out of the vehicle and point and lock in to place they could of made a reasonable defensive artillery piece plus the ability to raise and lower and the turret sticking out the front is good too
Sweden uses the German Leopard 2 and Stridsfordon 90APC for offensives, this is strictly a defensive weapon only made with a low profile to further embed itself in the dense forests of northern Sweden in the event of a Soviet Invasion which it was a response to.
Why not ask the devolpers how they thought how this weapon should act when on attack- I seen some versions with 4or 2 7.6mm forwarpointing machine guns thou
The S tank is very good for what its made for. But I don't think it could compare to the M1. The S tank is good for stalking enemy units through forests and such but if your out in the open and on the move then you need to be in the M1. I wish we came up with our own tank like this.
Except it has to stop to fire, giving any other tank ample opportunity to blast it to bits. Also what exactly is its top off road speed, wiki only gives the one speed which is equal to the Abrams road speed.
Javelin ATGMs love the thin roofs of heavy tank turrets their shooters can detect to target even better than the turretless light tanks they cannot see...=0)
You make a very convincing arguement. We do need a paradroppable tank. But a M1A1 could outflank an S tank. Also a hull down tank is vulnerable to infantry attack airstrike and artillery. This video didn't present a very good idea of the targeting system and types of shells used either. A Javelin anti tank missile would love the flat roof of an S tank too.
Heavy tanks like the M1 will not be out-flanking ANY light tanks in closed terrains they cannot traverse. As they approach over open terrain they can be ambushed by the lighter tanks if the latter's weaponry is powerful enough. If you cannot detect a hull-down light tank, how will you know to air/infantry attack it? What if its own infantry and fighters don't let you if you do detect it?
no wonder the nation who still uses this class of weapon (which is actually a self-propelled gun/artillery/A-T, not a tank) is the one which didn't take part in WW2 battles :) no offence Sweden, but this is a musket in an assault rifle fight and all main military forces today use it only for long-range artillery :) it's inefficient at list because it can't shoot on the move, while for example T90 can even shoot while in a jump :)
Today's militaries generally, are getting their asses kicked because their light infantry has no light tanks with big cannon to accompany them into closed terrains where sub-national conflict foes hide.
However, you can have a VERY WELL ARMORED but still LIGHT tank under 20 tons.
If you insist on a turret you sacrifice armor protection and add height; if you want this don't whine if the result isn't as protected as a heavy tank when you squandered armor potential when a turretless gun is more than adequate for INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT and ambushing tanks from hide positions.
There are plenty of light tanks with turrets to choose from but the heavy tank duel egomaniacs whine that they are "not protrected enough" for their pussy selves.
Its supposed to run threw forest. Do you think a tower would help?
Btw, the tank is designed for ambushing ;) beacuse our commanders thought that the ruskies were our threat and that we would be outnumbered. So thats why we have this ambush tank ;) However, yes this tank wouldnt work anywear accept sweden (maybe other countrys like sweden but.. yeah you understand ;D )
YES, tanks should have an erectible tower/mast to stay hull-down but peer over terrain/vegetation as I proposed in U.S. Army ARMOR magazine in 1998...we are doing towers now overseas from static ISO shipping containers at FOBs but small ones should be organic to maneuvering tanks
Does not have to have a 360 degree revolving turret to be a tank. Turretless tanks are proven effective in urban, closed terrain combats as they can be SMALLER in overall size to fit in more places. News flash for you: a turretless tank can be better armored than one that loses efficiency with a turret; roofs can be very thick.
the importend thing is CAN be better armored. The TD in this Video seems to have nice armor in the front but the side and back are not armored very well. Anything that is not curved in a today tank is a weakspot. The shells (missiles) are very powerfull these days. The TD also load the ammo directly in the back inside . I guess the armor protection for this will not be more then 2 inches right?
the top of the tank is flat and for an RPG on a rooftop a piece of cake in urban battles.
What you going to do with that thing ? you could fire at a Challenger 2 all day and it still won't make a scatch on it, the Challenger 2 turret can do a 360 turn in 9 seconds and the gunner can lock onto a target and the commander can also lock onto another target, once the first one is fired the turret will move into the 2nd direction and fire straight away, a challenger 2 has NEVER been blown up.
No TURRETS! Look at the Georgian T-72s that were toasted at the turret/hull junction in the city of Tskhinvalli....
For INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT you are better off with a turretless STUG type tank, which can be very light in overall size and weight to fit into closed terrains but still be VERY WELL PROTECTED by not having turret silhouette/inefficiency.
Sweden had three choices when Strv103 where getting old and needed a replacement.
1: Upgrade Strv103.
2: Buy a foreign tank.
3: Build a new Swedish tank; This spawned a whole bunch of prototype vehicles and resulted in the final Strv2000 model with modular armor, a 140mm auto-loaded main gun (APFSDS only) against tanks, with a coaxial 40mm (as in CV90) for softer targets. Sadly it was far to costly to build, but it would have been a total beast, dominating any other tank on any battlefield.
this is an awsome tank but it will be vurneble being anti tank attacked from the back or the sides :( . so this is why this is an ambush/longrange tank, and that is why it can go no.1 on my list ^.^ + i saw the info about this vid and it turned out you are a good thinker :)
one of my relatives told me when they were testing the S tank in water, the canon struck a tree on the shore and the auto ejeckor open at the back and the tank sunk :)
STUGs were created BEFORE WW2 on light tank chassis(es) plural and served throughout WW2. They were the most successful tanks of the war, PERIOD. More Allied tanks were destroyed by STUGs than ANY OTHER tank. And this wasn't even their infantry fire support job!
good idea although I do think any future turretless tank would be pointless without a comprehensive camera system to enable the TC to see all around his tank and a CROWS type remote controlled .50cal mount so that it is not completely defenseless if someone somehow mamages to get behind or alongside it. otherwise it would be rather risky to use in urban combat.
The S-tank is an old tank. Late 60'ies I believe. So we're talking M-60, Chieftain generation. I think it was retired from service many years ago. Mainly cause they became worn out. And the fact that the very long and very high pressure, rifled gun with automatic loader could not fire the new APFSDS rounds, only APDS.
It traverses and aims its gun and 3 machineguns very well and combat infantry well enough. The real, and main disadvantage of turretless design is when fighting in built up areas.
It's not just low, that flat top is almost completely featureless, without camouflage it is hard to recognise it's a tank or just some pipe protruding from the ground.
The problem is much of tank warfare is done while firing and manoeuvring, this tank could easily get flanked. The s tank seems to be made with the tactic of holding ground and fighting defensively though many have said the best defense is an aggressive-offensive one where you set the pace of battle.
Btw this tank was made only to defend Sweden and ONLY Sweden during the cold war. So this is made for our climate and it is a tank DESTROYER and can carry infantry so it can defend itself with the MG on top and the infantry if they are ambushed.
What happens if the tank is ambushed by infantry from behind? It needs a rear-facing heavy machine gun that can be swiveled to cover the sides to deal with such scenarios.
if any tank is ambushed by infantry it is fucked if the attackers have any brains that is. The ambushers would surly use anti tank weapons. from which only infantry can defend.
Well, not often true. Iraqi infantry ambushed the 3rd ID (M) and couldn't stop them from reaching Baghdad....infantry can also be bypassed and ignored as Rommel often did...artillery can tear infantry on foot to shreds....we can go on and on...war is complex and we have to be exacting in our view of it...
I'm a not familiar with the context of the particular situation that you are talking about. do tell.
it is true that for infantry it will be quite an accomplishment to stop a tank battalion, not impossible but difficult.
A single tank that runs into a well coordinated ambushed by well trained and equipped infantry will have severe difficulties surviving, not impossible but very difficult and lucky for a tank to survive. (fucked might not have been the best choice of words)
I remember wanting to buy the 1/32 Tamiya model of this "tank" when I was a teenager. Now, as a middle-aged man, no doubt - when compared to this "tank" - I am a 21st Century "yuff"! Pfft!
Nice adaption of the L7 tank-gun. British artillery rules...!
This tank has not necessarily to be lighter.Getting rid of the turret you can put its armour on the front.The equivalent of the modern ply armour plates is between 500 and 900mm of monolit steel armour.This design allows a thicker armour to be applied without increasin the weight.
As Americaneagle pointed out, the S Tank is more of a sniper tank. Take up possition, fire of a few rounds, then relocate before any serious return fire can be brought to bear. And it´s very good at it too.
As for updating it... Smack on some CHOBHAM (the new english armor) a modern gun and fire/control electronics and this would still make a very nasty tank. I mean look at the front. There is no way you will kill it with a front shot, and 9 times out of 10, the front is what you see.
Ah, this shows that if people have a need, there's a way. This was such a perfect weapon for Swedish terrain and with Swedish tactics behind it, that nobody else wanted it. That was probably one of the reasons it wasn't upgraded into the 90's.
The only problem i see is that an M-kill would disable it's weapon's ability as well. That's one advantage a turretless tank will never be able to have. It would probly be best at defense, from what I see.
sorry im going to bed, too tired to watch the rest of this vid.. but isnt this the one where the stance is controlled by hydraulics and that is also how you elevate the barrel??
In addition to my first post here I'd like to add other improvements I think this tank could have. A two man crew only would free up needed space for more rounds or a bigger gun, say a 120mm. This with modern guidance systems would bring it up in firepower on par with the heavy tanks like Leopard 2, but the weak armor will need some strengthening, if possible. Still, a modern version like this would be a very good defensive tank that would also work well thogether with turreted ones.
I'm not a military educated person but I have always thought the little S-tank was a very good idea, especially for ambushes and breaking down armour attacks. I noticed the Swedish army chose Leopard 2 instead of upgrading the old S-103. I guess it's much cheaper to buy a good one from the shelf than take on a huge project of uprading this to modern standard. Still, I think western countries should take up this idea and look at it again. With modern computers it would reinvent it completely.
Some people just don't get it. You do. LIGHT tanks can go through closed terrain and fly by aircraft that heavier ones cannot do. This light units on foot or wheeled trucks failure crap must end by equipping them with LIGHT tanks, when you have to be under 20 tons saving weight by not having a turret means more weight possible for armor.
ah, our old strv 103 or "s" tank. A beauty but is also retired now. It was a really good tank that was good at it's job.
I can understand move and fire support systems, but try to move fast with your turret to the side in a heavy forest. Even if you can, you will always point your side armor to the S tanks frontal armor (or the gun if you want) If we would update the S to modern Swedish standards, I think it could rather easy bring down an Abram, challenger or T-90.
Most NATO officials were never impressed by the S. It wasn't good enough. I agree that heavier AFVs deliver more limitations when it comes to air deployment. However, maybe it'll be possible to combine the best characteristics of turreted and non-turreted vehicles in one system. Russia is currently trialling the T95 which is lighter and faster than heavier AFVs and which features a non-crewed smaller turret/mount w/ an improved autoloader. Let's see how it handles...
Whoppertanktards are in every Army they want to fight from invincible heavy tanks and don't care that they cannot traverse closed terrains it gives them an excuse to sit in the motor pool and not go to war. This is why competent armies have cavalry units with some clout to get the light tanks they need to fight in closed terrains where foes like to hide in.
"they persist in huge turrets on top that are going to continue to cause them to get incinerated(...)get rid of turret!"
There are reasons to still use turrets, such as the ability to acquire side targets on the move. Anyway, maybe one option will be to use a smaller non-crewed turret or mount (like in the T95 prototype).
If the turret makes you too heavy to traverse closed terrains, it has to go. Incompetent, whoppertanktards refuse to face the realities of earth closed terrain types demand light tanks and hard choices have to be made to get this lightness. They want their cake and eat it, too.
"American whoppertanktards who want only turreted heavy turreted tracks to be known as tanks"
In English-speaking countries, "tank" is also trivially used to refer to any "armoured". If some countries decide to adopt their own terms, that's up to them. The used words many times are mostly defined by linguistic qualities than by any other thing. In fact, both "tank" and "panzer" are completely incorrect in countries which adopted other official designations such as "fight car" or "combat car".
WHAT THE F!? A LIGHT TANK!!! I TOUGHT IT WAS A MEDIUM TANK!!! wen i saw this tank the first tank i tought it was a tank destroyer but it wasent!! its a tank!!!!
dar260 10 months ago 3
so they simply removed the lower part of the tank and re-designed the turret to be the ENTIRE tank. Genius... Sounds a bit awkward must say, but sounds like a nice piece of equipment
asusp3v4x 1 year ago
Dear santa...
Suomipanzerdiv13 1 year ago 5
damn thats pretty baddass tank
instantjizz 1 year ago
was it 16 years since this was taken out of service?
rabies79 1 year ago
Is it a better tank than T-80 or M1 Abrams? No its not. But It was tailor made to fill a specific role in the swedish defence, and in that role it was and still is the best tank in the world.
And comparing it to the M1 Abrams is kinda irrelevant because its a much more modern tank. You should compare it to the M60 Patton or the Chieftain tank.
Sarkelk 1 year ago 35
@Sarkelk NO, the S-Tank as a LIGHT TANK is a better tank for Airborne/SOF/Cavalry /Infantry Fire support missions than a T-80 medium or a M1 Abrams heavy tank THAT CANNOT GET TO THE FIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. You are making the common mistake of looking at everything like a technological gadget contest via the false yardstick of man's numbering of time instead of first by FUNCTION. Newer isn't better if its idiots making crap recently--look at wheeled LAV/Strykers trucks for example.
dynmicpara 1 year ago 16
it is a gun on wheels !
filipgrimhage 1 year ago
@filipgrimhage gun on TRACKS...
dynmicpara 1 year ago 44
You can haggle over the definitions, but a turret does have a very valid function. The S tank is good for ambush; not very good in offensive (as were the StuGs and other turretless German designs).
And the T-34 was the most successful tank design of the war. It left a very lasting impression in post-war designs, and was actually used until the '90s.
spongya77 1 year ago
@spongya77 when idiots in the U.S. Army do not understand what a TANK is, and that they can be light, medium or heavy it's not mere "haggling". Go to our M113 Gavin web page and you'll see a STUG with a super-elevating gun that would be great for hilly/mountainous Afghanistan.
dynmicpara 1 year ago 4
@spongya77 The S tank was made for Swedih forests, since it has no turret, it can go between the trees without any problem
PHILLE564 8 months ago
VERY COOOL ARMOUR!!!
BERLIN1945MAY 1 year ago
To further your point, WWII tank ace Michael Wittmann first used a StuG III on the eastern front, getting 13 kills against the technically superior T34 in ONE DAY. Since a fixed-gun tank always turns its thickest armor towards the enemy, it is harder to penetrate. He later used the same tactics in his Tiger tank on the western front, turning the entire tank rather than the turret, and scoring at least 13 kills in 15 MINUTES.
frankkrunk 1 year ago
@frankkrunk He also sank a soviet ship with his StuG on one occasion.
DasFuhrerinagstring 1 year ago
The S tank was replaced with the strv90 i think. Iam definitely not sure about this however.
oherregud 2 years ago
I remember watching our sister coy clean these. They were thankfull there wasn't a turret.
Stonerhair 2 years ago 2
Wow thats actually a beutiful tank, as an American i cannot say if it is better than a M1, and personally dont give a shit bc America and Sweden will never be at war with eachother. This tank def has some advantages over any other tank as well as disdvantages, as long as it gets the job done. nice vid though, thank you
SaLTLiFe4TL 2 years ago 68
@SaLTLiFe4TL
Finaly someone who don't se war where ever they look and i agree Sweden and Amerika will never go to war with eachother.
The coolnes of our two countries would destroy the world as we know it
MrDrakir 1 year ago 5
I think, since most of the tanks in European armories are aging slowly, something like this should be designed as a sort of intermediate solution. Of course with, say, 135mm gun and seriously heavy armor + some ATGMs.
vgotnofingers 2 years ago
jeez and to think the first stug was invented by the germans in ww2 fuck is there ANY wepon systems in use today that are not derived from them lol :>
fred9za 2 years ago 8
A really serious disadvantage of the S-Tank was the inability to fire effectively on the move, something the M-1 can do with great accuracy and effect. It did have some great features, though.
What have the Swedes replaced it with, then?
And as for the S-Tank defeating an M1A1 or A2, It well may be that the 105 may not penetrate the frontal armor. A lot would depend on the situation at hand.
the US tested one of these at Knox, unknown what the conlusions were.
YEP321S 2 years ago
A turret-mounted gun can be stabilized to fire-on-the-move.
Fort Knox hides truths that contradict their BS; in this case that turretless tanks can defeat their bloated 30-ton turret M1 70-ton heavy tanks.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
@YEP321S 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. It 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
this is seriously the coolest tank ever made, im proud to be a swede when I see these magnificant tanks ^^
gruffgruff92 2 years ago
No possibility to fire on the move makes out of Strv 103 a very bad tank in offensive operations. Nevertheless it is lethal in defense roles, the task for which it was projected
LokiG36 2 years ago
A turret-mounted gun can be stabilized to fire-on-the-move.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
lol. "small obsticals" breaks down a tree
whipid 2 years ago 4
i just clicked on this and it is kinda cool
pjtesar101 2 years ago
I do belivie this an ambush tank designd to fight against the Russians.
GodHatesWar 2 years ago 9
We could use them well today to blast enemy foot troops hiding in thick Afghan mud wall villages, Iraqi cinder block buildings etc.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
stug tank and others similar designs long life4 ever!
Runetatti 2 years ago
sniping tank
AgEnT22OrAnGe 2 years ago
Hmm , never seen this weapon before . We ll se it in action
TeamVirility 2 years ago
It's a damn shame Sverige phased out the S. For a defensive war in forested terrain it has no equal.......but I heard that aging hydraulic systems were breaking down en masse. I'd sell my soul to have a de-mil S to romp around in!
rattinox 2 years ago 2
Well, I guess that in a real forest war howitzers, light tanks and handheld anti-tank missiles are what would be of most use.
ostbagen 2 years ago
you kidding, howitzer 1's are pretty outdated, and you couldn't fire artillery from a forest :\
popman638isthebest 2 years ago
Nice self-propelled anti-tank gun ya got there! lol!
LancerPI 2 years ago
A TRACKED SP AT gun is a type of TANK.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Nice self-propelled anti-tank gun ya got there! LOL!
LancerPI 2 years ago
See reply above. Its a TANK.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
tank destroyer :)
morgorth3242 2 years ago 5
Still a tank.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
The s-tank is one of my favorite tanks.
However, It has two problems.
Because the main gun has zero deflection, It is impossible to fire accurately on the move, a huge draw back. A solution would be too give the gun about 20 degrees of deflection.
Another problem is its HUGE frontal hull overhang, which will get it stuck in ditches and trenches. Extending the track may alleviate this.
slipfirep40 2 years ago 2
One last FACT; the U.S. has the capability to airdrop things weighing up to 30 tons (60, 000 pounds) plenty of capability to drop a LIGHT tank of under 40, 000 pounds
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Logistically, fuel would be a major issue. Aside from that, even if you could airdrop it, how many could you fit onto a c130? What kind of combat power are you losing by dropping 1 of these as opposed to a platoon of airborne infantry?
SantaClaws488 2 years ago
You can fit one up-to-20-ton light tank and 9 infantry in a C-130 versus 64 dismounted infantry victims. 9 men with a light tank with cross-country, amphibious 60 mph mobility, armor protection and heavy firepower are far more combat power than 64 men on foot with mere hand weapons--exposed to everything and only able to foot-slog at 1-4 mph at best.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Fuel is NOT a problem; when light infantry narcissists want to ride in Humvee/Stryker trucks with 10/3 mpg they don't say jack shit about fuel; when a tactically sound light tracked tank with hybrid-electric drive and 7 mpg fuel economy to include solar panel emergency power options you hear nothing from them because its not about LOGISTICS its about their weak egos grasping for some excuse--any excuse not to be in a track they think is connected to the "mech pussies" they look down on
dynmicpara 2 years ago
this tank is exelent in swedis forest.. the s-tank is werry smart think wen you look on the ground wer the swedis need to ficht in the forsts and a turret cant swing around..
KRAJISNIK21 2 years ago 3
Low profile may be better if attacked from the ground...from the air though, it just doesn't matter.
61804shill 2 years ago 2
Lower profile helps in avoiding air detection; it DOES matter
dynmicpara 2 years ago
-can u please dig me some lake?
-ye sure! w8 ill go get my tank redy to work.
ddejau 2 years ago 2
i think the russian military saw this video too
cesarlopezrojas 2 years ago 2
Nice small city tank. Good for shopping.
anpaza 2 years ago 4
cool:)
granskare 2 years ago
самоходка если получит попадание в ходовую часть . становиться недвижимой мишенью
vlad9vt 2 years ago
The whole point of having no turret is so the ENTIRE chassis can be defilade (hull-down) and NOT BE HIT in the first place.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Love this tank but its entire body has to turn b4 it can fire.
Laranzava 2 years ago
This is a far better setback than having a high turret that gets you seen, hit at its weak spot and exploded
dynmicpara 2 years ago
i'm unfamiliar with this tank so please tell me, is the Armour, shock deflecting, absorbing or spreading, i am also a tank enthusiast, i like the panzer IIII (or tiger tank) but now i am starting to like turret-less ones , thank you for sharing this video
popman638isthebest 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
dynmicpara 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929BCD
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Military forces differentiate armoured vehicles by role. All M113s in German army service are not called minenwerferpanzers. The minenwerferpanzer 64 is simply a mortar carrying variant of the M113. The STUG was considered an assault gun by the Wermacht even though it was used in an anti tank role and was quite effective in static defense or ambush but was less valuable in maneuver warfare.
pacific1waters9 2 years ago
FALSE. The point is the Germans call ANYTHING that is TRACKED and ARMORED a "Panzer" (tank) so they keep a grip on functional reality. Of course there are different TYPES of TANKS (Panzers).
dynmicpara 2 years ago
looks cool, but i'll take my M1 Abrams any day, cause if these two things ever fought, the guys in this would be dead before they knew what hit them. (or could turn.)
AdmaralNimitz 2 years ago
FALSE.
Turretless tanks regularly beat turreted heavier tanks in WW2 and the "S" tank against modern stabilized turreted tanks. Smart armies would have some turretless tanks but fortunately most armies don't fight and can engage in feel-good fantasies at taxpayer expense rather than be efficient.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
STUG was used in early WWII and the abram was makde in the 1990's big diferance in tecnolagy and abrams are shit.
ozzyguy67 2 years ago
it'l still kill you though dude
jamesthq 2 years ago
1. We can't fly and parachute drop Leopard or any other heavy tanks...too heavy
2. We cannot maneuver heavy tanks through closed terrains
3. We CAN however, have a well-armored, LIGHT tank that can be air-transportable en masse and maneuver through closed terrains especially if we conserve weight by not having a turret. Learn from the STUG.
5/5 just for that.
radovest 2 years ago 3
I DO believe the Brits beat the germans to the tank. They built them in WWI as a "secret weapon" and called them tanks because they wanted to keep their project secret ("tank" referencing a water tank of some sort). The germans may have perfected the tank in WWII, but the Brits invented it in WWI.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
No one disputes that the British invented the tank. Our point is that you don't need a turret to be a "tank".
dynmicpara 2 years ago
sorry dynmicpara, love you on many things but gotta disagree with you on this one. What happend to mobility and 3D warfare ( mobility requires firing on move which this can not do) were you on drugs when you saw this thing? What happend to you.
ihateforigners 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
Saving WEIGHT by being TURRETLESS enabled 3D warfare mobility...
dynmicpara 2 years ago
ya know if they made the turret able to fold out of the vehicle and point and lock in to place they could of made a reasonable defensive artillery piece plus the ability to raise and lower and the turret sticking out the front is good too
jfhgksjdhfk 2 years ago
ya know if they made the turret able to fold out of the vehicle and point and lock in to place they could of made a reasonable defensive artillery piece plus the ability to raise and lower and the turret sticking out the front is good too
jfhgksjdhfk 2 years ago
ya know if they made the turret able to fold out of the vehicle and point and lock in to place they could of made a reasonable defensive artillery piece plus the ability to raise and lower and the turret sticking out the front is good too
jfhgksjdhfk 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
dynmicpara 2 years ago
The tank is long since obsolete. Ment to be used in ambushes not on an open battlefield.
Noirgrim 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
We need them today.
dynmicpara 2 years ago
good for ambushes and for defensive purposes but could someone enlighten me on it's ability to create a useful offensive?
sanchezman1494 3 years ago 2
why ? it was only ment as an defensive weapon
DarthPulven 3 years ago 10
Sweden uses the German Leopard 2 and Stridsfordon 90APC for offensives, this is strictly a defensive weapon only made with a low profile to further embed itself in the dense forests of northern Sweden in the event of a Soviet Invasion which it was a response to.
Warrantofficer13 2 years ago 4
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Why not ask the devolpers how they thought how this weapon should act when on attack- I seen some versions with 4or 2 7.6mm forwarpointing machine guns thou
Qulopuaa 2 years ago
Now that is a cool tank!
MQnoob 3 years ago 7
The S tank is very good for what its made for. But I don't think it could compare to the M1. The S tank is good for stalking enemy units through forests and such but if your out in the open and on the move then you need to be in the M1. I wish we came up with our own tank like this.
DEFORCER 3 years ago 2
It seems the requirement of stopping in order to engage a target would be a critical disadvantage. Cool looking, though!
ataramprat 3 years ago 6
Even with modern stabilizers and targeting systems, tanks rarely shoot while moving.
chrthiel 2 years ago
M1a2 is a powerfull tank but really slow and heavy compared to this 1 this tank luks light and fast.
ukraina95 3 years ago
Except it has to stop to fire, giving any other tank ample opportunity to blast it to bits. Also what exactly is its top off road speed, wiki only gives the one speed which is equal to the Abrams road speed.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Slow? 75 Km/h is slow? It's the best tank in the whole world. It has proven it's power in Iraq.
SgtKanyo 2 years ago
STUGS! Rule
view_play_list?p=9009D1B2E5929 BCD
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Javelin ATGMs love the thin roofs of heavy tank turrets their shooters can detect to target even better than the turretless light tanks they cannot see...=0)
dynmicpara 3 years ago
You make a very convincing arguement. We do need a paradroppable tank. But a M1A1 could outflank an S tank. Also a hull down tank is vulnerable to infantry attack airstrike and artillery. This video didn't present a very good idea of the targeting system and types of shells used either. A Javelin anti tank missile would love the flat roof of an S tank too.
NoFx090 3 years ago 2
Heavy tanks like the M1 will not be out-flanking ANY light tanks in closed terrains they cannot traverse. As they approach over open terrain they can be ambushed by the lighter tanks if the latter's weaponry is powerful enough. If you cannot detect a hull-down light tank, how will you know to air/infantry attack it? What if its own infantry and fighters don't let you if you do detect it?
dynmicpara 3 years ago
Smack one of Bofors new remotely operated "mini-turrets" (Think CROW, just armoured) on top of it and your infantry problem should go away.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Air recon using drones..
Shinobubu 2 years ago
Air recon using HUMANS + sensors is far better than drones (UAVs).
dynmicpara 2 years ago
Its not been used in the Swedish army for about 20 Years. -,-
This tank was a defensive weapon, to kill the russians invaders.
It would dig a hole in the ground, and wait there until the russians arrived.
It makes a pritty small target whit only the gun barrel sticking up.
sportexit 3 years ago 51
no wonder the nation who still uses this class of weapon (which is actually a self-propelled gun/artillery/A-T, not a tank) is the one which didn't take part in WW2 battles :) no offence Sweden, but this is a musket in an assault rifle fight and all main military forces today use it only for long-range artillery :) it's inefficient at list because it can't shoot on the move, while for example T90 can even shoot while in a jump :)
Mocsk 3 years ago
Today's militaries generally, are getting their asses kicked because their light infantry has no light tanks with big cannon to accompany them into closed terrains where sub-national conflict foes hide.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
However, you can have a VERY WELL ARMORED but still LIGHT tank under 20 tons.
If you insist on a turret you sacrifice armor protection and add height; if you want this don't whine if the result isn't as protected as a heavy tank when you squandered armor potential when a turretless gun is more than adequate for INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT and ambushing tanks from hide positions.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
There are plenty of light tanks with turrets to choose from but the heavy tank duel egomaniacs whine that they are "not protrected enough" for their pussy selves.
Imagine that self-fulfilling prophecy.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
It was retired several years ago!
The swedish army mainly operates the Leopard II and the light combatvehicle 90 in different versions.
Sthlm001 3 years ago
Its supposed to run threw forest. Do you think a tower would help?
Btw, the tank is designed for ambushing ;) beacuse our commanders thought that the ruskies were our threat and that we would be outnumbered. So thats why we have this ambush tank ;) However, yes this tank wouldnt work anywear accept sweden (maybe other countrys like sweden but.. yeah you understand ;D )
Mille92swe 3 years ago 4
YES, tanks should have an erectible tower/mast to stay hull-down but peer over terrain/vegetation as I proposed in U.S. Army ARMOR magazine in 1998...we are doing towers now overseas from static ISO shipping containers at FOBs but small ones should be organic to maneuvering tanks
dynmicpara 3 years ago
nice video.
In open land battles it will have an advantage but in Urban warfare its pretty useless.
the top armor is about 1-2 inches right?
that means a Javalin or a RPG from a high position would easyly destroy the tank.
None the less. Its a good design. But its not a tank its primarily a Tank destroyer
canuma100 3 years ago
ANYTHING that is TRACKED and ARMORED is a TANK.
Does not have to have a 360 degree revolving turret to be a tank. Turretless tanks are proven effective in urban, closed terrain combats as they can be SMALLER in overall size to fit in more places. News flash for you: a turretless tank can be better armored than one that loses efficiency with a turret; roofs can be very thick.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
the importend thing is CAN be better armored. The TD in this Video seems to have nice armor in the front but the side and back are not armored very well. Anything that is not curved in a today tank is a weakspot. The shells (missiles) are very powerfull these days. The TD also load the ammo directly in the back inside . I guess the armor protection for this will not be more then 2 inches right?
the top of the tank is flat and for an RPG on a rooftop a piece of cake in urban battles.
canuma100 3 years ago
is that realy swedish? I am swedish and i have never heard or seen this type. heh must bee brand new
guyonfire87 3 years ago
What about precision aiming and shooting on the move? Not important anymore?
fucrate 3 years ago
Shooting-on-the-move is not needed for INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT and tank destroying from ambush positions. War is more than tank duels.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
What you going to do with that thing ? you could fire at a Challenger 2 all day and it still won't make a scatch on it, the Challenger 2 turret can do a 360 turn in 9 seconds and the gunner can lock onto a target and the commander can also lock onto another target, once the first one is fired the turret will move into the 2nd direction and fire straight away, a challenger 2 has NEVER been blown up.
Villa4EverNo1 3 years ago
Challenger 2 is too heavy to be C-130 air-transportable and is not CLOSED TERRAIN mobile. Where are the Challenger 2s in Afghanistan for example?
A turretless LIGHT TANK that can show up to the cLOSED TERRAIN fight beats a heavy tank that is AWOL and cannot attend.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
lol @ The internal layout thou futuristic in appearance
paronfisk 3 years ago
Cool it moves up and down :D
raccoonmatinginyour 3 years ago
wtf is that?!
1MrTrap1 3 years ago
its a s tank like it says in the id :)
tomyverce4 3 years ago 2
i have seen it for real :P
adam939393 3 years ago
The gun was state of the art and whith brutal range and accuracy for that time....
SgtDrDeath 3 years ago 3
omg soooooooooooooooo cool
metalfan988 3 years ago
No TURRETS! Look at the Georgian T-72s that were toasted at the turret/hull junction in the city of Tskhinvalli....
For INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT you are better off with a turretless STUG type tank, which can be very light in overall size and weight to fit into closed terrains but still be VERY WELL PROTECTED by not having turret silhouette/inefficiency.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
Video showing T-72s being toasted at turret/hull junction:
watch?v=W6nOCK-Dgzo
8:20 into the video
dynmicpara 3 years ago
I want one.
CaptSmokey 3 years ago
the turret ?
laquevilla 3 years ago
Sweden had three choices when Strv103 where getting old and needed a replacement.
1: Upgrade Strv103.
2: Buy a foreign tank.
3: Build a new Swedish tank; This spawned a whole bunch of prototype vehicles and resulted in the final Strv2000 model with modular armor, a 140mm auto-loaded main gun (APFSDS only) against tanks, with a coaxial 40mm (as in CV90) for softer targets. Sadly it was far to costly to build, but it would have been a total beast, dominating any other tank on any battlefield.
Scurck 3 years ago 3
this is an awsome tank but it will be vurneble being anti tank attacked from the back or the sides :( . so this is why this is an ambush/longrange tank, and that is why it can go no.1 on my list ^.^ + i saw the info about this vid and it turned out you are a good thinker :)
Tarik360 3 years ago
one of my relatives told me when they were testing the S tank in water, the canon struck a tree on the shore and the auto ejeckor open at the back and the tank sunk :)
herrgurgel 3 years ago
man i read the info and it turned out that you are a good thinker and strategic person. :) and plus you learned me alot of tanks this day! thanks.
Tarik360 3 years ago
Fantastic design!
GordonofSeattle 3 years ago
very cool
teckim 3 years ago
Cool video. The germans had a few tank designs like this. Not sure if germans went this light though.
tbmore59 3 years ago
German turretless STUGs were even lighter tanks than the "S" tank.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
I'm surprised by that. It's been a while since i visited tanks....Was there 3 versions of a fixed gun in a King-Tiger class or just 2and the STUG?
tbmore59 3 years ago
STUGs were created BEFORE WW2 on light tank chassis(es) plural and served throughout WW2. They were the most successful tanks of the war, PERIOD. More Allied tanks were destroyed by STUGs than ANY OTHER tank. And this wasn't even their infantry fire support job!
dynmicpara 3 years ago
With the 7,8 variants that covers every field choice. What was the STUG mostly combined with? There seems to be very little footage of this.
tbmore59 3 years ago
good idea although I do think any future turretless tank would be pointless without a comprehensive camera system to enable the TC to see all around his tank and a CROWS type remote controlled .50cal mount so that it is not completely defenseless if someone somehow mamages to get behind or alongside it. otherwise it would be rather risky to use in urban combat.
gadget445 3 years ago
The S-tank is an old tank. Late 60'ies I believe. So we're talking M-60, Chieftain generation. I think it was retired from service many years ago. Mainly cause they became worn out. And the fact that the very long and very high pressure, rifled gun with automatic loader could not fire the new APFSDS rounds, only APDS.
It traverses and aims its gun and 3 machineguns very well and combat infantry well enough. The real, and main disadvantage of turretless design is when fighting in built up areas.
Vermiliontea 3 years ago 3
It's not just low, that flat top is almost completely featureless, without camouflage it is hard to recognise it's a tank or just some pipe protruding from the ground.
The problem is much of tank warfare is done while firing and manoeuvring, this tank could easily get flanked. The s tank seems to be made with the tactic of holding ground and fighting defensively though many have said the best defense is an aggressive-offensive one where you set the pace of battle.
Treblaine 3 years ago
the Swedes always make great stuff.
testbooster 3 years ago 7
at 2:00 uses cromwell/crusader wheels
lainey500 3 years ago
thats what we germans call a "jagdpanzer" so tank hunter wich of curse is a tank. but not a battle tank. its good to destroy tanks but not infantry
heavyaxe2 3 years ago
StuG (STUrmGeschütz) or StuH (STUrmHaubitze)
1bis10kackengehn 3 years ago
Btw this tank was made only to defend Sweden and ONLY Sweden during the cold war. So this is made for our climate and it is a tank DESTROYER and can carry infantry so it can defend itself with the MG on top and the infantry if they are ambushed.
MrSchweden 3 years ago
Strv103 did not carry infantry...
Scurck 3 years ago
what an intelligent war machine its such a cool tank stupid americans dont know what a fuckin tank is
Luigithemushroomhate 3 years ago
You said good to know that we can do something good in the army...
MrSchweden 3 years ago
What happens if the tank is ambushed by infantry from behind? It needs a rear-facing heavy machine gun that can be swiveled to cover the sides to deal with such scenarios.
InfiniteMushroom 3 years ago
That's what the roof-mounted machine gun is for. Also tanks should carry their own infantry for close-in and closed terrain protection.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
if any tank is ambushed by infantry it is fucked if the attackers have any brains that is. The ambushers would surly use anti tank weapons. from which only infantry can defend.
Crazylalalalala 3 years ago
Well, not often true. Iraqi infantry ambushed the 3rd ID (M) and couldn't stop them from reaching Baghdad....infantry can also be bypassed and ignored as Rommel often did...artillery can tear infantry on foot to shreds....we can go on and on...war is complex and we have to be exacting in our view of it...
dynmicpara 3 years ago
I'm a not familiar with the context of the particular situation that you are talking about. do tell.
it is true that for infantry it will be quite an accomplishment to stop a tank battalion, not impossible but difficult.
A single tank that runs into a well coordinated ambushed by well trained and equipped infantry will have severe difficulties surviving, not impossible but very difficult and lucky for a tank to survive. (fucked might not have been the best choice of words)
Crazylalalalala 3 years ago
Great video and all but how old is it??
Noxy4pres 3 years ago
it's an intressting concept but you can't drive and shot on the same time without a turret.
Now the swedish use the Lopard 2
and by the way no one use L7 anymore
almost every nato tank use the german 120mm gun. German artillery rules! :P
durchdiemitte 3 years ago 3
Check out the XM360 much better than any german artillery 120mm 12km standing 8km on the move
DANIAC262 3 years ago
Geesh,
I remember wanting to buy the 1/32 Tamiya model of this "tank" when I was a teenager. Now, as a middle-aged man, no doubt - when compared to this "tank" - I am a 21st Century "yuff"! Pfft!
Nice adaption of the L7 tank-gun. British artillery rules...!
fluffythoughts 3 years ago
I think turreted heavy/medium tanks have their use in armies but it's also really good to be supported by a force of lighter tanks.
I think this tank design (the"S"/STUG tanks) is brilliant and I agree that it should be adopted.
Diversity and simplicity (and also technology :P ) is good and they should look into making a modern version of this tank.
seltjorn 3 years ago
This tank has not necessarily to be lighter.Getting rid of the turret you can put its armour on the front.The equivalent of the modern ply armour plates is between 500 and 900mm of monolit steel armour.This design allows a thicker armour to be applied without increasin the weight.
fener4e 3 years ago
As Americaneagle pointed out, the S Tank is more of a sniper tank. Take up possition, fire of a few rounds, then relocate before any serious return fire can be brought to bear. And it´s very good at it too.
As for updating it... Smack on some CHOBHAM (the new english armor) a modern gun and fire/control electronics and this would still make a very nasty tank. I mean look at the front. There is no way you will kill it with a front shot, and 9 times out of 10, the front is what you see.
BigSwede7403 3 years ago
Ah, this shows that if people have a need, there's a way. This was such a perfect weapon for Swedish terrain and with Swedish tactics behind it, that nobody else wanted it. That was probably one of the reasons it wasn't upgraded into the 90's.
KimKhan 3 years ago
hi-tech animations! XD
tuttvearmare 3 years ago
The only problem i see is that an M-kill would disable it's weapon's ability as well. That's one advantage a turretless tank will never be able to have. It would probly be best at defense, from what I see.
A squad of Merkavas against these? A bit iffy.
luckyhat4 3 years ago
It was a state of the art system and designed for one task; to defend nort of sweden from a russian invartion of T72s.
In trials in Germany UK army) during the 70s 10 S-tanks killed 72 Cheiftain tanks without any loss (combat exercise).
SgtDrDeath 3 years ago
sorry im going to bed, too tired to watch the rest of this vid.. but isnt this the one where the stance is controlled by hydraulics and that is also how you elevate the barrel??
mikeeed 3 years ago
The tankers near 3:50 of the video, look like characters from space balls.
Lilacsspriter 3 years ago
In addition to my first post here I'd like to add other improvements I think this tank could have. A two man crew only would free up needed space for more rounds or a bigger gun, say a 120mm. This with modern guidance systems would bring it up in firepower on par with the heavy tanks like Leopard 2, but the weak armor will need some strengthening, if possible. Still, a modern version like this would be a very good defensive tank that would also work well thogether with turreted ones.
wsteffen 3 years ago 4
I'm not a military educated person but I have always thought the little S-tank was a very good idea, especially for ambushes and breaking down armour attacks. I noticed the Swedish army chose Leopard 2 instead of upgrading the old S-103. I guess it's much cheaper to buy a good one from the shelf than take on a huge project of uprading this to modern standard. Still, I think western countries should take up this idea and look at it again. With modern computers it would reinvent it completely.
wsteffen 3 years ago 4
Some people just don't get it. You do. LIGHT tanks can go through closed terrain and fly by aircraft that heavier ones cannot do. This light units on foot or wheeled trucks failure crap must end by equipping them with LIGHT tanks, when you have to be under 20 tons saving weight by not having a turret means more weight possible for armor.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
ah, our old strv 103 or "s" tank. A beauty but is also retired now. It was a really good tank that was good at it's job.
I can understand move and fire support systems, but try to move fast with your turret to the side in a heavy forest. Even if you can, you will always point your side armor to the S tanks frontal armor (or the gun if you want) If we would update the S to modern Swedish standards, I think it could rather easy bring down an Abram, challenger or T-90.
Awesome video man
quaci 3 years ago 2
Old german ww2 technology made better.
spitfiremark14 3 years ago 3
"USArmy should buy(...)S"
Most NATO officials were never impressed by the S. It wasn't good enough. I agree that heavier AFVs deliver more limitations when it comes to air deployment. However, maybe it'll be possible to combine the best characteristics of turreted and non-turreted vehicles in one system. Russia is currently trialling the T95 which is lighter and faster than heavier AFVs and which features a non-crewed smaller turret/mount w/ an improved autoloader. Let's see how it handles...
MdP2 3 years ago
Whoppertanktards are in every Army they want to fight from invincible heavy tanks and don't care that they cannot traverse closed terrains it gives them an excuse to sit in the motor pool and not go to war. This is why competent armies have cavalry units with some clout to get the light tanks they need to fight in closed terrains where foes like to hide in.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
"they persist in huge turrets on top that are going to continue to cause them to get incinerated(...)get rid of turret!"
There are reasons to still use turrets, such as the ability to acquire side targets on the move. Anyway, maybe one option will be to use a smaller non-crewed turret or mount (like in the T95 prototype).
MdP2 3 years ago
If the turret makes you too heavy to traverse closed terrains, it has to go. Incompetent, whoppertanktards refuse to face the realities of earth closed terrain types demand light tanks and hard choices have to be made to get this lightness. They want their cake and eat it, too.
dynmicpara 3 years ago
"American whoppertanktards who want only turreted heavy turreted tracks to be known as tanks"
In English-speaking countries, "tank" is also trivially used to refer to any "armoured". If some countries decide to adopt their own terms, that's up to them. The used words many times are mostly defined by linguistic qualities than by any other thing. In fact, both "tank" and "panzer" are completely incorrect in countries which adopted other official designations such as "fight car" or "combat car".
MdP2 3 years ago