S tank greatest ever

[86celtics]

Interesting how a tank with ZERO combat history is called a "greatest ever" and even ranks higher than real war winners.

[shinjiprofile]

@peepeevagi if your a tank commander and invade Sweden and see this tank lower than your turret I mean the terrain their is perfect combo for the s tank and i bet you'll shit your self in the line of fire on one of this...And dude im not even Swedish but i can tell it has all the advantage in terms of terrain that's why it the no.6 spot for the greatest ever tank that even beats the abrams at no 8

[EloTheMan1]

Soviet simply realized that the S-Tank would cost them to much if they invaded Sweden.

[peepeevagi]

@EloTheMan1 Because the S-tank gives any protection from anti tank missiles.

Russians will fire at a range greater than the S103's gun is capable of. The only other tank that can beat russians at the range game is the M1 abrams, and thats just because of electronics :U

The soviets never invaded sweden because they were sure they'd surrender xD

[EloTheMan1]

@peepeevagi Have you ever been in Sweden? these tanks operates in Swedish terrain and this terrain does not allow for a lot of long range combat.

We got a lot of small mountains and the forests here are very thick = excellent cover and camouflage. The movement of ground vehicles are very limited which means the use of roads is inevitable = perfect ambush situation.

With the terrain on our side and all resources spent on this tank why would we surrender at the first sign of an invasion?

[peepeevagi]

@EloTheMan1 Because the S tank has no real advantage over regular MBT's. Hence why the swedes switched over to the leopard. It's only advantage is it's low height compared to other tanks, but even then it's only like, what, 3 inches lower than a T72? Besides, The Leopard II can do whatever the S103 can if it goes hull down, making the S103 kinda useless.

It's cool, and the perfect example of a tank built for a too specific purpose.

[EloTheMan1]

@peepeevagi We changed tanks because the S103 was outdated, and I have never heard or read about Leopard 2 going amphibious unless it has an external floating attachment which gives it a minor tactical disadvantage.

All tanks got their pros and cons, and the S103 Pros is that it can halt an invasion in our woods. the T72 got above average firepower etc.

The only thing I am trying to say here is that the S103 WAS a superior defense weapon. And stop comparing old and new tanks, L2 vs S103 wtf??

[peepeevagi]

@EloTheMan1 It's amphibious? O.o Had no idea lol.

And yeah i guess you got a point. The S tank is a design of a bygone era xD. And a superior defensive weapon, sure. But beyond that it's no more than a mobile pillbox. I'd take an M60A2 over an S-103C Any day.

I wouldn't try to go up against S-103D's though. It's not fair with those upgrades lol.

[EloTheMan1]

@peepeevagi "In 1975, two 103s were tested at the American armour center at Fort Knox. The trial demonstrated the 103 fired more accurately than the M60A1E3, but on an average 0.5 seconds slower." from wikipedia, also Britain has done several tests on the tank and came to the conclusion that the inability to not fire on the move is not a disadvantage.

Both got different roles, M60A1 is far more suitable for raids and S103 is better at defending against tanks. Simple truth

[zoolanhestar]

Finland could've used it, just that Finland hates Sweden, and would never ever ever buy stuff from us :( Anyway this tank is AWESOME :D

[Robbaz]

Viking Tank

[redreaper2020]

2:50 "MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!!!"

[AttilaKattila]

How is this not called a tank destroyer?

[Klutchsterr]

@AttilaKattila The swedes don't have a word for destroyer....

[lulle103]

@Klutchsterr @AttilaKattila A tank destroyer(td) in swedish would be "pansarjagare"(just like the german "panzerjäger"). IKV 91 is one such td. As to why 103 is called a tank: swedish cold-war tactics are not really compareable to the rest of the world's. The s-tank is, unlike a td, a main battle tank(mbt) in that it is the main vehicle in case of war. Real td's have mbt's for support and are there to help other tanks and infantry. The S-tank was not a support vehicle.

[jimmyn89SWE]

@lulle103 I believe the correct term for tank destroyer in Swedish is "pansarvärnskanonvagn" (pvkv), we built a tank destroyer in the 1940's and it was called pvkv m/43.

[Dinox242]

this is not a tank

[Alex98714]

@Dinox242 How is it not a tank?

[1337BananaL33TVostok]

sverige och hela norden äger!!

[cannasnagler]

Stridsvagn 103 (SV) 72-0 Chieftain (UK), american test classified according to popular myth. 1970s ???

105 mm L62 rifled Gun(strv103) - 105 mm L52 rifled cannon (M1)

Can't be in reverse(wiki)

Room was available for an extra crew member, the rear driver, who faced the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven backwards at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal armour pointed at the enemy.

[TheSimon253]

we swedish are the smartest love sweden!

[rv186rs]

fail översatte 'miserable' till 'nöjda'

[KHfreak7526]

be a good defensive tank for mexico mix in some ikv-91s and you got yourself a good combo

[davelantor]

Ummm ... how about for Finland :)

[Elephantintheroom01]

Its more of a self propeled gun.

[Kaarlo]

Finland could've use this tank...

[Benderswe1]

a modern stug

[MrHeico]

It looks awesome

[comecra85]

Quite a stupid tank. It can't attack. It can't support troops in offensive operations. It can't be in reserve. It's basically just a self-propelled antitank gun. It's even cant shoot curved fire. And it's not accurate at long distances.

[DustyDraYcoN]

@comecra85 Congratulations. You have recived the stupid price.

Why the fuck would anyone construct a tank that can't attack? What? Didn't you see it shoot? Retard

Can't be in reverse? Are you even more retarded?

And yeah, it's munitions just go in a straight line, forever, until it hits something. Retard

And how the fuck do you know if it's accurate or not? Do you compare it to a laser or another tank?

Sweden owns at bulding weapons.

Go suck the retarded dick somewhere else.

[comecra85]

@DustyDraYcoN

Grow up.

[DustyDraYcoN]

@comecra85 Suck my dick you retarded dolphin

You have nothing to say, becasue all your arguments is invalid.

[patmaniac117]

@comecra85 haha how could a human be so stupid like you?

[UncleCthulhu]

@DustyDraYcoN The lack of a turret makes it extremely difficult to maneuvre effectively in an offensive operation, it's ridiculously vulnerable to ambush.

[RaccooNooB]

@UncleCthulhu it's the best thing for the a fight in sweden. a large turret in the middle of our forrest is not going to be so easy to maneuvre eather.You would have to move it around to be able to aim. So you would have to aim with the whole tank anyways

[jimmyn89SWE]

@UncleCthulhu This was mainly meant for defense anyway, we had other more conventional tanks that were more suited for offensive operations.

[paaaatrika]

@UncleCthulhu Trust me, it can turn 180 degrees faster than a normal tank can turn its turret 180.

[Tungurknifur]

@comecra85

Cant support troops in offensive operations?

I think the Jagdpanther, Stug 3, jagdtiger and the ISU-152 proves you wrong.

And not accurate at long distance? Wtf are you talking about, retard.

[Oraserogue]

@comecra85 Because it is made for geurilla tactics does NOT mean that it cannot be used for other tasks. A SMG is not made for hunting deer, but can you do it? Yes. Is it THE best choise for doing it? No!

This tank is made for geurilla tactics, is it good at it? Yes! Does it have armor and can it support troops at close range? Yes! Is it THE best tank for doing it? No!

[stabbeZX9R]

Have met this BEASTs, you can never win over this tank when you where on a OFFENSIVE .

[7th75thCallaghan]

I like how it takes a crap after firing each round.

[kmzmmz]

The protective fence, was so secret, that not even platoon commander know about it.

I was informed when i was promoted to Capt. and secend in command, for the tank-company. We used tnt to open the holes in the tank, where the fence was fastend in. Had at that time 8 years in service, never suspected anything. The fence´s were buerrid under each tank, in the war storage buildings.

[kmzmmz]

The S-tank was the first tank with a joystic,stearing the commanders copula

[kmzmmz]

The hydropneumatic stearing and aiming system, is the same as the Swedish

Ja/AJ/S/SH/AJS 37 VIGGEN. In our war Tank company we had flight mechanics

that during peace, worked on VIGGEN

[kmzmmz]

@AtTheAllHateGuy

One last commet

You state that he is load the gun from the outside,NO NO NO, you take out a

grenade thát is loaded in the gun and ready to be fiered.For instanse after

a shouting exrcise. There are three bigger hatches on the back, where you load all 50 rounds. You "plunder" the canon thrugh the emtyshell eject hatsch

OK!!!

[kmzmmz]

@TheHateAllGuy

Moving BIG blocks of stone or trees, Thats Noooo problem.

It confirm´s my suspition that you don´t know anything, exept roumors

from others that don´t know anything. "breaking the tracks"(my Good, thats

ignorense)

I dont´t understand why you write soutch shit.

Are you a Troll?

[TheHateAllGuy]

@kmzmmz i did not say anything about moving trees or rocks i said soil cause when that thing rotates the gun/tank soil builds up on the tracks causing more wear then normal thus making them break

[kmzmmz]

@TheHateAllGuy

O.M.G. Soil wet or frozen has NEVER been a problem.

Do you dream or fantisice all this up

During 15 years i know of ONE S-tank that lost a track.

Centurion,now that´s another story,quite often track problems.

I wouls like your sources, to all this rubbish

[TheHateAllGuy]

@kmzmmz during those 15 years was there any combat cause a track wont break if all it does is be used in exercises

[kmzmmz]

@TheHateAllGuy

The Tank was using the German DIEHL tack, same as

LEO and i think M1. I dont´understand the question,sorry.



[TheHateAllGuy]

@kmzmmz i did not say anything about moving trees or rocks i said soil cause when that thing rotates the gun/tank soil builds up on the tracks causing more wear then normal thus making them break

[Skalmans750]

@TheHateAllGuy I know what you mean, but the fact that this tanks was made to move this way, the drivesystem (tracks etc) was made to endure this higher level of preassure as a broken track would be a catastrophy leaving the S completely defenseless.

[TheHateAllGuy]

@Skalmans750 do you know how it is improved because i cant think of any thing then better tracks

[kmzmmz]

@TheHateAllGuy

There was never any problems with the GERMAN Dhiel tracks.

However the suspention system was designed to work even

if one of the front or back track wheels were out of order,abeling

the tank to aim,drive and shoot. A special tool (wire) was in

every tank for that purpuse. I would like to meet a crew that

stay and fight in a turrent tank, if they lose a track. Turrent or not

you are a sitting duck.Stop dreaming about soil damaging

the tracks on the S-tank.

[kmzmmz]

Part II

When the gun traverse, the empty shell is thrown out, using the force of the traverse

movment, and the next selected is on its war in the elevator.

B.t.w. we moved forward or back, during loading. No big issue in swedish terrain

Best regards

kmzmmz

[kmzmmz]

@thehateallguy

The thank has tre mag. nr1 contains 25 rounds, nr2 20 rounds and nr3 5 rounds

each mag have shafts, like mag 1 has five. on the bottom of the tank there ia a trolly

moving,picking up ordered (by a button on the steering(its all controled there))

trolly moves the grenade to an elivator betweens mag 1 and two. Rise the

grenade to the gun level, where it is hydralicly pressed in to the gun. and fire.

if you press fire and load at the same time it will autoload. shoots 23/min

[kmzmmz]

The s-Tank was designed to wait 50-60 km behind the shores of the southern

Sweden. When the suprime comander know what beach was to be invaded

the S-tank where to advance an take position and destroy the invading

enemy. Just stdudy how the swedish Tank regemnts were lokated in the

early 60´s, and you know i´m right.

Tank Capten, for many years

[TheHateAllGuy]

@kmzmmz 1st in the video he loads it from the outside so how is it loaded on the inside since you operated s tanks and 2nd the tank has a large flaw and that's its gun having no movement what so ever and so it has to pivot and tear up the soil/frost therefore braking the tracks make making only to able to shot in what ever way it is stuck in

[kmzmmz]

The Tank has three mags. Mag1 contains 20 rounds of

"arrrow" anti Tank rounds, Mag.2 contains 25 exlosive shells

and mag 3. contains 5 smoke.

On the bottom there is a wagon(trolly) moving from side to side, picking

up the munition,where they ly horisontaly.

When you press load button (one button for exolosivse an one for arrow)

the trolly moves to an elevator shaft. An elevator rises the grenade up to the

gun. Then a hydralic "stick" push it in to the gun.

When the gun travers....

[kmzmmz]

@TheHateAllGuy

Well only Good and maybe the man doing it know´s why he loaded that way.

I think that it´s a Tank from a museum, and safty regulations stoped them

from using the autoloader. Safty inspection of the autoloader was mandatory

before shooting. A lot of safty switches, took about two houers to controll.

The way he did it,he only had to pull aside one switch. And that won´t take a minute

[PATRONSKiii]

Not a MBT, thus not a polyvalent support vehicle, but A nice tank killer !

I'd love to see it in a real war, but too bad swedish retired it, and no export...

[Raafje84]

Well it is designed as an devensive Anti Tank weapon.

It is not designed for a fast mobile war.

It is really well designed for a war in sweden itself

Its fire and retreat for this weapon.

Although i believe this defensive role can be realised by Infantry anti tank teams wich we use. Dont forget that modern tanks like the Leopard 2a6 are outfitted with thermal scopes so a s tank can be spotted from miles away if the engine is still warm

[TheHateAllGuy]

this is stupid its just a modern stug and they are acting like its a new idea 

[kaptenmange]

@TheHateAllGuy The only thing that the S Tank and the Stug has commen is that it dosent have a turret..... THe S Tank is smaller... and the stug has a smaller gun.... and cant aim hight as the S Tank can... the S Tank cant move its gun unless u move the hole tank... and that means u allways have the main armor where u shot

[TheHateAllGuy]

@kaptenmange if i know what a stug is i know how fricking self propelled guns works and that is what i mean they are saying thats its a new idea

[kaptenmange]

@TheHateAllGuy Trust me if u have seen the S Tank back in the 70th u would think its a new idea. Trust me its nothing like a stug

[kmzmmz]

you know nothing!

And the tank was designed to fight in the south of Sweden.

So even the expert´s in the vidio clip are wrong

Capt. Swedish army. 15 years as a Tanker, on the S-Tank

[kukenimunnen]

@tupolev160 Some did...

[MrMugg]

@tupolev160 It's a shame we did not join our european german brothers in the fight against Soviet Union.

[SgtDrDeath]

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!

[OnlyLifeMatters]

It looks like ol' good Stug...just that if it can't turn the cannon around, it is pretty bad thing for the tank's security. In open territory it is easy prey.

[rredhawk]

40 years ago I built a 1/48 scale model of this tank (by Aurora plastic models company) but have never seen footage of the real thing in action until now.

Remarkable machine!

[MajSolo]

The Anglo people interviewed in this video newer heard of JagdPanzers. Maybe they should travel to Germany and have them educate them?

[MrMugg]

@tupolev160 Well the soviets would have had a tough time invading Sweden during the 60's-70's. The S tank would not have been an easy opponent. On the other hand invading a western European country would in the end be the death of soviet union so I'm not surprised they did not dare to start a war.

[ghanaboyz]

The ex-serviceman being the driver was pretty cool. Love the way is give a small smile when he says "if you are good enough".

Seems ot be very good design thinking to put engine in front and ammo back. They got the better protection in front where they meet the enemy. Make sense.

As I understand it, in an emergency, one single guy could operate this vehicle, both being driver, commander and gunner. 3 machine guns also, not too bad. Remeber, potential enemy at the time was T-62.

[Douche082]

@tupolev160 Well theres a hater huh?? Ignorant too.

Your name.. russian??

Dynamite is one of the MOST important inventions in the history of mankind, we need it for mining all minerals that we use today, salt for example.

History follows a timeline, you disrupt that, it'll push back development, sure the revolver isn't used anymore (oh by the way, plenty of people STILL use revolvers), and you guys could've figured out, it would've just take you 20 years longer.

Paper, you don't use paper?

[Douche082]

@tupolev160 ??

Swedes invented dynamite, pace makers, gamma knife, designed the revolver, GPS, and came up with the most widely used method of bleaching paper.

Please back up your statement

[yairbe5]

horriable tank the ammo is stored in the back that means that even an AP round can set them off the leck of a turret means that by the time it will get a shot at a tank behind it on a muntin or somthing it will be hit by 3 shellds by then the and a shapped charged misslie would kill every one in a tank like that and being low dosnt realy help you i the modern battlefiled

[Douche082]

@yairbe5 First of all, every tank needs to store ammo somewhere, you can ALWAYS hit the ammo one way or another. You heard the man, 180 degrees in under 1 second thats (much) faster than ANY turret can turn, so the S Tank is actually at an advantage here, any tank placed in you scenario would be destroyed easily.

Oh yes, being low DOES help. Think about it, S Tank can hide behing a 1.5 meter tall mound, you can't hit it behind that. An abrams on the other hand, would have its turret blown off

[yairbe5]

@Douche082 well duh but the ammo dosnt have to be exopsed there are podes made to protect the shells from hit on the S tank the shells are poorlly protected and i highlly dought you can turn the tank 180 degrees in a second without moving in a vary high speed

many modern taks are just 0.6 meters higher and besides in modern combat the enemy has hundreds of setelite photos of every inch of your'e country

tanks have IR cemeras meaning that hiding behind somthing wont work

[kmzmmz]

@yairbe5

10-15 km/h depending on the surface.

Speeds over that is much mor fun than a roller coaster, but

you WILL get bruses all over your body.

IR sensor will reveal you, but you can´t hit the tank with direct fire.

IR sensor´s make me see a human hiding 30 m inside a forrest.

That means modern tank´s and afv or what ever will be detected.

And yes we had S-tank´s with TNS in our war-company´s

[Skalmans750]

@yairbe5 The S-tank was made for ambush, quick attacks, then pull back to a new position. With it's low profile the enemy wouldnt know what hit them until to late.

Losing a few tanks from attacks coming from behind was calculated with when this tank was still at the blueprint stage.

Tha advantage of its sneaking abilities were greater then the expected damage.

[yairbe5]

@Skalmans750 like i nsaid on my last comment a tank that just waits for an attack is usless since using setalite and IR imgine the enemy would know execly were the tank is hiding

and modern weapons can hit the tank were ever they choose including the rear side of the tank since it's not stelthy in modern warfare it has no atvatages and alot of deatvatges

[Skalmans750]

@yairbe5 Be aware of that this machine is 30 years old. So therefor you can not put it todays scenario of a battlefield. ;)

We are talking history here. This was made for the old invasion defense 1960-1975ish , and thats where it should be compared, not to todays modern warfare.

[ghanaboyz]

@yairbe5 Reality check. It started its service around, what? 1960-62.. Not 2010, not 1990, not 1980...Why even compare with todays warfare? Stealth, well, it had an extremley low profile, prettey usefull for a hit and run 'sniper' tank.

[yairbe5]

@ghanaboyz The guy said it would great in today's warfare and low profile is almost useless against today high tech tanks and AT missiles.

[ghanaboyz]

@yairbe5 Ok, not sure what guy you mean but still.

Btw, in todays ongoing (mind you; ongoing) warfare, tanks doesnt seem to be met by other tanks or not even AT (advanced) missiles. Very expensive to deploy and maintain the high tech tanks... Heavy is harder to have at the right spot at the right moment compared to light (still wouldnt say no to a tracked vehicle with thick armor compared to the kind with weels...). A believed sniper, tank or not, can control a vast area to a small cost.

[kmzmmz]

@yairbe5

S-tank was tested with IR-protection that worked quite well,don´t think M1

has a low IR profile. Coparing an OLD Gasturbine construction with a newer.

[kmzmmz]

@Skalmans750

We also used (sometimes) a platoon as "sleepers" during

defense retreat. Carfully hidden and camuflage tank´s.

We let the enemy past by us. When our batalion or brigade

made an counter attack, the sleepers woke up. Attacking

the enemy from behind.and making a hole in the enemys defense line.

The Brigade or Batallion the could advance thru that breatch.

Beleve me the enemy goes in to panic.

[Skalmans750]

@kmzmmz You are correct, however we never had a oportunity to test this machine in real (thank god) but the logical reaction from an enemy having an battallion on their back of all a sudden, would surely result in panic.

[ghanaboyz]

@yairbe5 "the modern battlefiled "?? I don't regard 1960-1970 as modern... thats history (albeit not WWII...) and a bit pointless to compare with in this case in my opinion.

Don't understand your comment about it being horrible to store ammo at the location most probably being best protected (and farest from the enemy) in this vehicle. Consider the tactics at thte time. Obviusly not good to be surrounded, but also rather unlikely. Yes, a nuclear warhead would also kill it and other tanks.

[yairbe5]

@ghanaboyz the guy said that armies should start buying this tank so i said it would be a horrible tank in modern warfare

and how is the back a good place to store the ammo? what if the enemy tank comes from behind? it's not hard for a light AT team carrying only light rockets like the RPG 7 or M72 LAW to flank a tank were they will have a clear shot on the exposed back side this tank was designed to be an ambush tank not a MBT like this guy suggested

[ghanaboyz]

@yairbe5 I wont swear on this, but I belive the ammo compartment was pretty much separated to crew compartment. How much it helps? Have no idea, but the basic design that far make some sense.

Btw, on a early T-62, I believe the hit rate on the first 2 shots in an engagment was pretty bad, much worse than most S tanks. Those T-62 had also to stop, move turret, to get a very good hit probability. Agreed that 2 shots of 3 in same time frame could be good anyway to give cover fire or whatever.

[kmzmmz]

@yairbe5

Anti tank like AT4 or similar, has a security range of about

75-100m. That is because the missile shuld go clear of

any vegetation and not explode to close to the soldier

fireing. Our concern was robots fired from long range.

We always had protection from our afv platoon or even

from a afv company. But the back is a weak point, on all tanks.

Maby weaker on the s-tank

[Mattethesnille]

helt enkelt  !!Svenskarna äger!!

[kulmedfarbrorful]

Sweden goes nato.... if that happens... ?

[lordofdarkdudes]

its so cute!

[swertinge07]

When "S" was replaced in Swedish Army by the Strv 122 (Leopard 2A5S) they had a mook battle. Five "S" defending against five Strv 122. The "S" won, 3 to 5... :)

[spadehatesscrewtube]

who the fuck would put gas tanks on the side of a military vehicle? theyre =asking mto be blown the fuck up. :24

[Skid00everest340]

and dont forget the dozer blade. and i know we swedes is kinda crazy to some people but dont forget we invented the dynamite=)

[SgtDrDeath]

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!

[Conservativepacheat]

6 did he say 6? oh may god

[YDDES]

A big backdraw with the "S"-tank was that it had to stop to aim its gun and fire, since the gun was fixed in the hull. The "S"-tanks were scrapped before the last old "Centurions" in the Swedish arny.

[tyskbulle]

Tank part, its a very good tank and I personaly think we need these more then the more offensive leopard 2 tanks. And as allways whit swedish military equiptment, we allways think they will sell but we never gave a thought that they are custom made for uss and nobody els, just look at JAS Gripen.

[SgtDrDeath]

The S-tank was one of the tank officers in Warsaw pact feared most because it was so hard to dedect, hit and its awesome gun could fire longer than the Russian tanks!

[daniel931016]

I don't think its very important to sell it and make money of it. I think the most important thing with it is to protect -in this case sweden! Thats what it's made for.

[hogge87]

@tyskbulle Well, both with the Gripen and S-tank, foreign sales wasn't anything the army cared about. However, the reason the Gripen isn't selling well is because it's not made in a direct NATO or anti-NATO country. If the F-16 was a Swedish design and the Gripen was an American design, the Swedish design still wouldn't get sold.

[SWEmanque]

@hogge87 It is very simular to the M16 problem, the US army would have got rid of it long ago if it weren't an american gun. They have to make there guns in America and care about the american economy, something thath the army realy shouldn't do..

Rigth?

[bloppo11]

@hogge87

You will see that Gripen will get sold during coming sales, trust me :)

[DonMeaker]

@hogge87 it is just that the Gripen is being sold today, when the F-16 has been in service for 20 years.

[tyskbulle]

Ho gives a crap about the sweden-finland winter war anymore. Finland declared thier independence and made a clear seperation from Sweden ho everyone knew held tightly to thier neutrality. Even thought it woud make compromises as the war progressed. Still any finns ho gives a danm about the hole swedish interventionism can soak themself, if you are a independent nation you cant just look to your former big brother for help when something goes wrong, then you should have stickt whit uss.

[IcyScythe]

Damn. 2:51, that's hot.

[TheStifler1992]

Sweden is neutral. We dont go in war with other counteries

[ydinsaaste]

Where did you get those numbers? In war against Soviets 25.6.-41 to 19.9.-44 in Finnish army fought about 7000 foreingers total. 3273 Estonians, 1694 Swedes and 204 Daninsh soldiers.There was also about 700-800 soviet citizens in Finnish army.Swedes troops lost 79 killed,3 missing and 203 wounded.Estonians lost 126 killed,72 mising and 286 wounded.Danish troops lost 18 killed in action. Finnish army had 530000 man and lost 58715 mans killed and missing. In Finland fought also 220000 Germans.

[kaxitaksi]

Your figures must have been swedish soldiers in the finnish army. The voluntary swedish forces was named Battlegroup SFK I and II and fought in Märkäjärvi. It had a total of 8260 men, 727 was from Norway. Another battlegroup with 4000 voluntary swedes, Battlegroup III was also formed but the war ended before they was ever put into action. In Märkäjärvi was 33 dead and about 50 wounded.

[MrMugg]

Actually I don't remember if it was during the winter war or during the later conflict, I got the stats from a swedish book called " Finlands Krig" and since I'm not home at the moment I can't bring you the name of the author, but I can get back to you on that. If you have any other books to recomend I would gladly hear it.

[Hairysteed]

Gorilla tactics? What's that? Sitting in the jungle and beating your chest?

[Cptjonmiller]

its guerrila tactics

[ydinsaaste]

S tank was piece of history already when it was born.Low profile doesent help if you must stop to fire accurately.Good for Sweden that Soviet tanks were never against them.And good that there is country called FINLAND to defent Sweden.

[blidderbla]

Most tanks couldent fire on the run at that time. And it actualy had the best protection in the world.

Last time i checked, the ppl of Sweden Helped Finland in 39, if thats what u r sour about.

[ydinsaaste]

Well I am gratefull of Swedens help in 1939 and also later in ww2.But to be honest Swedens help was mostly humatarian and few volunteers from Sweden did not make big difference in Finnish front.But they were truly brave mens and some payd the trip to Finland with their lives. And back to S-tank. Name the battles where S-tank did fight? If it is great fighting vehicle,why did not any other country use them?S-tank is good in paper,not in combat.

[blidderbla]

The greatest thing might just be that it never had to be used in combat, thats the whole idea with our army.

As to know why no other army using them I can just speculate. To well cut out to our northen forrest and only beeing a defencive tank?. And no one want to be the oddboll?, the design was quite controversal and still is.

To thin armor?, weak gun? I really dont know.

I can only name the ups and downs that I have red about.

[ydinsaaste]

Yes thats quite right,it is better to stay out of confligts.There are only losers in wars. And if Sweden and Finland ever had to use armed forces in cold war time,we would most likely be shooting same enemy.

When I was in military service in Finnish Lappland early nineties officers said that "Finland has no enemy,but if there is enemy still coming it allways comes from east!"

[blidderbla]

True. We have a simular saying here.

[anttonoo]

@ydinsaaste Finland has slightly higher rate of gay people than Sweden. And they also have lower numbers in military. Finland is borrowing from Sweden (Ak4, Ak5, At4, Tanks, Carl Gustav) and also from russia.

So saying that Finland would be better in war than Sweden is a joke.

[Prvtruls]

@anttonoo Considering Sweden hasn't been at war for over 200 years I doubt it.

[anttonoo]

@Prvtruls Well Finland hasnt been at war for 70 years and when they were at war that was completely different in how wars would have been fought now. Sweden has a bigger defence budget, more men, longer trainer and more advanced weapon system. One example is that the Visby Corvette would take out a Hamina Missile Boat.

[Prvtruls]

@anttonoo I'm not sure about Finland but I know for a fact that Sweden would never be able to occupy a country with it's small sized army let alone be able to hold ground if Sweden was attacked by a full scale assault.

According to wikipedia 27,000 conscripts are trained yearly in Finland.

I think it's about 10,000 in Sweden.

[hogge87]

@Prvtruls That's the numbers of today. The numbers during the 1980's were a bit different: 600 000 soldiers, 400 modern fighter aircraft, several hundred artillery cannons and I don't know how many armored vehicles. During the 1950's, Sweden had the 4th largest air force in the world, with ca 1500 aircraft, of which more than half were Swedish made!

[pepparn123]

@ydinsaaste

Hahahahahaha

Ye the first part was right but the fact that finland would be able to defend sweden is not a fact!

[kulmedfarbrorful]

Three finns with a knife can hold the russian of long enough!

[blidderbla]

hm are there diffrent versions of this program?

never seen the s-tank in it b4 :/

I do like it tho :)

[jso0125]

S tank, dagens Stug

[swearm]

vintern 2005

[XxXGeneralleeXxXSWE]

När e detta inspelat?

[Qulopuaa]

m stand for mushy on us tanks

[Pottan23]

you do realize that the javelin wasn't around during the cold war, the time the S-tank was built and used by the swedish army?

It's was a strictly defensive tank designed to lie entrenched, ambushing russian tanks from terrain they couldn't traverse. No one bought it because it was so taylored for this purpose that it could hardly operate anywhere else.

[747dog]

...What A DUD of aTANK...

[Conservativepacheat]

it's sure not 6th best 50

[MrMugg]

Agree.....I thougt the S-tank was a complete failure...

[TheZenMachine]

you think? I don't. As they said in the movie, it was created by the Swedes for the swedish terrain. Sweden had an army of 1 000 000 during the 70's and late 80's. It was created to defend the country, not by attacking, defending. Thinks it's a master piece.

[MrMugg]

Yes, I thought it was a failure because that is what they told me in the Swedish army. However I'm glad that they might have been wrong.

[bazzlez]

While there are advantages and disadvantages to this Tank, the German originals didn't do too shabbily during WW2,

[james2bond]

lol when it fires it looks like its taking a shit

[mackan211212]

Swedish neutrality in a nutshell.

[pocketshit]

country like sweeden should put good use of anti-tank weapon because it can be easily camouflaged and effective in an area full of tree and obstacle

[Suomipanzerdiv13]

that tank could might fight in finnish terrain too! our terrain is basicly lots of woods too!

[seltjorn]

For some reason (well...kinda obvious reason I guess) I really love that tank. It's, as the guy says in the video, perfect for forest terrain and it must be an excellent defensive tank (or ambush tank for that matter). Might be handy in a tank on tank battle inside the forests since turrets aren't that much of a help amongst all the trees.

I was trying to invision how it could be used here in Iceland but I guess we have too much open terrain for the tank to be at its best. Still interesting idea

[Suomipanzerdiv13]

its still small! and digging in is easy, so it could work as a low profile AT gun on tracks!

[SgtDrDeath]

Americand dont know a shit about the S-tank....

[yomomasface]

Then why is that we watch this among many S Tank videos? Its' not as if we don't like it! This is one of my favorites! Top 5 actually. I just love how unique it is! If you don't know anything about Americans and Tank, it's best not to say anything about us.

[SgtDrDeath]

Sorry, you must be the firs one with some knowledge about the S-tank in US. But of cause Sweden did lend some S-tanks to the US many years ago since the were superior in exercise in Germany (killed 72 UK chieftains without a single loss). We had to watch out for Russian spy satellites.... :-)

Greetings from Sweden!

[DonMeaker]

@SgtDrDeath Americans are actually rather familiar with it. Very nice for its niche. The amphibious capability in particular is useful for its defensive role.

[Kallefisa]

I drive that S tank in the Army

[u111fo]

wow sweden!^^ sverige!!

[postal0service]

Too bad that the swedish army suffer from constant cut downs. We're probably world leading within weapon systems , sub-marines (i think we had the worlds first silent) and other high tech stuff. Our government don't think that we need an army, due to "a low risk of foreign attacks". But they recently encorced the FRA-law, and said "We have to defend our country against foreign threats".

Talk about double standards?

[smorgasbord3]

Technology is moving forward

In this time there is maybe better to invest money on super computers and stuff like that than on ordinary weapons...

War history:

Longbow age

Gunpowder age

Atomic age

Hacking age

[Linush91]

@postal0service They say that there is no direct threat, not that we don't have to defend ourselves.

[viking515]

he he sweden is soo good on military

[canucks0507]

pretty cool