I turned my headphones backwards to please the right ear for the second half of the video. #equality

😂😂😂😂

I miss the mono-button on my old speakers :P

The rear doors of the early (not sure about current) russian BMPs were big and hollow and filled with fuel. Which may (MAY!) be ok if hit and they contained diesel, but they also could run on Kerosene (not sure about petrol). I wouldn't want to be in an armoured personel carrier with the exit doors filled with a highly flammable fuel if they were shot, as they weren't that hard to penetrate apparently. (Just checked BMP 2 had same doors, BMP 3 doesn't appear to).

Well they maybe interested, but just needing the abridged version for their "tank fix".

I think that the German Stug vehicles do give us some idea as to its capabilities in combat up to a point, but it will remain a great unknown thankfully.

Thats what exercises and trials are for. I get your meaning though. But simulating "combat" or more specifically the conditions the crew, mechanics and tank have to put up with during fatigue, limited matinance and limited everything really, is what makes a tank or what not, good or bad. Being actually shot at by an agressor is the least of the problems when considering if it can preform or not in "real combat".

If you think about it, since WW2, no western tank has really been in battle. No, Iraq doesn't count. Shooting 40 year old T-72s is not something you put on your CV. My point it, none of the modern tanks has really been tested in combat.

Mark Fryer, they are similar visually but apart from that, they share nothing. This was a ultra modern tank in it's day and the StUG was designed for infantry support (Sturmgeschutz) but was hijacked to deal with Russian tanks. An S-tank would have been able to single-handedly stop a Waffen-SS tank division without breaking a sweat. Given that it had enough ammo of course. It's rounds would go straight through even a Tiger II at 2km.

Israel used the Centurion with searchlights against T62s with night vision in the Golan, 1973. Lots of other post-WW2 tanks were used by Israel and the Arabs in the 1967 and 73 wars, including IS3, T54, T55, M50 Super Sherman, AMX 13, and M48/M60 Patton.

That's already out in three separate episodes.

ishouldgetalif3 Vackra, snälla, lagomtjocka Karlsson

Not that I'm complaining. Chieftain's vids would be perfect if they would add another part for interview with veteran crew telling how it was in the long haul. Now I will crave extra like this for ALL his vids.

Interesting also to hear that the barrel needed to be removed for a pack change/remove and replace engine. Estimated time for repairs being one day. I think about 30 mins is the aim now? Big difference. Cool tank and one with many well-meaning design elements. Funny what he says at end, if its a great tank or....useless ***!

I think that the Leopard 1 was possibly the first with the Power Pack Changeover concept. I could be wrong and will accept correction if proven. Prior to Leopard 1, changing the engine and transmission in a tank was a really labour intensive process, in skilled manpower and time. Now if a tank is developed without such a feature it is doomed.

The M18 was also pretty easy IIRC, since it could slide out the engine on rails.

"We build great stuff which nobody will buy" is pretty indicative of how great it is.

Well you do happen to build a lot of other stuff that lots of people want to buy like your range of Oerlikon cannon, which were produced under licence by both sides during WW II by various manufacturers. Now that is what I call having a double bite of the cherry.

Not to mention the Bofors 40mm and all it´s derivatives. Probably one of the best and most manufactured guns in it´s class.

Agreed. It was merely my attempt at a generalizing joke. There's always the case that Sweden made just as many good stuff that has been an international succes just as those (like the S-Tank) were notP.S. Borde det vara Gevalia istället?

Zoega Skånerost! x)

Sounds >>>>>> Loudness Equalization

He is around 2 Meters ;)

Neo Plan 6"5

Also, you had to be short to be assigned to the S-tank. I think 175 cm was the maximum height. Since Sweden had a concript army, there were plenty of guys to choose from. A tall guy like chieftain would have been sent to some other branch of the military.

J H or to drive the Centurion

Yes. There is a video on KZfaq about testing the tank against various threats from various directions.

I think that you maybe on to something there, but would you really want to advance onto the other side of a water obstacle coming out bum first? Crossing any water obstacle is fraught with numerous complications, like current, water temperature, water buoyancy issues [refer plimsoll line on ships] , waves, shoreline gradient and material, defended or undefended crossing, man made hazards or as is the case in Northern Australia, native animal hazards like giant salt water crocodiles, "Salties" are big and dangerous every one a potential man eater. Not that other parts of the world dont have dangerous wild animals as well.

Mark Fryer well, as the swimming gear is the same basic design as the dd-shermans minus propellers, it's not advisable to cross a water feature under fire, even small arms fire is perfectly capable of turning the flotation screen into a siv with a few bursts. Also, the crew are standing on the tank roof while swimming and the underside is symetric up to the dozer blade in the front so the direction of travel wouldn't matter.

Well spotted and very true. S tank submarine anyone?

I think that the reason it would have difficulties coming out of the water would be if there's a somewhat steep slope as the back end of the floating screen could go under the water surface, thus quickly filling it with water. That problem would remain when going backwards. You would probably need to find a place where the bottom is flat enough that when you touch it the tank doesn't tilt too much.

Part of the problem with coming out of water forwards is the height and length of the gun barrel overhang, which would require a shallower exit angle than most other tanks. Altering the tanks hydraulic suspension to raise the gun barrel would improve the situation considerably, but it would still have limits. Coming out of the water in reverse would negate most of this problem if the exit angle is steeper, but even with this method there are limits due to the gun barrel overhang.

Can’t remember the specifications of the top of my head but remember that in the 1970’s it had the best frontal protection of any tank. Frontal armour was immune to everything the Soviets had at the time. The fixed gun meant it was also possible to have a protective fence in the front.

It's because we're tired of correcting people who don't know what they're talking about. ;-)

Something that almost are never mentioned is that the Strv 103 wasn't the only tank in service at the time. Along side it, it had the Strv 104 which was a severely upgraded Centurion MBT with night fighting capabilities. So, together they certainly would cause problems for anyone getting in front of them. But, if you had listened, he explains that from travelling to first shot with a Strv 103 and a somewhat good crew, we are talking about 4-5 seconds. And that is as fast, if not even faster, than any turret can traverse. Edit: I've seen it do it when I was in the army so I know first hand how quick it was.

At the time the S-tank was pretty much indestructible from the front. With the HEAT-fences mounted there was pretty much nothing that could defeat that insanely sloped frontal armour.

No tank is designed to be hit from the flank or be raped from behind. It's designed to take on other tanks head on.

Kenneth André Hansen The front is very soft to 115mm APFSDS and 125mm APFSDS can go through like paper from any practical distance. It was only enough for 100mm AP and APDS. Against HEAT, the success rate of the fences would not be very high.

than*

Burak Keles Sry English isnt my first language

You're welcome

NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN nein. nein. Wait, what the fuck why am i comment to this? well, kill me.

@@gamesghost2670 ok

Warthunder's armor viewer makes me laugh at this thing. "Armor: 40mm RHA. Effective protection: 300mm+" rofl

Terry Aurand strv 112. modified leo2

If its gun were realistic, it would have a 50 shot (?) autoloader with 3 second reload. OP as it gets. The Swedes are using a Leopard 2 variant similar to the Leopard 2A5 with local upgrades; they call it the Strv 122.

Looks like they still have the Centurion in service but only in secondary roles. Anyway I'm sure the Strv autoloader has been upgraded over the years. I guess the 103b in WoT has about a 7 second reload. So I guess thats as good as it gets.

I dont know if we got the same tank, or if it is me that cant drive it. But it doesnt look like my S1 can reverse fast. I mean for me it is like a normal tank reversing. Im happy for the armour throught! That had really saved me from time to time when I just change the angel of the armour for abit, then bounce an AP

In reality is does feel a little slower driving in reverse but I've topped out at 40 driving in reverse. I think I've topped out a 46-47 forward going down a hill.

It just uses its tracks, like a number of other such floating vehicles. The water pressure at the bottom is denser that the water up top, which I presume gives iit the ‘grip’ and propulsion.

Thx for the info Chief.anyway the driver and commander,which position will you prefer if you alone in the tank and you want to drive and shoot

ya using tracks in water is enough to give some movement, a lot of amphibious tracked vehicles uses it and not a propeller

Pretty scary on the offence too for it´s time. Sure, firing on the move isn´t really an option. But most tanks back then had really rudimentary stabilisation and were not very effective at firing on the move at anything except point blank range anyways. And that thing accelerates and comes to a stop pretty well, so advancing, stopping to fire and continuing to advance would work pretty well. And as he said, detecting targets off to the side while on the move isn't a problem at all. The damned thing comes to a skidding stop, pointing the gun the right way faster than tanks of that time could turn their turrets anyway. :)

Indeed. It had an excellent gun as well which is very, very accurate. Together with a laser range finder and other stuff, I've seen it stop and shoot in 4-5 seconds (didn't time it.. but..). I dare to say that NONE of the other western tanks, or Soviet for that matter, could traverse the turret and shoot that fast.

There are a couple of Russian videos here on YT where they explain that they had the deepest respect for this tank. Fortunately, we never had to try it in combat.

Most likely they would have never seen any T-62s or 64s, but rather the more common T-55s of Soviet Motor Rifle divisions. As far as i understand the heavy artillery so to speak was almost exclusively reserved for the central European front.

So it was useless for making ice cream?

MaskinJunior It was built for one thing S(tug) Life...

I wouldn't want to face off with it in an open area like a dessert either. But hull down, dug in a Swedish pine tree forest waiting in ambush it is deadly still today.

Desert full of sand or dessert full of ice cream, strawberries and wafers? Two very different kinds of ambush.

Mark Fryer Spelling is for us old world fellows who were successful in life

Just you evidently. Must be pretty boring.

English speaking people aren't that surprised anymore since they are aware of that the english level is top notch in the whole of Scandinavia (except Finland).

TBH firing on the move isn't something that is suggested really ever. As far as I know, it's strongly suggested to go full halt before firing.

It's not really until the modern tanks of today that they can fire effectively on the move. You have to remember that this tank is contemporary with Centurion, Chieftain, M48, M60 and the T-55. Neither of which were accurate while moving.

No tanks contemporary with the S tank fired on the move. But sure, in the end when stabilised guns came into play it was at a disadvantage. The s tank still was capable of winning tank battles against the more advanced Leopard 2 in Swedish training exercises in the 1990’s.

There was a post I saw on FB by the director in which he was expressing amusement that folks on the Internet are saying it's not a tank, but the folks who actually designed and used it say it is... It's worth noting that in testing against conventionally turreted vehicles such as Chieftain, not particular disadvantage was noted.

@@TheChieftainsHatch _> the folks who actually designed and used it say it is_ And that's okay, but it's just their opinion - and opinions are unscientific. Some people in the Middle Ages referred to their swords as "big knives" or even simply "knives", but modern historians don't do that. Likewise, we don't call MP-43 a "submachinegun" either. We stick to definitions. If it is a tank, then Hetzer or SU-85 are also tanks - no way around that. Same folks who designed it also say it was designed to fill the role of a tank - but a tank _within Swedish defensive doctrine._ _> in testing against conventionally turreted vehicles_ Was demonstrated that it can't fire on the move, period. And unlike other obsolete stab-lacking tanks of the period (like M60 and Leopard 1) it fundamentally cannot be fixed by upgrades. Also, it cannot fight if immobilized. It cannot deal with two non-unidirectional threats (engage one, present frontal armor to another). The list goes on and on.

@@Conserpov Not really important to the original point but calling these swords knives is still done by historians, they normaly use the german word "Messer".

It is a tank. Designed as a tank, operated as a tank, with offensive tactic as deployed with tanks. If it walks talks and acts like a tank, it’s a tank. The Stridsvagn 103 (which literally means “tank 103”) was used just as offensively as any turreted tank in the Swedish arsenal. During advance was capable of targeting and firing on a target faster than the turreted Centurion, because the 103 could bring its gun to bear much faster than any turret with the clutch and break manoeuvre.