Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Mike E wrote:And? That's what I've been saying this whole time, it was an outdated dinosaur "heavy tank" in the age of, well, anything else! It would be like bringing back the human-powered submarine!GarryB wrote:He clearly means that they were large by their day and age, not that they were the largest... 46 ton tanks were still behemoths in WW2, when the average "medium tank" would be somewhere around low-30 tons. Obviously the Tiger(s) was larger, but that thing was a monster of its day, and what difference does it make anyway?
It was for Soviet tanks because it was a heavy tank...
In comparison with heavy tanks from other countries like Germany it was tiny and light but still had a very powerful gun.
Most do, and I agree even though the T-54 was closer to the modern definition on a MBT. - Look up "first MBT", the Centurion will show up every time.
Do you mean look up in western literature and find the western view of which was the first MBT?
The T-54/55 and T-62 were designed to be the standard tanks and so are MBTs too by definition.
If you want to be pedantic about it neither the Centurion nor the T-54 count as MBTs as they were actually medium tanks built at a time when heavy tanks were also in production... the first MBT would have to be the T-64 which combined the heavy firepower and armour of a heavy tank with a medium weight vehicle, and therefore made heavy tanks unnecessary.
Stalin, much like his German rival, clearly liked heavy armor...
All major armies of the immediate post war period had their heavy tanks... UK, US, Germany, Soviet Union. The fact that they generally were produced in fairly small numbers... generally less than 6,000, usually rather less, was because of their cost and specific roles.. it was simply cheaper to make lighter vehicles.
Khrushchev quickly trashed the T-10's namesake, as if that wasn't enough proof already..
Enough proof of what?
Khrushchev didn't cancel the vehicle type... he merely changed is name. It was built and in service because tactics at the time had a use for such a vehicle... no matter what it was called.
52 tons is pretty big (think about the era!) when you think about it, more so when the overall protection is only so-so. It dwarfed the Sherman in everything but height, as mentioned before... It was no light-weight tank, and I don't understand why you object this...
It was a heavy tank, yet compared with contemporary heavy tanks it was very light... the British Conquerer was 66 tons, the M103 was almost 60 tons.
At the start of WWII the Soviets had the best heavy tank of any side... the KV-1 at 45 tons... by the end of the war their heavy tank was only 52 tons... compare that with the heaviest German tank at the start of the war and some of their heaviest tanks at the end of the war...
It was by no means a mobile-tank,
By definition a tank is mobile... a static tank is called a bunker.
To give you an idea, the M-48 which was just as old had a range of 287 mi, while weighing only a little bit less... The Centurion had a range of 280 mi, where on Earth do you find that crap??? 217 mi wasn't bad, but like he said, it was less than the T-54 and that is what really counts when that tank is so crucial to your forces. - Many sources claimed the T-10 had a range of 250 km, which would be much worse...
To give you an idea a horse could manage much greater distances than the T-10, but the T-10 wasn't a long distance tank... it was a breakthrough tank designed to punch through heavy enemy defences/lines so other lighter vehicles could stream through and attack the enemies rear areas... the T-10 needed long range like it needed a coffee machine.
23 mph is terrible, and 31 mph actually is a big improvement. I agree with him, 31 mph is good, 23 mph is not! - The T-54 hit 30 mph tops, so the 23 mph models would have literally been a drag. All while consuming a lot more fuel! The all-too similar M-48 was capable of high-twenties at the time, so it one-upped the earlier models. So, if I slap "heavy tank" on my 10 mph MBT, is it now adequate? Stop kidding yourself...
Stop kidding yourself... you don't go flying into heavy enemy lines at 40 miles an hour and expect to survive. This is a breakthrough tank... it has to break through... it is the lighter follow up tanks that exploit the breakthrough and disrupt enemy rear units and lines of logistics and support... the T-10 needs speed like it needs a much smaller gun and thinner armour.
For crying out loud... He suggested that the design of the D-10T and its rounds were superior, and they were.... What difference does it make, obviously a 122 mm gun will fire more powerful rounds than a much smaller one...
The main criticism of the KV-1 was that it was a heavy tank with the same gun as the T-34 medium tank... do you think the T-10 would be able to engage enemy armour at extended range with a much smaller gun?
Where does he say that? - Actually cannot find that one... Anyway, if he actually suggested that, he probably added that it should of had a variant of the T-54 gun or something like that.
Or no main gun at all?
For its size, the 122 mm wasn't a world beater like it should of been. He probably is suggesting that it is an old and outdated design, and he'd be correct... A larger caliber doesn't mean the gun will be more successful.
Perhaps the two of you know more about tank guns than the Soviets did... when they selected the 122mm gun there were many considerations and alternatives including a new 100mm gun. They chose the 122mm gun because it had a far more effective HE shell and even when it couldn't penetrate the armour of an enemy tanks turret it often blew it off the turret ring and disabled the tank. The 122mm gun was also in production, while the 100mm gun was new.
The fact that they kept the 122mm gun in service for all the IS tanks suggests it was able to do the job.
Gun depression and coaxial round quantity is important, suggesting otherwise is idiocy...
Equally ludicrus is to expect thousands of coaxial rounds when the gun is a 12,7mm or 14.5mm machine gun.
For the millionth time this is a breakthrough tank... 30 cal could have 5,000 rounds but will be fucking useless at the ranges the T-10 will be firing at the enemy from.
ONLY having a few hundred much heavier rounds that will actually have some effect at the 2-3km they will be fired over is better than nothing... a 30 cal coaxial on the T-10... well it might as well be a 9 x 19mm weapon with 20,000 rounds.
Remember Syria's tank battles with Israel? (I believe this was with T-55's) Syria crushed them in numbers at first, but once they began hitting hills that had tanks below, they were killed because their low depression meant they has to go down peek over and down the hill to fire. Israeli tanks capitalized on this, and possibly won because of it. That enough facts for you?
Yeah... in the flat open plains of Europe combat in the middle east should be the basis for tank design for the Soviets... NOT.
Too bad the T-10 was introduced EIGHT FRIGGIN' years after WW2, huh? At least research before you start posting such wild claims. Much like with Western tanks of that era, they'd be screwed is a large round hit their sides... Not exactly a good thing in a heavy tank!
Why would a breakthrough tank present its sides to the enemy?
it was too large to have the armor be of any use (being a heavy-tank and all).
Have you even seen the tank? It is less than 2.4m high... compared with most western tanks it is tiny.
The height and width of both the T-10 and T-54 are almost the same.
The T-10 has thicker armour on its hull and turret front.
Why do you keep comparing the T-10 with the M48?
It is HEAVY TANK, WHICH IS ONE REASON IT IS A "FAILED TANK"! I'm getting tired of dealing with all this idiocy, do you even try?
If it was a failure, why was the T-64 developed to replace it in its breakthrough role?
A role continued by the T-80 and now performed by the T-90?
He said that there was no recovery vehicle built for it, which itself can make recovery a pain in the #$%!
Are you suggesting there was no recovery vehicle based on the IS design?
He has a point on the ammo, and you never even denied it... Complicated logistics because it was a large outlier, how don't you get this obvious information?
122mm ammo wasn't hard to make or transport. The modern 125mm ammo is also two piece.
He has a point there as well. It had a very small interior for a tank of its size.
Hang on... too big on the outside (yet only the size of the standard medium tank) AND too small on the inside???
The T-10 didn't have a purpose, it was a mission-less dinosaur that should of never been made. It was (would've been) relevant in 1945 and no longer.
It was a breakthrough tank... it has a very specific mission and role... the fact that you and this person making videos doesn't understand that doesn't make it not true.
He said that HEAVY-TANKS should of never been used after WW2, and guess what (?), he was correct, again! - BD is a supporter of tank destroyers, and aircraft do a much better job when combined with ATGM's...
So he has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. Aircraft are very good when they turn up and if they can see through the smoke and dust and tell your tanks from theirs... Otherwise they are crap.
"oh but it was Russian so it was good!" ignorance in this thread.
I have been reading this thread and I have not seen anyone say such nonsense.
Quote it or retract.
It's not the T-80's fault russians hate wet ammo racks or basic ammo compartamentalisation(you know, little things like putting an armor sheet over the main autoloader ammo storage intead of the crew sitting on it) on their armor, something which is possible on tanks without bustles.
Lets blame the Russians... the T-64 was a SOVIET TANK built mainly in the Ukraine if you want to point the finger.
the T-72 corrected the problem, but the correction was not applied to the T-80 because it was identified after production of the T-80 was ended in Russia.
The Black Eagle prototype would have fixed the problem, but the t-90 didn't have the problem in the first place.
Still, ammo cookoffs are never 100% likely per penetration(It takes a good amount of luck for the enemy shell to actualy hit exactly where the shells are). Besides they're caused mostly not by the propellant, but by the HE charges cooking off. Proellant fires are gradual and can be fought before its too late. So if russian tanks didn't have HE ammo they wouldn't have a very high chance of cooking off. The abrams itself is impssible to cook off not because of genius ammo storage(shells in the bustle are still exposed), but because it simply can't use HE ammo( and the US army(being army smart) won't let it).
Oh dear... first of all HE shells don't spontaneously explode... you can take some HE and set fire to it and it will just burn. To get it to explode you need a real shock or another explosive. That is what High in High explosive means... it needs an explosion to make it explode. Low explosive is things like black powder, which can be made to explode readily and is often used to set off high explosive.
By the time HE shells are exploding in a tank the tank will have been burning for a good 20 minutes or more because all the safeties in the fuses have all sorts of protections to stop them from setting off unfired rounds.
propellent charges on the other hand with combustable cases are highly flammable and when you look at the tank sized flame coming out a 125mm gun barrel when it is fired, and then multiply that by the 22 charges in the autoloader and add perhaps another 20 all around the crew compartment in a T-80 you can easily work out that all of them going off at once... even with not a single HE round there... will blow the tank turret off.
It is basic common senses really... if the explosion was caused by all the HE shells going off the turret and tank would be shattered... instead the turret is pushed up and away from the tank like a shell down a barrel... it is propellent doing what propellent does...
Still, no NATO tank ever built except challengers, chieftains and abrams are immune to cookoffs because these 3 tanks have all their ammo in a bustle(which makes them superheavy unwieldy behemoths), lack HE, or have wet ammo racks. STill I applaud him for his ability to still stay mostly unbiased.
You might want to check that information... the abrams has 8 rounds next to the driver, and the challengers and chiefains also carry spare rounds in the crew compartment.
Their ammo is however much safer than the Soviet ammo because their ammo has the propellent inside a shell case that is not combustable.
I wholly disagree with you on saying he sucks up to western propaganda(he thinks the BMP-3 is arguably the best IFV built, he has great respect for the T-72, T-55, T-90, Black eagle), since he criticizes 80% of the time western equipment.
Don't really care what he likes or dislikes... his comments about the T-10 are wrong.
I really disagree on his position on the T-64 and T-62, but his position comes from his belief of how tanks should be designed, not because of antirussian bias.
So he is arguing from a position of ignorance...
It has no role, that's my point.... It is a heavy tank in the world of the well-rounded MBT (West still had a couple heavies, which was also a mistake on their part). It's armor wasn't much better than what it would be going up against, and its size wouldn't help that in combat either... For crying out loud, it could probably be destroyed by a SS.10 or .11!
It had a role taken over initially by the T-64 and now probably Kornet EM.
They replaced it with a MBT, not like that is relevant or anything....
For it to be a failure there would have to have been a MBT that was better than it was at the time it was operational... and if you claim the Centurion as being that MBT... I would say at 52 tons that the Centurion was a heavy tank too.
Bustle racks? How come you don't like them? - I don't really care for them, but I don't hate em' either...
The Russian Army doesn't like them because it exposes the ammo to enemy fire.
Garry, then you must consider the whole T-64/80 family as failed tanks?
Not the whole family. With a 120mm smoothbore the ammo is more resistant to light up, and of course the Black Eagle prototype also solved the problem in a very elegant way.
and armour in such small package, with a huge firepower and the best technology possible for accurate shooting, whereas T-62 and T-72 and T-55 were definitely not capable of the same achievements.
The 55 and 62 were a previous generation and the 72 was a keep it simple and cheap solution.
The T-90 is the best of both worlds.
Maybe russians should consider integrating the T-90A style AL in all T-80 in service, but, I guess they just don't give a damn...
They might look very similar but these two tanks have very different components... it just makes more sense to get rid of the T-80s.
The T-80BV has so much greater capabilities than the basic T-72B (both are the main type of tanks in russian army) than it might actually save him, because he will get the job done quickly and properly, instead of counting on a semi fantasy better survavibility in the T-72 if it's penetrated
In their original forms perhaps, but with upgrades the T-72 is much safer and just as capable.
The problem is the you can't use the half load tactic in a T-80, that's were the disadvantage is.
Exactly... in a T-72 or T-90, you can go into combat with 22 rounds loaded in the autoloader and be relatively safe from cookoffs... in a T-64 or T-80 even with only 22 rounds in the autoloader all 22 propellent stubs are exposed and in the crew compartment...
"tiny and light". - Not at all, yeah it was smaller than the Tiger, but it absolutely dwarfed the Panzers. Why are we even talking about the Krauts? The T-10 was introduced into service eight years after the war ended!
Nope, any credible source will call the Centurion the first MBT... The T-54, like I said, was a better example of one, but that doesn't mean it was the first one. As for "neither were MBT's".... Like I said, the Centurion was the first MBT, albeit a "sketchy" one because of its specs. BUT, MBT is an ideology when building a tank IMO and not much more. The Centurion represents what a first-gen MBT was, and its successful variants (in service for many years) showed the flexibility (MBT-ness) of its design. I'd say that the T-64 was the first true second-gen. MBT though.
Agreed, and I stated that later in my comment. However, what I'm stating, is that Stalin directly (or indirectly to some) influenced the tank, much like Hitler did to the Tigers.
That's what I said! Khrushchev "de-Stalinified" the tank, which supports what I said.
It was a heavy tank.... That's what I've said a hundred times already... Anyway, the M103 and Conqueror were two other crappy-tanks, funny isn't it?
You too? How do you guys not understand what I mean? Or is it just sheer ignorance? It isn't mobile, compared to other designs of its era. It was slow, heavy, had high-ground pressure, and was large! What does that equal, a (rather bad) vehicle when it comes to mobility!
So what! A tanks' role is no excuse for having dismissal range, and the T-10 would technically need it in order to "help" (more like slow down) the tanks that it would "protect" and "breakthrough with".
Lol, so I guess a tank doesn't need speed either, does it? Hey everybody, let's put a 100 hp diesel in the Armata, what an idea! If anything, a task like braking through enemy lines requires speed. Look at the Hellcat (an example here and not a comparo), it often went behind enemy lines, destroyed their armor, and got the heck out of there. Guess what (?), it worked! That is a much better design for what the T-10 did so poorly... A heavy-tank was (and is) a flawed ideology.
And? I suggested nothing more than that the design of the gun wasn't up-to date, not that it needed a smaller gun...
You don't understand... BD implied that its gun needed to replaced, and an enlarged T-54 gun would do just that.
I'm suggesting that for its size, the 122 mm wasn't all that impressive. A 100 mm would defeat the purpose of the already doomed tank design known as the T-10.
How is that relevant? Every tank should have enough coaxial ammunition, that in the worst-case scenario (let's say in between fighting enemy armor and personally with AT weapons), it will have enough ammo to suppress the personal while engaging the armor at the same time.Once again GarryB, why all the excuses? Gun depression may not seem important, but armor-engagements throughout (modern) history show the opposite to be true. A similar situation to the Syrian one could have happened w/o much preparation.
Because we aren't in the friggin 18th century where the enemy lines up in a line... Warfare is three-dimensional you know....
It was large for its era, I researched its size vs other tanks of its time and it dwarfed them. Your troloolollol friend cracker said that the Sherman was bigger for crying out loud. Of course there were bigger tanks back then (and even today), but that doesn't matter when we are talking about this tank and not them.
The M-48 was built on a similar ideology, was put into service right around the same time, and was a similar tank in general. Why not use it as a comparison?
Keep kidding yourself and I'll......... The T-64 was a completely different kind of tank, its role doesn't matter in that case. Never said its role was flawed....
Not that I know of... Are there any? And are they built *for* recovering the T-10?
Sure it is, but one-piece designs are easier to transport and load etc. More so when there are not multiple charges etc.
Yes, can you read? For its size, the T-10's interior was small in comparison.
A role that is would completely fail at doing! Lighter vehicles (back then) would have excelled there, much like the Hellcat did!
"Such nonsense" - You are saying it yourself GarryB...................
- This thread just went down the crapper... Bye-bye!
Mike,
I skimmed over this thread. I am not necessarily supporting the opinions of any particular poster, except for some of the points that "cracker" has made.
However, it seems that you are copy-and-pasting from the "Discovery channels" of the world. Don't you know that the Discovery Channel, among all the other prolefeed sources, has never said anything nontrivial that wasn't completely wrong?
Instead of making all these assertions, why aren't you asking questions? By asking questions, you can learn things.
All this make me remember about the three point of views which are used together in researching a material object: 1)comprehensiveness (all things are related and we need to study other fields to understand the targeted objects); 2)historical specificness (we need to put the object in the right time, right background and right conditions); and 3)evolutionary (nothing stay static, they all move, they will change sooner or later, and we need to know why and how they did change/will change)
