Failed Tanks

Werewolf wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:But in tank without a bustle you'll still have a C-Kill(turret blown off)  and a vaporized crew to boot. In both cases unsalvageable in a high intensity conflict.

So which would you rather have? Deestroyed tank with crew surviving or destroyed tank and killed crew?

In case of T-72/80 the crew and ammunition is better protected than on any other tank when only arm the autoloader, it is behind main armor and better protected than any other tank and only a direct hit will blow it off same os any western tank, except they do not have armored bustles.

And in T-90A the ammo storage is placed so that it will less likely to be hit than older Ts, and there are additional protection plates in the autoloader which increases the safety. In T-90AM the turret bustle is designed to direct the blasting effect outward of the tank and decrease the damage over the engine and turret.

@Mike E: armour is needed here because the T-10 is expected to open fire at very close range from the enemy front line, only about 2-3km. Some sort of a close range assault gun.

The role of T-10 is creating a hole in the enemy line for the lighter, more massive and more mobile ones to get into. And it provide fire support, fire cover for the exploiting tanks, too.

As the USSR had given the T-10 such roles, it do not need to be running like a Formula 1 racing car. Not to mention that the speed of T-10 is quite good. But it need to have decent armour to stay close the emeny front line and continuously engage enemy threat.

Heavy or light... you are free to call the T-10. But at the time when it was born (195x), T-10 is not obsolete. It just become obsolete in the middle 196x when people managed to combine the tough armour, big gun with great speed and lightweight.

About the Hellcat, I do not know much. Probably the U.S. used a different doctrine from the USSR, therefore they used different weapons.

higurashihougi wrote:@Mike E: armour is needed here because the T-10 is expected to open fire at very close range from the enemy front line, only about 2-3km. Some sort of a close range assault gun.

The role of T-10 is creating a hole in the enemy line for the lighter, more massive and more mobile ones to get into. And it provide fire support, fire cover for the exploiting tanks, too.

As the USSR had given the T-10 such roles, it do not need to be running like a Formula 1 racing car. Not to mention that the speed of T-10 is quite good. But it need to have decent armour to stay close the emeny front line and continuously engage enemy threat.

Heavy or light... you are free to call the T-10. But at the time when it was born (195x), T-10 is not obsolete. It just become obsolete in the middle 196x when people managed to combine the tough armour, big gun with great speed and lightweight.

About the Hellcat, I do not know much. Probably the U.S. used a different doctrine from the USSR, therefore they used different weapons.

Speed would replace the armor, as shown by the Hellcat. An assault gun shouldn't be used in a role like this one...

Which is a good role, but other tanks could have done it much better... How about getting in their quickly, destroying all major threats ASAP, all while providing fire support. - This was the M18's role towards the end of the year, and it did it very successfully...

It doesn't, but at the same time it should be as fast as the tanks it will later support and protect (it wasn't). The M model was fast "enough", but the earlier ones were crappy when it came to that. I'd argue the opposite position... Armor is great, but either (both) tank (the T-10 and M18) would be completely destroyed by an opposing tank (M-48, M-60 etc). What's the point of armor if it cannot defend against the enemies tank? - It didn't have great protection, hence why it would get destroyed.

It itself wasn't obsolete, but the concept behind it was. 

(Let me give you a hint, it did its job a million times better than what the T-10 could do (obviously it was older).

Let me give you a hint, it did its job a million times better than what the T-10 could do

What's because T-10 had other job, I think)

GarryB wrote:What I don't understand is all this BS about having the same ammo because up until the 1980s the US had the 45 cal pistol instead of 9mm..

The story of standardization for NATO weapons and ammo would have not become total BS if the NATO countries could have been allowed to choose weapons purely based on effectiveness.

But then there are some problems.

The first problem is that, a group of weapon-mongers want their designs and models to dominate weapon market. And weapon standardization means these weapon-monger will try everything to force the NATO countries to make concession and accept their designs, so that they can dominate the NATO market.

The second problem is that but these design are pure bullshit. Too bullshit that most of the NATO countries cannot accept.

That is the reason why EU went on fith FN FAL, FN FNC, FAMAS, HK Gxx, HK-417, RK 95, Steyr AUG, SA80, and so on. Although they have to make concessions, they cannot afford to let the failure designs dominate their army.

Meanwhile many countries and organizations in this world volunteer to copy and follow that standard of AK-47 gun and M43 catridge design. Yes, many countries was not forced to have "the same ammo and gun" to USSR, but they do it with great eagerness.

GarryB wrote:

No, they would not... At the time (keep in mind that it was in service through the CCCP's collapse), it wasn't a great tank.... And like I've said before, is was inadequate for its role!

Explain its role and then explain precisely in what ways it was inadequate.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a heavy tank, so what's your point?

The result then was a heavy tank. Today it would be Krisantema.

Yeah, a failure like the Tiger 2 that would get stuck in anything that wasn't asphalt, was a logistical nightmare, and would get knocked out by a TD that weighed half as much... Good job of proving yourself wrong!

Hahahaha... the Tiger II a failure? Interesting delusion. The video posted above showed the T-10 can drive off the asphalt.

Why not? If it's going to be "breaking enemy lines" (it wouldn't, it would get murdered) it should have as much speed as possible.

Murdered by what? Which western tank could penetrate its frontal armour at 2km?

Other way around....

So you are right, and I am wrong... WTF did the Soviets keep it in service for so long then?

They had plenty of Tanks... they didn't need to keep it in service at all.

The Tiger-2 was a piece of crap, at least we can agree on that!

Yeah... the western armour walked all over it... hang on... no they didn't...

And I said they wanted something to perform a similar role to the Tiger II, I didn't say they wanted a Tiger II.

The Hellcat's 76 mm could destroy Panther's and Tiger's routinely from the right angles, and it was going to be up-armed with a 90 mm had the war continued.

Even with a 90mm gun that was never fitted to it, a Hellcat could not defeat a T-10s armour from 2km. the T-10 on the other hand would rip through a Hellcat like it was... paper.

Speed would replace the armor, as shown by the Hellcat. An assault gun shouldn't be used in a role like this one...

the Hellcat was an ambush weapon... not a breakthrough weapon.

It doesn't, but at the same time it should be as fast as the tanks it will later support and protect (it wasn't).

It doesn't follow the tanks everywhere... it just breaks a hole in enemy defences for the tanks to get through.

It itself wasn't obsolete, but the concept behind it was.

It was withdrawn from service in 1967...

The Hellcat was ordinary... it had the same gun as a sherman... and not even a firefly... and could not penetrate a T-10M at operational ranges.

Why not you? For its role, which is braking through enemy armor and personal lines, the tank wasn't adequate... - A big gun and lump of armor (lots of it , but it was spread out around the large body of the tank) isn't going to do this role by itself... Speed, at the very least, quickens the process and lowers the chance of getting hit by a possibly very-close-range enemy vehicle. Its size would screw it over in the bad conditions that one could have expected in WW3 (during the Cold War). Had they made it more compact (keep in mind with a more usable design), with more power, less weight (doesn't have to be dramatic mind you), and kept the 122 mm (at the very leas), it would've been able to complete its role much better. 

?

The T2 was the definition of a failure GarryB. It had terrible protection for its weight, thanks to crappy armor, was slow as %$@&, would break down probably once a day etc... The whole thing was a giant mess that only Hitler ever wanted. I was talking about the T2 when I said "drive off of the asphalt". - Which is a reference for "off-roading" anyway.

I'm sure there are many, but a quick tank could (deja vu it) easily approach it, get within range, and fire before the T-10 could even see it..... 

Maybe they were idiots back then (/s). Who knows... Why does the US keep the M1 in service?

A similar role.... So, it would break down and get stuck in mud... That's the role? Be more specific. 

Sure it could rip it to shreds... But the M18 (with the larger gun) would use speed to its advantage.... Either way, the 90 mm gun could penetrate 8.5 inches of RHA at one kilometer.... 

Which is basically the same thing... Like I said, later in the war, the US used the M18 as a breakthrough tank to go before the Sherman's etc.

In which it can still utilize speed!

The early-model M18 couldn't penetrate the Tiger, so how on the name of Earth did they destroy them GarryB! It really isn't all that hard!

Werewolf wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:To the claim that bustles are worse because they're exposed to enemy fire: wouldn't that be irrelevant because even if the ammo is hit and a cookoff happens its of no danger to the crew(separate the ammo from them and channels the blast away from them) unlike if it cooks off in the hull?

That is a concern, because if the ammo blows up in the bustle which is right above the engine compartment you will cause a destroyed or severly damaged engine, which will leave you a sitting duck without ammunition to shoot back and they eventually will destroy you anway, so that is a concern for crew saftey.

You describe exactly why they make the tank salvageable. Good luck salvaging something out of a cooked off turret.

The Tiger and Tiger 2 were both failures on different niveaus.
Both had design flaws that were impossible to solve during war time and even after war time to many design flaws with the engine compartment, transmission like gearbox arrangement, to weak engine which was already obvious before the tank was constructed due the weight, instead of using slat armor on Tiger 1 it became an unnecessary behemoth that was to heavy and comprimized mobility with unnecessary armor which it could achieve with less armor=weight by just making a sloped design, the electric and hydraulic systems were inpractical and made troubles due heat and even could caught fire from own heat generated of the engine.

They were bad in mobility which terminates already one important factor of the three main attributes which makes tanks effective (mobility, firepower and protection), it wasn't really great armor just lot of it in a very primitive design which further downgrades the attribute and the Firepower was just that the entire tank was constructed around the 8.8cm instead of gowing for a tank design were everything matches with each other, no it was the gun and the rest was designed around the gun, nothing someone should ever do.

Mike E wrote:The T2 was the definition of a failure GarryB. It had terrible protection for its weight, thanks to crappy armor, was slow as %$@&, would break down probably once a day etc... The whole thing was a giant mess that only Hitler ever wanted. I was talking about the T2 when I said "drive off of the asphalt". - Which is a reference for "off-roading" anyway.

You have severely misunderstood Garry's point for quite a long time.

Let me restated it in a clearer way.

The USSR want T-10 to have the role which the Tiger 2 is expected to do and of course do not have the shortcomings of Tiger 2.

Hitler want the Tiger 2 to be ABC but Tiger 2 was a failure. The USSR want the T-10 to be ABC like Hitler want, and they want it to be successful, not a failure like Tiger 2.

In other words Hitler wanted to do ABC but he failed. And the USSR also wanted to do ABC and they wanted to be successful, not failed like Hitler, OK ?

Clear ?

Now back to the T-10.

Weight: 52 tonnes, much lighter than Tiger 2 (70 tonnes) and even lighter than Tiger 1 (54 tonnes). Cotemporat US M103 is 59 tonnes and UK Conqueror is 66 tones.

Speed: 42 km/h, very fast in that time because most medium tank in that time were only 40-50km/h. Conqueror is 34km/h, M103 is 37km/h. The old Tiger 1 and 2 is about the same speed. That means T-10 is comparable to most contemporary mediums and is much faster than contemporary heavys.

Protection: frontal armour 120-200mm, comparable to other heavy tanks. And superior to Tiger 2 although T-10 is lighter.

Armament: 122mm gun. Conqueror and M103 used 120mm gun, comparable.

So what do you think ?

Mike E wrote:I'm sure there are many, but a quick tank could (deja vu it) easily approach it, get within range, and fire before the T-10 could even see it..... 

What do you think about the number of T-10 the USSR will deployed in the battlefield to engage the enemy threat ? And what do you think about the position that the USSR will deployed ?

Do you sincerely think that light and medium tanks at that time can outmaneuver the T-10 to hit it in the rear and weak points ? I mean a who team of T-10 are waiting for them, not single, unorganized T-10.

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:The T2 was the definition of a failure GarryB. It had terrible protection for its weight, thanks to crappy armor, was slow as %$@&, would break down probably once a day etc... The whole thing was a giant mess that only Hitler ever wanted. I was talking about the T2 when I said "drive off of the asphalt". - Which is a reference for "off-roading" anyway.

The USSR want T-10 to have the role which the Tiger 2 is expected to do and of course do not have the shortcomings of Tiger 2.

Hitler want the Tiger 2 to be ABC but Tiger 2 was a failure. The USSR want the T-10 to be ABC like Hitler want, and they want it to be successful, not a failure like Tiger 2.

In other words Hitler wanted to do ABC but he failed. And the USSR also wanted to do ABC and they wanted to be successful, not failed like Hitler, OK ?

Clear ?

Now back to the T-10.

Weight: 52 tonnes, much lighter than Tiger 2 (70 tonnes) and even lighter than Tiger 1 (54 tonnes). Cotemporat US M103 is 59 tonnes and UK Conqueror is 66 tones.

Speed: 42 km/h, very fast in that time because most medium tank in that time were only 40-50km/h. Conqueror is 34km/h, M103 is 37km/h. The old Tiger 1 and 2 is about the same speed. That means T-10 is comparable to most contemporary mediums and is much faster than contemporary heavys.

Protection: frontal armour 120-200mm, comparable to other heavy tanks. And superior to Tiger 2 although T-10 is lighter.

Armament: 122mm gun. Conqueror and M103 used 120mm gun, comparable.

So what do you think ?

Mike E wrote:I'm sure there are many, but a quick tank could (deja vu it) easily approach it, get within range, and fire before the T-10 could even see it..... 

What do you think about the number of T-10 the USSR will deployed in the battlefield to engage the enemy threat ? And what do you think about the position that the USSR will deployed ?

Do you sincerely think that light and medium tanks at that time can outmaneuver the T-10 to hit it in the rear and weak points ? I mean a who team of T-10 are waiting for them, not single, unorganized T-10.

I've known that...

Got it, but that doesn't make it relevant. The reason I'm bugging GarryB over the T2, is because his wording makes it seem like he suggests it is comparable to the T2. 

Very clear.... 

Yep, but that isn't a good excuse for, an excuse... I've been over this before, I'm talking about the T-10's weight, on the Tiger's or M103's etc. (Notice something here? All these heavy-tanks were a failure!)

But still slower than the tanks it would defend... 42 kph is OK at best, but it isn't impressive to say the least... The M103 etc were even worse, but then again, they were heaver and just as much if not more so of a failure. As of right now, you and GarryB are comparing a failure (T-10), to a failure (M103), just to prove that the failure (T-10) isn't a failure... How does that work? - Gotta' give me props for that one... 

Superior to the T2 because the T2 used some cheap #@$% armor that was produced by workers (not to get controversial here, "Holocaust" and all) who couldn't produce %#&@... Once again, you are comparing a failure to the failure of all failures, which directly contradicts your point that the T-10 wasn't a failure... For its weight, the T-10 didn't have remarkable protection, shown wonderfully by BD in that video...

Very comparable, and I never said otherwise... This is just so funny... The gun itself was OK, but could have been much better with an upgraded design of some sort.

WW2 much? The Germans has very large numbers of tanks, and the M18 would still sneak up behind them routinely. At least this is backed up by history.......

Speed is very useful nevertheless.

Mike, maybe you should stop trolling?

Comparing M18 & M36 TDs to a late 1950s heavy tank? REALLY? God... M18 was a piece of crap, crews hated it, the top speed was not as advertised (it was roughly limited to 50 kph on road, 35 off), it was fuel hungry, easily flammable, extremely uncomfortable, noisy, loud, and easily destroyed by anything, even MG42 would knock it out.

M18 is so "glorious" in muricans mind today because it is remembered as a rocket fast "tank" (it wasn't at all), thanks to the trials and promoting in 1943... It's considered good because it was used properly several notable times, and turned the tide of several battles... It was a good ambush vehicle, and a good infantry support vehicule, with great awareness. (open...) But it was too fragile and just crap, after ww2 USA scrapped or sent abroad all M18, but kept M4A3E8 until mid 50s.

Keep dreaming, hellcat was lame in 1945, it would have been utterly ridiculous in 1960.

M36 were better overall, and kept in many armies up to the 90s... 90mm ammo was made and exported a long time during cold war, and i'm pretty sure M3 gun was able to use M47 / M48 ammo. It was excellent support vehicle, and TD in ww2, but as TD, it was useless vs T-44, 54, IS-3 and all later "bad guys" tanks. M36 had armour, reliability and punch vs M18.

But claiming any of the two would kill T-10 is bogus, 90mm can't penetrate T-10 frontally, at all, even the later M36/M41 guns used on M47/M48 pattons with newest ammo, it would have done nothing, even APDS and HEAT, as demonstrated vs egyptians IS-3 in 1973, when M48 of IDF had to close in and flank them, accounts talk about 500m flank shots failing to penetrate... U think the L7 was developped for nothing after the discover of the T-54 in budapest (1956)? No, it was made because UK 20pdr and US 90mm guns were not enough, imagine vs T-10(M)...

On sides, 90mm would fail to penetrate at up to 60° angle (or 30° from perfect perpendicular shot), just look armour scheme of IS-3 and T-10 please....

And keep in mind your precious M36 jackson would mostly use APCBC with 160mm penetration at 100m, not the fancy APDS, APCR or HEAT.

I won't even mention the 76mm gun on the hellcat, with 180mm APCR maximum, it was utterly useless. Of course, the lucky shot, or odd side/rear ambush shot could kill a T-10, but tanks do not operate in void, or alone.... T-10 units would consist of 31 tanks, supported by other forces.

Then you say hellcat/jackson would be better "breaktrhough" "tanks" than T-10 because of some imaginary better speed? LOL. Primitive machines, open toped, with bullet proof armour (not even true for hellcat), shitty guns with no FCS or stabilization whatsoever... slow turret speed... Are you insane? T-10M with 2 axis stabilised gun (most powerful gun in the world along with US M58 and UK L1 and L11), night vision, excellent aim systems, totally enclosed sloped heavy tank armour (250-320mm frontal armour LOS roughly, and also true for +40° aspect of each side), good range, reliable and barely less speedy than a medium tank like T-54, more than centurion, and with fantastic passability (more than T-54), operated by elite crews in well organised units inside a proper doctrine... Please, try harder.

Read this about the "marvellous" hellcat.... http://tankarchives.blogspot.fr/2014/03/lend-lease-impressions-m18-hellcat.html
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/351511-realistically-hellcat-or-jackson/


And stop trying to find faults to the early T-10 vs T-10M to justify your points, as I said already, production was mostly T-10M....... 1539 were built:
360 T-10, T-10A and T-10B between 1953 and 1957... Most of which were later rebuilt as T-10M
1179 T-10M and T-10MK between 1958 and 1965 !

source: http://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2013-03/1362299438_14.jpg

It seems the T-10M was liked and mass produced to fullfill a doctrinal need. T-10M were thus spear heads of soviet tank forces up to the early 1970s when T-64A replaced them, but T-10M stayed in service up to the last days of USSR, active and ready at least up to 1980. "So few" were produced vs T-54/55 because it was very expensive, and advanced, and just they needed this number for several elite units, only for domestic use, never intended for export......

Like it or not, T-10M had better armour than the chieftain, a comparable gun, and similar or better mobility. Chieftain had better aspects, like fire control and internal space... but it speaks about the potential of T-10M, which was itself way better than M103 and Conqueror (mostly in mobility, logistics and reliability) FYI, chieftain armour (MK2, 1966) was 80mm glacis / 76mm lower hull, 150mm turret (with sick angles making it 300-350 LOS), and pathetic 38mm side armour (ww2 37/45mm guns penetrate this at 500m... )........ T-10M had 120mm glacis and lower hull forming a pike nose, side armour, i'm not sure, but upper hull is very angled 80 or 90mm (150 LOS at least, and this is with perpendicular perfection shot, with front aspect, it's unpenetrable), lower hull is 80 or 60mm, straight, but it's still twice better than chieftain. Granted chieftain has some sort of skirts, but... Turret of T-10M is 250mm thick up front, quite think all around.

According to its capabilities, T-10M was a MBT. Oh, and It wasn't 52t, sorry.... 51.5t. Please, how "light" is a standard british army centurion of 1960?    or a M48A1?  This tank was thus probably the first real MBT in 1958.

Blacktaildefense sparky sparks miky mike whatever the fu/k is his name, is a retard. He proved nothing, his videos on the T-10 are retarded child work, and it's been 6 pages of proving it already. Admire him as much as you want, he is plain wrong on this case, maybe he did some good work, and he his quite entertaining, but on T-64 (which he claims production lasted something like 3 years XD), T-62 and T-10, he totally failed and parroted clownery from western propaganda.

GarryB wrote:With the three photos posted above, the first one has a bicycle riding past and the other two are clearly in city streets during some sort of uprising.

Urban combat would be places you would send your most heavily armoured vehicles, but as they are breakthrough tanks their lack of range would require long range fuel tanks to be fitted.

There are clearly two types... one with single fuel drums and one with two fuel drums, both of which would likely be ditched when the combat area was reached.

Most of the photos I have seen did not show external fuel tanks, these ones shown likely during the Hungarian uprising or something similar does not change that.

T-10M didn't even exist in 1956, it was T-44, T-34-85, T-54, IS-3, mostly, used in this uprising. One captured (by hungarian resistants/terrorists/depends on your location) T-54 was driven into UK embassy, creating panic because the armour was simply unheard of for a medium tank, while they felt confident at home with their centurions. Lead more or less to 105mm L7 gun.

IS-3 proved unvaluable in blowing up entire buildings with massive 122mm HE shells, a handfull were lost (to cocktail molotovs and ammo blow up). Most casualties were T-34-85.

The photos I showed are from the 1968 czech-slovak uprising, but it was not a massive fight like 1956... Soviet army deployed nearest forces, including T-10M regiments (proving once more that they served near the border of NATO as spear heads), T-55, T-54, Su-122-54, and maybe T-62 (not sure).

T-10M would have caused a hell in city fighting, and be totally imune to local "AT weapons". Soviet forces use those disposable fuel tanks on all tanks, T-10M was no exception, it increases autonomy by 100% basically (if you have all of them)... Of course they are not linked to internal fuel system, one must pump it into the system manually, with simple mecanical pump stored inside any of the storage bins. The driver can discard them in a second using a cable, if they are assaulted. They are placed on multipurpose device usually where you place MDSH smoke canisters, also activated by the cable. This practice was up to T-62 and early T-64, later tanks having dedicated fuel drums places and turret mounted 82mm smoke mortars.

On the T-10M (or any T-10) you can spot 2 built in rectangular tanks at the back of the overtrack, they are external fuel tanks, there is several option, i'm not sure.... might be 2 linked external fuel tanks, or non linked, either fuel or oil filled reserves.



Mike, you rather fight in T-10M or Hellcat ?

@Mike: Personally I don't think Hellcat is suitable for the job assigned to T-10, even if T-10 is not 100% suitable.

T-10 breakthrough role, like other heavy tanks, demands the tank to stay quite close to the enemy frontline and continously engage the enemy forces for long time. It's not like you bombard the enemy line from far far away like artilerry or hide in cover like ambush. In such prerssure you need decent armour, and if you see T-10 is not sufficent and there is no way Hellcat is.

For me the T-10 speed is satisfactory because it is comparable even to the medium tanks of that time and T-10 were not assigned to exploited the hole in the enemy line therefore lightning speed is uneccessary.

Hellcat speed can be used for something else but not for the task assigned to T-10 and not for counter-attack against organized T-10s who are opening fire to break your line.

I don't think even with the speed of Hellcat it can outmanever and hit the weakpoints of a whole organized unit of T-10. And against frontal armour of T-10, Hellcat can hardly do anything before T-10 blasts it away with one hit.

You can propose a stronger engine and better armour for T-10s if you see they are inadequate but Hellcat is not the solution.

T-10 retired when T-64 and T-72 entered service because they have better armour, stronger firepower with lighter weight and faster speed. But in 195x and 196x the T-10 was still useful and had a role in the contemporary doctrine.

Ok let's have more fun

Instead of myths and assumptions, let's end the debate around T-10M mobility vs other tanks... So, how "immobile and sluggish" is the T-10M?

Type, weight metric t, max speed kph, engine power, hp/t

T-10M: 51.5t, 50km/h, 750hp (diesel), 14.6hp/t

Centurion Mk.9: 52t (i can't find variants caracteristics, it's probably right for mk-7-9, I chose Mk-9 because it's first model to come with L7, and in 1959, one year after T-10M), 35-40 km/h, 650hp (gasoline), 12.5hp/t

M47: 46.2t, 48km/h, 810hp (gasoline), 17.5hp/t

M48: 45t, 45km/h, 810hp (gasoline), 18hp/t

M48A2: 47.6t, 48km/h, 825hp (gasoline), 17.3hp/t

M48A3: 48.5t, 48km/h, 750hp (diesel), 15.5hp/t

M103: 56.7t, 34km/h, 810hp (gasoline), 14.3hp/t

M103A2: 58.1t, 37km/h, 750hp (diesel), 12.9hp/t

Conqueror: 66t, 34km/h, 810hp (gasoline), 12.3hp/t

T-54A/B: 36.4t, 50km/h, 520hp (diesel), 14.3hp/t

T-55: 36t, 55km/h, 580hp (diesel), 16.1hp/t

Surprise, centurion is both HEAVIER and LESS MOBILE than T-10M!!! As already said, this tank would be classfied heavy in soviet army! (IS-3 was only 47t!), but most importantly, it would be REJECTED right away by soviet army for UNACEPTABLE level of "armour" and very bad mobility.

Except the M47 and M48 with gasoline engines (gasoline engines! ), all tanks are roughly equal or inferior to the T-10M. So much for the immobile and sluggish T-10M   ... BlacktailD and Mike E, eat this. And keep in mind also T-10M has fantastic large tracks, high torque per ton, great passability, ability of deep fording to 5m (no western tank can, at the time), etc... Not even talking armour/firepower here!!!, good range with ability to use disposable fuel drums, etc...


And for the sake of it, more modern tanks:

M60, 46.3t, 48km/h, 750hp (diesel), 16.2hp/t

M60A1, 47.6t, 48km/h, 750hp (diesel), 15.6hp/t

M60A3, 51.9t, 48km/h, 750hp (diesel), 14.5hp/t

Chieftain Mk.2, ???t (between 50 and 56), 40km/h, 650hp (multifuel), 13-11.6hp/t

leopard 1 (early), 40t, 65km/h, 819hp (diesel), 20.5hp/t

T-62, 37t, 50km/h, 580hp (diesel), 15.7hp/t

AMX-30, 36t, 65km/h, 680hp, 18.9hp/t


even vs 1960s tanks which were designed differently than those of precedent generations, the T-10M is not worse, only the Leo 1 and AMX 30 are noticeably more mobile, being the first fast MBTs, followed by T-64 and later 72, 80, leo 2, abrams. And keep in mind T-10M has better or equal armour and firepower to all the tanks above...

So, T-10M is still a failure?

There is some interesting videos on youtube on falied tanks, they show for example:

T-62
IS3
M114
M60A2
Arjun
M1


Which is the most failed tank by your opinion?

My vote would go to the M114, though its a APC, it was a horrible effort of an effective APC. On tanks, maybe M60A2, altough the only bad thing was the turret and main weapon.
Perhaps the T-62? The T-55 with HVAPFSDS took away the only advantage of the T-62 with its 115mm gun.
The M1? The most overrated and costly tank of today, no tanks from 1980´s are in service.
IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun.
Arjun? Doesnt seem even the Indians want to buy their own tank.

There maybe are some else failed tank out there?

Worst tank from conception to finish:
The Bob Semple
Best example of making a good tank bad:
The Asad Babil
Best example of accidentally making a really shitty tank, instead of an APC:
M2 Bradley

omg... not this crap again... those mike sparks VIDEOS!!!

"IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun."

ridiculous. Perfectly fine tank, thin side armour?????? 90mm in the bottom just behind the wheels, and about 210mm on the top part of the hull.... is that thin? Side turret is 200mm effective at least. Bad gun? God...

T-62 bad? It brought many things filling the gap between primitive T-54 and complex T-64. T-62 was fine and needed, as the AFPSDS for T-55 came only in the 70s and 80s, T-62 was the main tool of power in the 60s and 70s, with T-64 also.

Yes the M551 Sheridan is a good candidate, but M4 Sherman was an adequat tank which though it had it drawbacks must be considered a good tank. Adding it to the fail list because of critisim against T-62 is inmature.

The IS-3 was a heavy tank, and they belonged to history as they couldnt keep up with the fast moving MBT. The slow speed, slow ROF and high weigt is a serious handicap.
T-62 was succesful in the right hands, so i dont either agree with "failed tanks author". Altough as most of warsaw pact countries continued with T-55 its HVAPFSDS came in 1967, and as the price for T-62 was double it did not offer a much better tank then the T-55.

"The T-55 was significantly superior to the IS-2 Heavy Tank in all respects, including the rate of fire of the gun (at least four compared to less than three rounds per minute). Despite somewhat thinner frontal turret armour (200 millimetres (7.9 in) instead of 250 millimetres (9.8 in)) it compared favourably with the IS-3, thanks to its improved antitank gun and better mobility. Heavy tanks soon fell from favour, with only 350 IS-3s produced" Wiki.

Now how about the Arjun?
M1 with its fuel thirsty engine, no other country has bought it, a failure?

cracker wrote:omg... not this crap again... those mike sparks VIDEOS!!!

"IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun."

ridiculous. Perfectly fine tank, thin side armour?????? 90mm in the bottom just behind the wheels, and about 210mm on the top part of the hull.... is that thin? Side turret is 200mm effective at least. Bad gun? God...

T-62 bad? It brought many things filling the gap between primitive T-54 and complex T-64. T-62 was fine and needed, as the AFPSDS for T-55 came only in the 70s and 80s, T-62 was the main tool of power in the 60s and 70s, with T-64 also.

LOL... I can't believe someone brought up this topic again knowing about what happened last time. 

For the last time though, it is not Mike Sparks. He has his own troll area of the internet.

LOL... I can't believe someone brought up this topic again knowing about what happened last time.

Haha, tell me what happened!?

But it is ok to have different wievs i hope?

GarryB wrote:Nothing to do with immature... the T-62 had excellent mobility, reasonable armour for its size and weight, and an excellent gun. If it is being considered a failure because the tank it replaced was evolved for export and got improvements along side the T-62, then a WWII tank that most in the west are under the impression was some super tank that was known at the time by an advertising slogan... lights first time, every time, for a cigarette lighter I would say it was a failure in that it was not the best choice or design at the time.

Its only redeeming feature was that it was mass produced, and that would have applied to any tank the US had produced in its place.

Yet the Sherman was preferred over Pershing in Korea and was even used in 1967 middle east war.(as supersherman) I dont consider either T-62 nor Sherman a failure. In WW2, Sherman was much better then M3, Cromwell or Churchill tanks, not to say it was super good, just better then these...

But i wouldnt exchange my T-55´s for T-62´s as most warsaw pact countries wouldnt either. And the T-55 was in production long after the stopped making T-62´s.

The Abrams? Australia, Egypt, quite a few other countries have it in service... though I doubt the armour is the same if you know what I mean...

With its British armour and German gun it is not a bad tank as long as you don't mind a large bill every time you visit the pump.

It would be interesting to see how the M1A1 export models would come out in a real conflict, as usual i would think it depend on crew training and the opponent. However i very much doubt it will be a succes.

But the Abrams have certainly failed on the market, no european orders, they have all opted for other tanks.

My favorite tank is the T-72, though the west surely deem it as a failure.
My most Failed tank would be Churchill, its hard to find a modern failure, but i say Arjun and Ariette. Both domesticely produced in very low numbers with no other buyers.

runaway wrote:

LOL... I can't believe someone brought up this topic again knowing about what happened last time.

Haha, tell me what happened!?

But it is ok to have different wievs i hope?

Not much... I was just stating my view and everyone else was doing the same. It got outta hand though, and it turned into a typical thread-ruining argument. +

The Churchill 1 (early version) had no redeeming features, and, as such, was a massive failure; it was slow, large, didn't have an amazing armament, and was extremely unreliable all in one "glorious" package. 

The Sherman wasn't a "bad" tank, just not a "great" one either. It had OK armor, an OK gun, along with OK mobility... Case in point; it was just OK. However, the German had vehicles that outclassed it. 

 - The Arjun is trash, period... No tank should take 3 DECADES OR MORE to develop, and it STILL isn't ready!

As for the long-debated T-10 (IS-8 or whatever you like to call it)... It was kind of a medium-weight-heavy. - Basically, for a heavy tank, it didn't have *great* armor, but in return, for a heavy tank, it had *great* mobility. And in that respect, it was nothing more than a slightly slower MBT.

what, nobody mentioned FCS MCS? basically their take on the russian sprut-sd. major problem tho, is that its meant to slug against frontline units, not unlike an abrams mbt wheras the sprut would be for that odd armor encountered deep behind enemy lines. mobility is not as good as the sprut too- non airdroppable and non amphibous. not only that, they rely a lot on APS to save the day