APS is the new name of the game. problem with recyclying old hulls like the T55 is that the cost of the hull becomes a negligible part of the overall system cost once you factor in all the modern gizmos.
Hardly new... Drozd was tested in the 1980s and was successful enough... Drozd 2 is available now, while ARENA was designed from scratch, but ARENA 2 seems to have removed the big tower and made it more efficient... the real point is that APSs are still not very widely deployed.
A decent APS could make older tanks still viable in a range of roles but one has to ask if they do their job do new armoured vehicles need heavy armour anymore?
Mass production should reduce costs, but having modular armour arrangements could lead eventually to instead of having four different vehicles... having one with different levels of modular armour and the option of tracks or wheels... back to the BT series tanks!
I reckon the best use for the T55 hulls is in cheap ARV/Heavy APC. mods that don't cost the earth, and thus the original hull / tracks / engine will retain a decent % of the overall value of the end vehicle.
I would think a new design with modular armour that can be upgraded makes more sense. T-55s have old wiring and old components... the bother of giving it an extensive upgrade just to use it as an APC.
For a country that has lots of them... they are either very poor or Russia or China... if they are poor then trucks will do the job. Russia is working on all new vehicles and China has a range of alternatives too.
I would think the best market for a T-55 based APC would be to make them for small armies like NZ or Israel, with all the bells and whistles so they wont be cheap but will do a good job of protecting troops.
The low cost and availability of parts making support cheaper than modern vehicles.
"The T-80U is the worst tank the Soviets produced... fuel guzzling Rronson."
You can't say that, ever. You have a point, but regardless, it's still much better than US equivalent, the abrams turbine... And, T-80U was the best tank in every aspect produced before T-90A, and still remains the highest potential tank in russian army, besides T-90A. T-80U could be modernized to levels T-72B3 could never dream of, if they wanted. We know why they don't, so, this is not the point...
Worst russian tank would be... The IS-4 maybe. 30's and WW2 light tanks were crap, but at least they served a purpose, and were plentiful and cheap, one could even argue that T-70 was a good machine (this does not incorporate mainstream T-26 and BT-5/7 which were great tanks in their time, but rather T-38/40/60/70). KV-1 could not be considered a terrible tank, because it accomplished a lot and served bravely, despite the problems. And The KV-1S was a good tank, IS-1 and 2 are simply great, while IS-3 had good points, despite big problems. But IS-4, this thing was simply not needed. In prototypes, in small batch for tests, yes, but not in production. IS-5/8/9/10 and Finally T-10 was also a decent tank, the T-10M was arguably as good as early T-72 or chieftains. T-34, 44 and 54 are the best concepts and practical tanks, followed by T-55,62 and 64, then the 72 and 80, all come from the same school, and are all good tanks in their own way.
Well in fact T-35 would be a far worst tank than IS-4 indeed, but, it's not fair to judge this early design, but the T-28 however was a decent tank, and easily the equivalent of PzIV with short gun.
@ braindead OP: look for reports and interviews of russian tankers in chechen wars... Their respect and admiration for T-72 speaks loads about this tank (T-72B). Similar to what we see in syria, with the ANNA reportages, but, it was with proper modern tank, not 30 years old monkey models.
cracker wrote:"The T-80U is the worst tank the Soviets produced... fuel guzzling Rronson."
You can't say that, ever. You have a point, but regardless, it's still much better than US equivalent, the abrams turbine... And, T-80U was the best tank in every aspect produced before T-90A, and still remains the highest potential tank in russian army, besides T-90A. T-80U could be modernized to levels T-72B3 could never dream of, if they wanted. We know why they don't, so, this is not the point...
Worst russian tank would be... The IS-4 maybe. 30's and WW2 light tanks were crap, but at least they served a purpose, and were plentiful and cheap, one could even argue that T-70 was a good machine (this does not incorporate mainstream T-26 and BT-5/7 which were great tanks in their time, but rather T-38/40/60/70). KV-1 could not be considered a terrible tank, because it accomplished a lot and served bravely, despite the problems. And The KV-1S was a good tank, IS-1 and 2 are simply great, while IS-3 had good points, despite big problems. But IS-4, this thing was simply not needed. In prototypes, in small batch for tests, yes, but not in production. IS-5/8/9/10 and Finally T-10 was also a decent tank, the T-10M was arguably as good as early T-72 or chieftains. T-34, 44 and 54 are the best concepts and practical tanks, followed by T-55,62 and 64, then the 72 and 80, all come from the same school, and are all good tanks in their own way.
I agree but you're not right one the T-10. Although it had advanced technology it only had the same frontal armor as the T-55, far worse mobility and logistics, and its 122mmWW2 gun was completely outdated. It had abysmal ROF(even for similar armed western heavy tanks) and obsolete ammo types without further potential for improvement.
Well in fact T-35 would be a far worst tank than IS-4 indeed, but, it's not fair to judge this early design, but the T-28 however was a decent tank, and easily the equivalent of PzIV with short gun.
No T-35 was, although with severe ergonomics and logistics problems, was still superior to all western heavy tanks of the time(vickers independent, matilda mk.1, neubahrfahrzug, char B1) as well as having arguably the best frontal armor(70mm) of all 30s tanks. When assaulting proper tank terrain it would've been adequate. BTW did you know the T-28 had wokring prototypes with a 85 and 90mm guns and would've had the best firepower in the world if they weren't cancelled in favor of T-34s?
IMO the worst russian tanks ever built were the KV-2 and T-27 tankettes. (t-38 at least served a purpose by being amphibious and airmobile)
@ braindead OP: look for reports and interviews of russian tankers in chechen wars... Their respect and admiration for T-72 speaks loads about this tank (T-72B). Similar to what we see in syria, with the ANNA reportages, but, it was with proper modern tank, not 30 years old monkey models.
This guy went 120% full retard when he connected T-72, iraq and only 15-20% performance downgrade.
You are plain wrong on the T-10.... Just fully. Believe me, I studied about this tank because I freakin love it, and all you said is BS.
The T-10, T-10A and T-10B were early variants, and used a derivate of the D-25T gun, with stabilizer and fume extractor, and made more accurate etc... This gun still used the conventional ammo fired by IS-2 in the war, but it could also fire new generation APDS ammo... All early T-10 were converted into T-10M later, and T-10M was the bulk of production anyway. The T-10M used a radically new gun, the 122mm M-62T2S, a two plane stabilized high power gun. 1439 T-10 were built, and most of them were either T-10M or converted into T-10M.
The T-10 with D-25TA gun could penetrate pretty much any tank of NATO anyway, centurion or M47 (and M48 later), heavy tanks was another story, but not impossible (M103 and conqueror)
D-25TA and M-62T2S could use the same projectiles, but they had a totally different propelant case. Of course both are 2 part ammo.
BR-471 ww2 era APHE_________~200mm at 100m 0° (D-25) BR-471B ww2 era APBCHE___________~210mm at 100m 0° (D-25) BR-472 1950s era APCBCHE____________ ~225mm at 1km 0° (M-62) 3BM-11 1966 APDS___________ ~320mm at 2km 0° (M-62)
And at least two HEAT rounds also introduced in the 1960s, around 400-450mm penetration.
T-10M used best of its time FCS possible, had gun rammer, pretty decent ROF of 3-4 rpm, extreme firepower, KPV as coaxial, the mobility was great, tactically it was even better than T-54A/T-55 in some ways. 52t was not huge. Suspension and tracks of T-10M were excellent, the suspension design was later used in Object 430 & 432, then T-64. In effect, the T-64 replaced the T-10M as the elite tank of army.
T-10M armour was much superior to the T-55, what you say is bogus. 120mm up front, with wicked angles, and the turret armour is much stronger than T-55. Side armour is the same, very angled, 80 or 90mm.
T-10M was the most durable and hardest hitting tank of soviet army, even T-64 was not as good at this, and we can see today in ukraine how poorly designed was the T-64, with terrific welding failures. Massive APDS 3BM11 was a nightmare for any tank of the cold war, in a sense it was even more powerful than early APFSDS of T-62 gun.
Read this, on tank net http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33106&page=4
read this, my job, on WOT forums (post 185 and 197) http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/413595-chieftain-gun-armour-argument/page__st__180#topmost
I know very well mike sparks' videos on so called failed tanks... It's just a lame joke. He made same bullshit on T-62 or T-64, and I corrected and destroyed all his points already on youtube comments, 2 or 3 years ago.
This guy is the clown of internet, in case you didn't know. Just type mike sparks in google. On tank-net he's known as the most ridiculous lunatic of "tank people".
He will do anything to support his deranged ideas, he emphasizes on totally irrelevant points, make up things, numbers, etc... just not worth it. His videos on failed US armor, series on stryker, bradley and abrams, are somehow informative and fun somtimes, he has some points... but even this is mainly BS for braindead sheep.
EDIT
In fact this video on T-10 is all new! I was sure I saw it before... So, i'll look it and tell you what I think.
Ok... Some points totally wrong, in no particular order...
"IS tanks defined by their immense size"... LOLWUT? JS-2 was MUCH smaller than KV-85 or KV-1, and only 46t, while being IMMENSELY smaller than tiger, panther and tiger 2... It starts good...
"historians consider the centurion the first MBT"... Who? In what name? In that case, T-44 or T-54 are easily MBT too. MBT means nothing anyway, T-34 was the first MBT in 1940 if we follow the "rules"... So, totally unprofessional and unnecessary remark to begin with...
"stalin loved big tanks named after him" the whole thing is just subjective... Cheliabinsk bureau worked hard to achieve IS-2, and they continued work on the basis, the T-10 was accepted because it was good.
"thousands T-10 were completed"... Bogus again... Unless 1439 is "several thousands" for him. He simply looked the wikipedia BS "8000 T10"
he implies constantly that T-10 is a gigantic beast etc... Is he blind? 52t and very compact size, the T-10 is still much smaller and lighter than even the tiger 1, hell it's smaller than a sherman!
"T-10 mobility was bad , blablablabla, heaviest soviet AFV, 57 tons, blabla" 57 tons? Can't he speak like all humans in metric system? 52T. About bad mobility, more under...
Then he goes full retard by saying eastern europe and russian roads& bridges are shit, and can't support these mere 52t... Again a retarded person who thinks even infrastructure building is inherently better in "ze west" because... It's the west ! ... Hopeless mike sparks...
"the T-10 only had a range of 217 miles"... ONLY? LOL? please, dear braindead mike sparks, go check range of early NATO tanks centurion or M47... Or the cousins M103 / conqueror.. ehm ehm... 217 mi = 350 km. And this is WITHOUT external barrels, which I think max out to ~500km. Basically 8x more than early centurions. XD
"top speed of T-10M good but not great 31mph... blabla, T-10 only 23mph, bad blabla"... Here is what I said earlier, the emphasis on irrelevant points. T-10M was the real mass produced definitive variant, and all were rebuilt to this standard! So, T-10M is basically the only tank can be named T-10. He is retarded. 31mph is simply great for heavy tank, 50 kph. Hell, 23 mph is not bad at all either, 37 kph, it's enough for heavy tank.
"low velocity 122mm gun blablablablabla... low ROF, low ammount of ammo"... OMG.. I knew it... just look my previous post and links, I explained already the real firepower. He's a retard, simply. 800m/s for 25 KG !!!! AP projectile in early guns, or 980m/s for the new gun! and 1600m/s for APDS? It's slow? HAHAHA... And you don't need more than 30 rounds if one 122mm shell is enough for a target.
"T-54 was better, unitary cartridges, blblblablabalbala"... Yeah genius, but D-10T is hardly M-62T2S in firepower ! What a retard...
"german used better guns on heavy tak in ww2, 122mm was pointless"..... He goes amok, simply full braindead. Go read reports on D-25T gun on the website "archive awareness".
"only ammo was antiquated AP"... Yeah, moron, BR-472 APCBC introduced in mid 1950s was not antiquated, and extremely effective, he knows nothing, simply nothing. He thinks the only ammo was 1930's and 1945 design, namely BR-471 and 471B. HE is a CLOWN, don't ever believe anything he says about soviet technology! nothing!
"wasn't before 1967 that they got modern APDS and HEAT"... Yeah, true , but what about it? These ammo were perfect and served well the T-10 during more than 20 following years, and were even able to be used in earlier IS-2 and IS-3. These ammo could destroy ANY NATO tank before the leopard and abrams.
"but it was no point, 100mm ammo was already better and 125mm guns arrived"... What a clown. 100mm equivalent APDS for T-54/55 was much less powerful than the 122mm BM11... HEAT, not even worth talking about 100 vs 122mm !... Plus, soviets could have focused on the 122mm if they wanted and introduce even better HEAT with 650mm pen or APFSDS, but they focused on other calibers. 125mm was not in service before 1968 at best, with T-64A, and it was not that much formidable, just the SAME as 115mm ammo used in T-62 and T-64, of course from mid 1970s, the new ammo for 115, 100 and 125mm outclassed greatly the 122mm, but it's not the point.
"making the matter worse, there were 4 types of propelant charges for the gun"... OMG what a retard!! LOL He confused with artillery charges!!!! OF COURSE NOT.... There were only 2 types: one for HE round, one for AP round, that's it!
He complains about gun depression and low ammount of coax ammo... Not really relevant at all. He even messes up the T-10 coax caliber... 7.62? LOL no retard, it was a DSHKM 12.7, and later KPVT 14.5...
"side armour was not enough to defeat anti tank ammo"... Really? And what tank does.. pathetic. I said already that T-10M side armour was superior enough to T-54 to make it a heavy tank, and it could easily defeat WW2 era 76mm guns as on sherman, or 17 pdr, or soviet 85mm. He is a clown. And good luck penetrating the T-10 with early handheld rocket lauchers like M20 bazooka or M75 recoilless rifle, etc...
then he says it has too much armour for a heavy tank PRICELESS.
Then he goes braindead again and dares say less armour than T-54, which is totally WRONG, as I already explained.
He dares compare direct quoted armour thickness (and values are wrong )... He doesn't understand that T-10 has largely superior angles and profiles... T-10M frontal armour = roughly 300mm line of sight, T-54 closer to 200. Side = 120-180 for T-10, 80 and 150 for T-54. The clown never stops to be funny...
"T-10 was the largest, longest blablabla soviet afv", yeah, true, but even with this status it was much more compact than either centurion or M48, not even speaking M103. Mike sparks, just stop for god's sake...
then he gos about reliability and endurance, blablabla, no sources, no reliable info... Just BS. I think i'll stop here, it's really too much.
Yes it was not as easy to maintain and logistically harder than T-54, but, wake up idiot, it's a HEAVY TANK. Wow...
"recovering was pain"... LOL? Already during war KV-1 and T-34 based tractors towed tigers!!! no problem. Tiger is 57T! Soviet engeneering AFVS of 50s 60s and 70s had no problems at all.
he goes amok about separate ammo... About so called complex logistic (for 1400 tanks in the peak time of soviet union? LOL?) etc.... Again he shows his pathological emphasis on the MOST irrelevant factors to justify his ideas... Troll at work, or simply dement person?
He has a point on non compatible parts produced by different factories... but that would be the SOLE true defect of T-10, and it was not such a matter for 1400 tanks, of which certainly only 1200 at most were in service, probably even less.
Goes amok about ergonomy.... Typical. "tankers need to bathe regularly after all" YeaHHHH because tankers in ALL OTHER TANKS THAN T-10 bathe on a regular baisis, INSIDE JEEZ...
Goes retard AGAIN about production numbers... "2500", no, 1439. "pitiful amount by USSR standards"... Yes, but it's a DOCTRINAL choice!!!!! moron. USSR clearly chose T-54 as main tank, but still needed heavy breaktru regiments for a special purpose.... T-10 production was deemed SUFFICIENT at 1400, because they new the T-64 was coming, and there remained at least 3000 OPERATIONAL and modernised IS-2M and IS-3M....
"not popular in export"... T-10M WAS TOP DOG tank, never exported anywhere... He mix up with IS-3!!! he is such a clown...
Goes amok about advances in ATGM and uselessness of heavy tank killer tank... It's pointless and totally wrong, TANKS are the best tool to kill tanks, especially in the anticipated conventional WW3 that they were all prepared for. He forgets to mention the pathetic performance of early ATGM here, and claim them to be wunderwaffe.
Says it was not in front line service and replaced by T-62... HAHAHA, no, T-10M remained reserve emergency tank units up until there were enough T-64A in front line units... Basically T-10M remained active well up to 1975 at least, and reserve semi active up to 1980 at least.
And the end of the video is just pointless logorhea, not even worth quoting...
So here is your professor Mike Sparky sparks I could destroy all, ALL the videos he did on soviet AFV, but... So, please, follow my advice, never watch his vids seriously, he's a mental ill person, conspiracy paranoid troll, and simply a RETARD.
To conclude, the REAL T-10, fantastic army video, it shows mobility, passability, internal arrangement, and gun rammer mecanisms, T-10M is pictured only at the end of the video though... So, if the early T-10A or B was already this good, imagine the M.
Last edited by cracker on Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:26 am; edited 1 time in total
This guy isn't Mike, many think he is, but he appears to be much younger.
He pretty much is a joke, but at the same time he exploits flaws in US equipment...
You probably won't like the video, but he still makes some relevant points. You could always comment and tell him the flaws in his info, he doesn't mind answering those questions.
cracker wrote:I know very well mike sparks' videos on so called failed tanks... It's just a lame joke. He made same bullshit on T-62 or T-64, and I corrected and destroyed all his points already on youtube comments, 2 or 3 years ago.
This guy is the clown of internet, in case you didn't know. Just type mike sparks in google. On tank-net he's known as the most ridiculous lunatic of "tank people".
He will do anything to support his deranged ideas, he emphasizes on totally irrelevant points, make up things, numbers, etc... just not worth it. His videos on failed US armor, series on stryker, bradley and abrams, are somehow informative and fun somtimes, he has some points... but even this is mainly BS for braindead sheep.
EDIT
In fact this video on T-10 is all new! I was sure I saw it before... So, i'll look it and tell you what I think.
I've to aggree, Blacktail knows quite a little bit about US tanks, but he made alot of mistakes with "Failed Tanks" regarding russian tanks and he even stated this Anti Soviet Propaganda myths like "Autoloaders rib off arms" which was only invented to give an explenation why the US is not using them instead of proving anything that autoloaders are bad they made a myth.
And even to call T-62 or T-64 a failed tank is outragous, that is the best tank of its time and not a single western tank was capable of getting equal or surpassing the T-64 for more than two decades.
Werewolf wrote:I've to aggree, Blacktail knows quite a little bit about US tanks, but he made alot of mistakes with "Failed Tanks" regarding russian tanks and he even stated this Anti Soviet Propaganda myths like "Autoloaders rib off arms" which was only invented to give an explenation why the US is not using them instead of proving anything that autoloaders are bad they made a myth.
And even to call T-62 or T-64 a failed tank is outragous, that is the best tank of its time and not a single western tank was capable of getting equal or surpassing the T-64 for more than two decades.
He gets his info from multiple different sources, so in general he isn't biased this way or that way. The only time I've seen him being *actually* biased, isn't on YT, but on an article about an Israeli tank (Sabra?) on Militarytoday where he posts articles sometimes... - I have as well, but only on the Volk.
Those claims aren't outrageous, they had serious designs flaws... Watch all of his failed tank videos, and you will find that he isn't really biased and actually provides good info (depends).
Werewolf wrote:I've to aggree, Blacktail knows quite a little bit about US tanks, but he made alot of mistakes with "Failed Tanks" regarding russian tanks and he even stated this Anti Soviet Propaganda myths like "Autoloaders rib off arms" which was only invented to give an explenation why the US is not using them instead of proving anything that autoloaders are bad they made a myth.
And even to call T-62 or T-64 a failed tank is outragous, that is the best tank of its time and not a single western tank was capable of getting equal or surpassing the T-64 for more than two decades.
He gets his info from multiple different sources, so in general he isn't biased this way or that way. The only time I've seen him being *actually* biased, isn't on YT, but on an article about an Israeli tank (Sabra?) on Militarytoday where he posts articles sometimes... - I have as well, but only on the Volk.
Those claims aren't outrageous, they had serious designs flaws... Watch all of his failed tank videos, and you will find that he isn't really biased and actually provides good info (depends).
Some flaws do not make something automatically failed and the T-64 in his Failed Tanks series is only there because it had reliability issues at the start other than that it was the best tank unparalleled only equaled by russian tanks for two decades. The west had nothing that could even scratch this tank during the 60s.
Werewolf wrote:I've to aggree, Blacktail knows quite a little bit about US tanks, but he made alot of mistakes with "Failed Tanks" regarding russian tanks and he even stated this Anti Soviet Propaganda myths like "Autoloaders rib off arms" which was only invented to give an explenation why the US is not using them instead of proving anything that autoloaders are bad they made a myth.
And even to call T-62 or T-64 a failed tank is outragous, that is the best tank of its time and not a single western tank was capable of getting equal or surpassing the T-64 for more than two decades.
He gets his info from multiple different sources, so in general he isn't biased this way or that way. The only time I've seen him being *actually* biased, isn't on YT, but on an article about an Israeli tank (Sabra?) on Militarytoday where he posts articles sometimes... - I have as well, but only on the Volk.
Those claims aren't outrageous, they had serious designs flaws... Watch all of his failed tank videos, and you will find that he isn't really biased and actually provides good info (depends).
Some flaws do not make something automatically failed and the T-64 in his Failed Tanks series is only there because it had reliability issues at the start other than that it was the best tank unparalleled only equaled by russian tanks for two decades. The west had nothing that could even scratch this tank during the 60s.
Exactly... Reliability problems are the WORST problems, as shown by Nazi Germany... - Their tanks were great, but their unreliability was a huge let-down and weakened their land forces considerably. The M-60 and its variants were very similar...
Like I said, comment on the video, he will reply and then some. You have points, he has his. As for the tank itself? I think is was flawed, even without BD's videos.
cracker wrote:Look, i've watched all his vids on soviet "failed tanks"... They are all bloody jokes, simply. The one on T-10 was surely top of the cake though
Then freakin reply to him! Why be so confident in your opinion when you cannot even look at the other side?
I have interest in defending his "points" as they aren't mine and I don't agree with them all.
Werewolf wrote:I've to aggree, Blacktail knows quite a little bit about US tanks, but he made alot of mistakes with "Failed Tanks" regarding russian tanks and he even stated this Anti Soviet Propaganda myths like "Autoloaders rib off arms" which was only invented to give an explenation why the US is not using them instead of proving anything that autoloaders are bad they made a myth.
And even to call T-62 or T-64 a failed tank is outragous, that is the best tank of its time and not a single western tank was capable of getting equal or surpassing the T-64 for more than two decades.
He gets his info from multiple different sources, so in general he isn't biased this way or that way. The only time I've seen him being *actually* biased, isn't on YT, but on an article about an Israeli tank (Sabra?) on Militarytoday where he posts articles sometimes... - I have as well, but only on the Volk.
Those claims aren't outrageous, they had serious designs flaws... Watch all of his failed tank videos, and you will find that he isn't really biased and actually provides good info (depends).
Some flaws do not make something automatically failed and the T-64 in his Failed Tanks series is only there because it had reliability issues at the start other than that it was the best tank unparalleled only equaled by russian tanks for two decades. The west had nothing that could even scratch this tank during the 60s.
Exactly... Reliability problems are the WORST problems, as shown by Nazi Germany... - Their tanks were great, but their unreliability was a huge let-down and weakened their land forces considerably. The M-60 and its variants were very similar...
The T-64 had only in the first year reliability issues, which were sorted out just one year after it was introduced into army. It could only count as unreliable and failed tank if it had till this date or the date when it was replaced by T-80/72, but he still counts it as failed despite it is reliable and the best tank of its time and truelly this is in long time undisputed BEST tank, because today there margin is so low and varierity is so bright in different attributes and blur it out that today we can not clearly say which is the best but in case of T-64 it was truelly the best. It is reliable and it is a total success of a tank not like Blacktaildefense claims to be failed tank, neither the T-62 is failure.
Yes there is... Like I stated earlier, he consistently replies and doesn't get butt-hurt about it. Just don't sound "trolly" and he'll reply.
Well i replied to him about this crap of "Autoloader cutting arms off" that this is mere Anti Soviet Propaganda and he will not find anywhere source for this myth and he never replied despite asking him for his source for this autoloaders cutting arms.
There you have it... Anyway, the T-10 was much, MUCH larger than the Sherman in every respect besides height, and that is because the Sherman was just a tall tank...
TR1 wrote:T-64 had problems for WAY longer than 1 year. Try a decade +.
And now its blowing up worse than T-72s do on average, by far. Dem Morozov welds.
The reliability issues with Autoloader and the engine was only the first year, other problems that maybe were connected with other parts is a different thing, but those problems have been cleared quite quickly and you can not say that this is a failed tank since it was the best.
Saying that they blowing up "now" is the same as today M48/60 or Leopard1 would blow up and even far easier than any T-64 would do.
TR1 wrote:It wasn't a failed tank, but it was a case of too advanced for its time.
Exactly... That being said, its "over-advanced" design was a good thing as well. The T-64's protections was miles better than the M-60, thanks to its composite armor and well thought-out design. It also had a much more powerful gun that was smooth-bore instead of being rifled like most tanks of its day. So, it was still a good tank despite its problems.
The T-10 on the other-hand...
cracker wrote:"IS tanks defined by their immense size"... LOLWUT? JS-2 was MUCH smaller than KV-85 or KV-1, and only 46t, while being IMMENSELY smaller than tiger, panther and tiger 2... It starts good...
"historians consider the centurion the first MBT"... Who? In what name? In that case, T-44 or T-54 are easily MBT too. MBT means nothing anyway, T-34 was the first MBT in 1940 if we follow the "rules"... So, totally unprofessional and unnecessary remark to begin with...
"stalin loved big tanks named after him" the whole thing is just subjective... Cheliabinsk bureau worked hard to achieve IS-2, and they continued work on the basis, the T-10 was accepted because it was good.
"thousands T-10 were completed"... Bogus again... Unless 1439 is "several thousands" for him. He simply looked the wikipedia BS "8000 T10"
he implies constantly that T-10 is a gigantic beast etc... Is he blind? 52t and very compact size, the T-10 is still much smaller and lighter than even the tiger 1, hell it's smaller than a sherman!
"T-10 mobility was bad , blablablabla, heaviest soviet AFV, 57 tons, blabla" 57 tons? Can't he speak like all humans in metric system? 52T. About bad mobility, more under...
Then he goes full retard by saying eastern europe and russian roads& bridges are shit, and can't support these mere 52t... Again a retarded person who thinks even infrastructure building is inherently better in "ze west" because... It's the west ! Very Happy... Hopeless mike sparks...
"the T-10 only had a range of 217 miles"... ONLY? LOL? please, dear braindead mike sparks, go check range of early NATO tanks Very Happy centurion or M47... Or the cousins M103 / conqueror.. ehm ehm... 217 mi = 350 km. And this is WITHOUT external barrels, which I think max out to ~500km. Basically 8x more than early centurions. XD
"top speed of T-10M good but not great 31mph... blabla, T-10 only 23mph, bad blabla"... Here is what I said earlier, the emphasis on irrelevant points. T-10M was the real mass produced definitive variant, and all were rebuilt to this standard! So, T-10M is basically the only tank can be named T-10. He is retarded. 31mph is simply great for heavy tank, 50 kph. Hell, 23 mph is not bad at all either, 37 kph, it's enough for heavy tank.
"low velocity 122mm gun blablablablabla... low ROF, low ammount of ammo"... OMG.. I knew it... just look my previous post and links, I explained already the real firepower. He's a retard, simply. 800m/s for 25 KG !!!! AP projectile in early guns, or 980m/s for the new gun! and 1600m/s for APDS? It's slow? HAHAHA... And you don't need more than 30 rounds if one 122mm shell is enough for a target.
"T-54 was better, unitary cartridges, blblblablabalbala"... Yeah genius, but D-10T is hardly M-62T2S in firepower ! What a retard...
"german used better guns on heavy tak in ww2, 122mm was pointless"..... He goes amok, simply full braindead. Go read reports on D-25T gun on the website "archive awareness".
"only ammo was antiquated AP"... Yeah, moron, BR-472 APCBC introduced in mid 1950s was not antiquated, and extremely effective, he knows nothing, simply nothing. He thinks the only ammo was 1930's and 1945 design, namely BR-471 and 471B. HE is a CLOWN, don't ever believe anything he says about soviet technology! nothing!
"wasn't before 1967 that they got modern APDS and HEAT"... Yeah, true , but what about it? These ammo were perfect and served well the T-10 during more than 20 following years, and were even able to be used in earlier IS-2 and IS-3. These ammo could destroy ANY NATO tank before the leopard and abrams.
"but it was no point, 100mm ammo was already better and 125mm guns arrived"... What a clown. 100mm equivalent APDS for T-54/55 was much less powerful than the 122mm BM11... HEAT, not even worth talking about 100 vs 122mm !... Plus, soviets could have focused on the 122mm if they wanted and introduce even better HEAT with 650mm pen or APFSDS, but they focused on other calibers. 125mm was not in service before 1968 at best, with T-64A, and it was not that much formidable, just the SAME as 115mm ammo used in T-62 and T-64, of course from mid 1970s, the new ammo for 115, 100 and 125mm outclassed greatly the 122mm, but it's not the point.
"making the matter worse, there were 4 types of propelant charges for the gun"... OMG what a retard!! LOL He confused with artillery charges!!!! OF COURSE NOT.... There were only 2 types: one for HE round, one for AP round, that's it!
He complains about gun depression and low ammount of coax ammo... Not really relevant at all. He even messes up the T-10 coax caliber... 7.62? LOL no retard, it was a DSHKM 12.7, and later KPVT 14.5...
"side armour was not enough to defeat anti tank ammo"... Really? And what tank does.. pathetic. I said already that T-10M side armour was superior enough to T-54 to make it a heavy tank, and it could easily defeat WW2 era 76mm guns as on sherman, or 17 pdr, or soviet 85mm. He is a clown. And good luck penetrating the T-10 with early handheld rocket lauchers like M20 bazooka or M75 recoilless rifle, etc...
then he says it has too much armour for a heavy tank Laughing PRICELESS.
Then he goes braindead again and dares say less armour than T-54, which is totally WRONG, as I already explained.
He dares compare direct quoted armour thickness (and values are wrong Rolling Eyes )... He doesn't understand that T-10 has largely superior angles and profiles... T-10M frontal armour = roughly 300mm line of sight, T-54 closer to 200. Side = 120-180 for T-10, 80 and 150 for T-54. The clown never stops to be funny...
"T-10 was the largest, longest blablabla soviet afv", yeah, true, but even with this status it was much more compact than either centurion or M48, not even speaking M103. Mike sparks, just stop for god's sake...
then he gos about reliability and endurance, blablabla, no sources, no reliable info... Just BS. I think i'll stop here, it's really too much.
Yes it was not as easy to maintain and logistically harder than T-54, but, wake up idiot, it's a HEAVY TANK. Wow...
"recovering was pain"... LOL? Already during war KV-1 and T-34 based tractors towed tigers!!! no problem. Tiger is 57T! Soviet engeneering AFVS of 50s 60s and 70s had no problems at all.
he goes amok about separate ammo... About so called complex logistic (for 1400 tanks in the peak time of soviet union? LOL?) etc.... Again he shows his pathological emphasis on the MOST irrelevant factors to justify his ideas... Troll at work, or simply dement person?
He has a point on non compatible parts produced by different factories... but that would be the SOLE true defect of T-10, and it was not such a matter for 1400 tanks, of which certainly only 1200 at most were in service, probably even less.
Goes amok about ergonomy.... Typical. "tankers need to bathe regularly after all" Laughing Laughing Laughing YeaHHHH because tankers in ALL OTHER TANKS THAN T-10 bathe on a regular baisis, INSIDE Laughing Laughing Laughing JEEZ...
Goes retard AGAIN about production numbers... "2500", no, 1439. "pitiful amount by USSR standards"... Yes, but it's a DOCTRINAL choice!!!!! moron. USSR clearly chose T-54 as main tank, but still needed heavy breaktru regiments for a special purpose.... T-10 production was deemed SUFFICIENT at 1400, because they new the T-64 was coming, and there remained at least 3000 OPERATIONAL and modernised IS-2M and IS-3M....
"not popular in export"... T-10M WAS TOP DOG tank, never exported anywhere... He mix up with IS-3!!! he is such a clown...
Goes amok about advances in ATGM and uselessness of heavy tank killer tank... It's pointless and totally wrong, TANKS are the best tool to kill tanks, especially in the anticipated conventional WW3 that they were all prepared for. He forgets to mention the pathetic performance of early ATGM here, and claim them to be wunderwaffe.
Says it was not in front line service and replaced by T-62... HAHAHA, no, T-10M remained reserve emergency tank units up until there were enough T-64A in front line units... Basically T-10M remained active well up to 1975 at least, and reserve semi active up to 1980 at least.
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?
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. The T-34 was a medium-tank, like the larger Panzers and Shermans. Calling him "unprofessional" is "unprofessional" when what you say not only doesn't make sense, but is completely irrelevant as well. The Centurion was the first MBT, quickly followed by the more successful T-54.
Stalin, much like his German rival, clearly liked heavy armor... Of course it was named after him, and his influence is easily one of the reasons why. Khrushchev quickly trashed the T-10's namesake, as if that wasn't enough proof already...
Thousands of "IS tanks" were completed, I believe that was what he said or meant.
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 by no means a mobile-tank, and its heavy weight (compared to a T-54) is one of the reasons why. - A completely legitimate statement...
After the war, much of the remaining infrastructure was dismissal at best, and Tigers (which weren't *that* much larger) couldn't pass over many bridges etc in WW2. I don't know why you don't except this, care to elaborate? He isn't Mike Sparks, for the last time...
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...
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...
It isn't slow, but compared to the gun on the T-54 is was slower by ~200 m/s average, which is a pretty substantial difference to be honest...
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...
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.
You know this how? Stop talking crap about crap you don't know and stick to it...
What about it to yourself? He stated that is came out too late and nothing more, while you ramble on about how effective it was here and there... Once again, stop assuming to know what he knows/thinks.
You denied his point, just to stat it later... 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.
Sources? At least he links sources to back his claims up...
Gun depression and coaxial round quantity is important, suggesting otherwise is idiocy... 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?
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!
He never said such crap... Now that I think about it, he said the exact opposite - it was too large to have the armor be of any use (being a heavy-tank and all).
Wrong, again... BD said that the T-54/55 had more armor in certain areas due to its smaller footprint, and once again, he was correct!
Once again, sources? He listed the sites where he got his info on armor, and you didn't...
The T-10 was larger in overall length than the M-48.... Like I've been saying, you should research before you make wild claims. Either way the M-48 was large, and he knows that.. He already has a "Failed Tanks" on the M103 and mentions its size in it, are you happy?
No sources? You didn't see them or didn't look for them? - Obviously the latter.
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?
Nice try, but once again.... He said that there was no recovery vehicle built for it, which itself can make recovery a pain in the #$%!
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?
"Sole defect"? Sure, maybe if you have a low IQ, or none at all...
He has a point there as well. It had a very small interior for a tank of its size.
Chances are his source for that added in a different IS tank as well... It was similar to its older models after all... 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.
What do you mean "TOP-DOG"? It was never exported, that's all he meant! I think that you are over-thinking this...
Wrong wrong wrong... 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...
That video didn't prove a thing, it was just some training footage and nothing more.
Please research before posting, do that or don't bother replying....
Last edited by Mike E on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
performance downgrade.
... Hopeless mike sparks...
)... He doesn't understand that T-10 has largely superior angles and profiles... T-10M frontal armour = roughly 300mm line of sight, T-54 closer to 200. Side = 120-180 for T-10, 80 and 150 for T-54. The clown never stops to be funny...
