T-10M | a Failure or Wasted Potential? #2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- The Soviets are well know for their sheer quantity of tanks, and today we are going to look at what is commonly described as the last tank of its kind, The T-10 Heavy tank, thank you all for achieving the like goal I set up at my latest video, because we reached it, I held up my end of the bargain, so here is the video. If we can reach the 90 likes on this video I will release a new video on Thursday 1 P.M CET, that video will be about the Panzer IV/70 also known as the Jagdpanzer IV, now let’s get things going and enjoy the ride
Through out history there have been tank designs and prototypes build which had never seen any action and today we are going to look at a tank which had not seen any action, in our newest series, a Failure or Un-used Potential?
The T-10 otherwise known as the Objekt 730 was a tank developed by the Soviets, which was the last Soviet heavy tank ever being developed which, if war broke out between Nato and the Warsaw pact, it had to take on heavy weights like the Conqueror, Centurions, M48’s and the M103. The T-10 was also the last tank of its Family tree, the Josef Stalin line, which entered service for the first time in 1943, the T-10 was accepted into production back in 1952, representing somewhat of a comeback for the Classic Soviet heavy tanks, weighing in at about 52 tonnes heavy, Armed with a 122mm main armament, Having a 4 man crew and having a low profile. These are all things soviet heavy Tanks are known for, The Objekt 730 was initially meant to replace the Is-3 and Is-4 with the first intention being to have it be named the IS-5 but it was subjected to prolonged Testing and rework, so it would be re-designated to the IS-8 but it entered service as the T-10 Partly due to the passing of Josef Stalin. The Prototype now on screen was a model out of September 1949 fotographed at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.
we first are gonna talk about its weight, one of the main contributors of weight is of course its Armor. It was very well armored, to explain it simply, the tank at its weakest point which is the lower glasis also named by some people the lower plate, has a effective Armor thickness of 186mm, to compare this, the King Tigers best Armoured part of the tank is behind the main armament and that is 185mm, and that is what the T-10 Heavy has all over the front of the tank. With the thickest part being effectively 273mm thick, this is the upper glasis.
Of course without a engine you wouldn’t be going anywhere, you would just be a sitting duck. So the T-10 was outfitted with a 12 cylinder V-2 IS Engine which produced up to 700 horse powers. During the trails in September 1949, where they covered about 1000 kilometers, it was found that a cruising speed for this tank would be about 27 kilometers an hour to 31 kilometers an hour on a road, this was about 50% of the testing, the rest of the testing was done on open terrain, and as you can expect, this showed a lot of defects of the tank. After various modifications, there were again tests conducted in late 1949, and then again and again until 1952 they were tested, this only ended in late 1952 after various prototypes were being subject to constant testing rework and modification.
I already brievely mentioned that the T-10 was outfitted with the iconic 122mm D-25TA gun, it had the APHEBC and APHE shells, able to penetrate up to 150mm at a distance of 500 meters which honestly isn’t really that impressive, because these were penetration levels achieved by tanks 10 years prior to the T-10 entering service. As any other tank the T-10 did have secondary armaments, these were in the name of two 12.7 DShK machine guns, this is to deal with nearby infantry or lightly armoured vehicles.
The T-10M was a updated version which of the T-10 tank which allowed the tank to stay into service until the 1980s, and it was officially retired in 1997, so the T-10 outlived the Soviet Union, The T-10m had the 122mm M-62-T2 gun, which arguably is the more iconic look of the T-10’s main armament. It was also given a two plane stabilizer and one machine gun on the roof was replaced with the 14.5 mm KPVT machine gun. other features included infrared night vision, NBC liner inside for collective protection, and a intergraded automatic over pressure system. The tank also became a bit longer and lastly the turret was also slightly up armed.
Due to the newer developments, the T-10 became outdated quickly, developments like the Anti tank Guided Missiles and the T-10’s main armament was also made obsolete after the introduction of the T-64 MBT with a new main armament and ammunition types, this also made the heavy tanks in general redundant, also instead of relying on brute armour thickness tanks began relying more on reactive armour for added protection.
To the disappointment of the western allies the T-10 remain shrouded in mystery, so the official number of times produced remains a mystery but it is estimated that (Word limit)
10 more subscribers and we are at the 2.600, so if you haven't already, make sure to subscribe!👍
Hi mate I spend allot of time in France and Switzerland. Let me know if you want to go do a video on a battleground or museum
If this tank had been built when the IS-3 was it would have been a terrific tank, it can be said it was the right tank at the wrong time. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on it, especially the gun!
Yeah I whole heartedly agree with the first statement, I also understand that the soviets wanted to perfect the tank, but they maybe went a little overboard with it
Definitely not a Failure, but could go for Wasted Potential as mentioned about post WWII heavy tanks. It would have done brilliantly during WWII era but with escalation of anti-tank capabilities during the cold war, it would mean that mobility would take overhand priority.
Yeah I 100% agree
Doesn’t the escalation of anti-tank capabilities make it a failure? It simply came too late and only in an alternative universe where armorpenetrating capabilities wouldn’t have made such a leap it could have been fielded - but even then likely would have needed a better gun in order to effectively battle with western tanks of its era.
A good tank for the 1950's. Reminds you of the British Chieftain. In the Iran-Iraq war it suffered lack of speed and slow rate of fire.
T-10M was the best of the last heavy tanks (other two being M103 and Conq) but then it didn't weigh much more than M48 either. However most of it's traits that differentiated it from T-55 were a dead end - angled prow and sides armor scheme, longitudinal engine layout, 122mm evolved from field guns and even supported track would all be dropped by soviets with good reason.
AMX 50 Surbaiseè Soo underrated
T10 was on par with the western counterparts at the time of service and introduction only major thing the soviets suffered was the lack of improvement with their IR-spotlights and gear up to the 1980´s and even then they were not as good as the western top of the line gear. T-10 did beat the conqueror by a hair margin in terms of introduction date as the 1st tank to have a commander controlled target designator system with dual axis designation, the tank itself began in production in 1952 which was 3 whole years before the conqueror which is claimed as the official 1st tank to have true hunter-killer capability. T-10 under soviet armoured doctorine was the finest of its kind to be introduced but in comparison to its western counterparts it´s roughly on par as it has things it´s better and worse at than M103 and Conqueror.
its actually very funny that you'd talk about the Conqueror (and M103) as i just actually started to do research for a new video where i will compare the T-10M with the Conqueror to see who is better in what aspects and who for me is the better heavy tank of the 2. this will just be a fun research video though as we dont have any actual proof as to who is better considering neither have actually seen combat if i recall correctly
@@LearningHistoryTogether tankograd has articles on various soviet tanks.conq didn't see any service but was posted with BAOR in west germany during 1950's and to add further DDR did order T-10's to replace their is-2 fleet. A wallopping match could have been a reality.
Yup! I do think that comparing them will be difficult because the conq was more of a fire support heavy it seems. Of course, with the 122mm, it would be good at this job but could it knock out the T-10m from several kilometers frontally? That remains to be seen👀
Not to mention spotting capabilities, mobility etc so yeah gonna be fun
correction, 120mm
It’s basically impossible to know as it never saw combat. But I’ll bet it could have still done some damage especially given it’s SECONDARY GUNS where both 14.5mm HMGs!
Yup!
Hm, the presence of a T-10M for us mainly was indicative for order of battle establishment, since there were only specific and known units equipped with them. For the rest it was estimated as a fairly unimpressive and dismal affair that would have been hard-pressed to give even modest account of itself against our Centurions (later Leopards) and AMX-13 (shooting rollerskate) tanks, if they made it across the Iron Curtain in the first place. Not something to trifle with, for sure, but not something that made us tremble on our tracks.
I assume you served back during the Cold War?
@@LearningHistoryTogether Correct. Cavalry and Infantry in 1(NL)Corps. 1970s and 1980s.
Ah very nice, bedankt voor je dienst!✌
@@LearningHistoryTogether Tot genoegen!
Als ik soms wat kribbig en knorrig overkom dan moet je maar denken; Daar heb je die ouwe Cavalerist weer.
Het is niet persoonlijk bedoeld, maar ik word soms wat grommig als er teveel onzin en waanzin wordt uitgekraamd door lui die nooit hebben gediend en nog nooit een tank van binnen hebben gezien, laat staan hebben meegemaakt.
Je doet goed werk. Dank daarvoor, maar houdt het vooral feitelijk.
@@Centurion101B3C ik doe mijn best, ik weet probeer ook in de gaten te houden dat ik zeker niet alles weet, ben vanplan om na mijn opleiding in het leger te gaan bij de 414e Tank bataljon maar dat is slechts een gedachten. Ik doe mijn best om mijn mening en feiten apart te houden, maar natuurlijk is dat soms een beetje moeilijk, qua feedback kan ik het vaak wel waarderen. Zolang het naar respectvol is😅👌
Another to add to my model collection, a cool looking beast.😊
It definitely looks incredible
No offense you got a lot of things wrong like first off the gun is not the same as the is 2 is a 122 mm D-25T cannon the t10 cannon is a 122 mm M 62 T2S cannon same caliber but this performance was a huge improvement is 2 cannon only pens 205 mm around there T10 122 can perforate 290mm with its kenetic energy round but can also shoot HEAT OR APDS as well
Good video though
No offense taken, feedback is important, sometimes i make mistakes, sometimes my sources do, i do read most comments and take them as feedback, thanks for yours 😄👍
@@LearningHistoryTogetherT-10A and B - D-25T, T-10M - M62T2 and new turret
Becoming ''obsolete'' after ten years of service to armaments which were finicky and not in widespread service. Somehow mentioning T-64 gun making its armament obsolete. Due to what? New ammunition? That would also be used in T-10M? Furthermore, it is actually T-62 which had superior gun. Also, tanks never stopped relying on their armor in favor of explosive armor. You are also using the incorrect penetration values. It is for the old gun and it is not impressive, because it is literally the same gun from WW2. It was upgraded and then advanced ammo types were added later on.
However, thank was revolutionary and incredible. First, it had the best cannon which USSR had in service and there was precious little which was more powerful at the time in service. Second, it armor was virtually impregnable to any anti tank weapon of its time. It was incredibly advanced tank for its era and allies would find it incredibly difficult to deal with it. Your analysis is completely timing insensitive. You skim through decades as they would be nothing. This is why you do not understand how incredible this tank actually was.
El is 10 es la evolución del is 3 y vio mucha acción durante la guerra arabe israelí de 1968 y la ocupación de checoslovaquia en ese mismo año creo fue superado por el t54 y t55 posteriormente al ser mas fiable y mas barato de producir.
I'm sorry, i dont speak spanish/italian😅
@@LearningHistoryTogether copy.
The IS/T-10s were already well obsolete by '68, even the T-55s were a bit 2nd line. That is one of reason why the Arabs got a lot, and lost most of them.
T-10M also should have been able to shoot APDS and HEAT. Which made it bit more 'modern'.
Wiki says this was in 1967 which is a bit late. If true, then this thing would have been tossing AP most of the time. Of course, by 1967 the T-64 would have been in service which had the same or maybe even more armor protection but more mobile, better ammo, better fire control, better in every way basically.
The T-10M didndt used 122mm gun of IS-2. It was a new version.
122mm M64 I think
@@IS4M1M62T2
that was the T-10M, T62 T2, the T-10 itself used D-25TA which is a Newer version of the main armanent the IS-2 used
So the t10 is the is8 ? I love the videos your putting out ! More obscure less covered vehicles. I can appreciate the amount of effort you put into these videos but it would be great if they were a bit longer. Either way good job ! Thank you . Edit 😊 a video on the t44 would be good, don’t see much about those anywhere.
hey man, this video will be about 6:45 seconds i believe, any feedback is always welcome of course, but it is sometimes difficult to make longer video's on vehicles which don't have a lot of information, and especially when they were just prototypes and never saw service, as you can imagine that doesn't do wonders for the video length. i also still go to school so just like today i am writing my script at 5 A.M. to make sure i can make the deadline if the like goal is achieved, but in the end, thank you for your message i will try to keep it in mind. longer video's are also beneficial for me, but it is not always achievable :)
hmm, T-44 you say? (just saw the edit haha) i will definitely think about it, i actually saw a intriguing picture of the T-44 so it was already in the back of my mind. i appreciate the recommendation
Yeah , I think I seen one clip on it and it was in Russian. Pretty obscure tank . Thanks for the videos!
Yeah no worries, I might do it after the Jagdpanzer IV/70 Video I am currently working on👌
excited to see some more history from you
Same bro
😁✌
Same here
I think that tank had more potential, nobody can prove me wrong that this tank could not be upgraded in armament even in protection or powertrain, for how big this tank was, it would be not that difficult. The main problem was probably the cost as the medium tanks were cheaper
The large diameter HEAT and ATGMs had made any thickness of solid steel armor obsolete. The Egyptians learned this the hard way when Israelis had no trouble knocking out T-10s.
There was no way to upgrade them short of melting them down and making T-72s out of them (which is what they did).
@@obsidianjane4413 you're goddamn right™
Morozov was already coming up with nextgen that would run circles around T-10M or literally anything else in all the departments - armor, mobility and firepower. In fact first batch of T-64s rolled out the same year T-10M went out production as it was a direct replacement, doctrinally.
@@Klovaneer Comparing T-10 to T-72 is kinda stupid,because they weren´t even made for the same purpose let alone similar doctrine. for a effective comparison ,i would point out the comparison of 64 and 72, because they are nearly the same generation. T-10 was made as a breakthrough tank,where as the 72 was made to act as more of a force multiplier for mechanized units, yet without sacrificing the full capabilities of a proper MBT, they are not really comparable with one another.
@@obsidianjane4413 By that logic the M-60 and chieftain were utterly obsolete when they entered service due to having RHA armor and being as heavy as the T-10M. The T-10M couldve recieved composite applique armor or new new composite turret similar to stillbrew.
@@TheAnticlinton Composite armor didn't exist when the T-10M was in service. We are talking about the time period of the 50s and 60s when penetration had an advantage over protection. This is why the Leopard 1 had thin armor but high mobility. Likewise, the M-60s had high mobility and Chieftain had high firepower. None of them could have relied upon their armor as shown in the Arab-Israeli wars. These lessons are why caused the development of composite armor.
By that time, the T-10s were very old and very outclassed by newer designs with better mobility and fire control.
Mark McCummins
Considering that the T10M’s likely opponent was the heavily armoured, heavily gunned UK Chieftain, then the Soviets doubtless believed that an equivalent was needed. While the T10M never saw combat, they were deployed to Prague in ‘68, where the crews had their tanks pelted with bottles and rocks; at least one was adorned with a swastika in chalk on its mud flap.
It doesn't look like what I'd describe as a heavy tank. This is the time period such as American T tanks where I'm very unclear.
Same as the M103 and Conqueror heavy tanks
Fascinating v comparable to story of the Conqueror
Don’t know about the T-10M, but I know that the T-10 was exported.
Bad ass tank
in war thunder it is very good
Interesting video and I encourage you to continue.
I have questions . . . my old book for recognition, Tanks of the World, has errors I have since 1984 found, but this is the first video in the search results for "T-10M" and the first I watched, so I'll ask. That book said the T-10M was equipped with a 130mm gun derived from the D-30 towed field gun, which was a centerpiece of North Vietnamese Army counter-battery artillery. It outranged all the U.S. artillery except the 203mm self-propelled howitzer and 175mm self-propelled gun, and became the center of NVA fortifications. The D-30s had to be destroyed, so the NVA would ring them with SAM sites to draw in U.S. fighters and attack aircraft.
That Vietnam bit I learned from Vietnam veterans, both artillerymen and bomber and Wild Weasel crews, so I trust it.
Thinking the T-10M has a gun of similar capability (60 kilogram projectile, 40 kilometer range with basic shells), I wondered why the T-10 was not considered a heavily-armored self-propelled gun (armor usually being a significant weakness of such in surviving counter-battery fire).
So, first question: T-10, 122mm and T-10M 130mm? Range as a self-propelled gun, if used as artillery?
Second question: Tanks of the World had the T-10M having the 14.5mm KPV both on top for anti-aircraft and as co-axial for use against lightly armored vehicles such as armored personnel carriers. Yes/No/Sometimes?
I have often thought that such a well-armored tank would be invaluable with a little updating. A split mantle like the AMX-30 allowing high-angle fire against aircraft, possibly a remote mount on the roof for AA; possibly replace the 14.5 with the Steyr 15mm HMG, as that much newer gun is far more capable and the same amount of space or weight provides far more of its more-capable ammunition types. Replacing the tragic bore-evacuator and fume extractor with better, and probably replace the propellant charges with higher-quality, more consistent, and more powerful polymerized electro-thermal propellant. Replace the archaic and obsolescent projectiles with modern smart munitions. And magnetically re-forge the Krupp nickel-steel armor as magnetically-forged aligned-chrystal iron, which is 50% more obdurate than depleted uranium. Even if its thickness was only face- and back-hardened thusly, it would be incredibly tough!
Replace the horrible Soviet-quality wheels and drive-train with the best Germany can make, and replace the engine with a Ford Europe high-efficiency low-emission, quiet, two-stroke turbo diesel with twice the horsepower, add a full-time supercharger to burn fuel with maximum efficiency, and possibly add water injection like a P-47 to further reduce fuel consumption (by 1/3, if it matches the P-47's output efficiency while keeping horsepower the same) while providing a ready source of hot distilled water for tea or coffee which is always appreciated.
Good luck with your channel!
Given how it's earlier cousins fared in the whole 'Egypt vs Israel' thing, I drop a vote in the 'Failed' bowl.
Yeah, it looked awesome in May Day parades, but parades don't win battles (nor scripted mass maneuvers) ...let's see, post-Ukraine, if the Russians have _finally_ gotten a clue in that department.
It seems like we might see them in action in Ukraine soon (because they are pulling out antique tanks)
Thumbnail is a T-10A :')
Ye i know, but it is very difficult to find a original good picture of a T-10m which is also high quality
So i picked the one i used
@@LearningHistoryTogether Yeeee, s'fine. Couldn't resist being a smartass for a sec, it'll be the death of me.
yeah no worries
are you dutch by any chance?
Yessir i am
If this tank is a failure or a wasted potential then none of the tanks are any different. Adoption to service already makes none of those things.
I was under the impression that some of these were used by the Egyptians in the 1973 war?
Is3's were used
Perhaps on Wikipedia has summarised best the demise of heavy tanks (my English not great!) anyway here is the following excerpt: "the mobile nature of armoured warfare in World War II had demonstrated the drawbacks of the slow heavy tanks. In the final push towards Berlin, mechanized divisions had become widely split up as heavy tanks lagged behind the more mobile T-34s. The Soviets continued to produce heavy tanks for a few years as part of the Cold War arms race (compare the heavier U.S. M103 and British Conqueror), but the more flexible T-62 and T-64 tanks already had armour and armament comparable to the T-10's". That said the T-10 weigh 52 metric tons powered by 750 hp giving a power weight of 13/ton and fitted with the same gun but with the llonger M-62-T2 L/46 with muzzle brake. In other words I agree fully with you 👍👍
I wonder if we're going to see any of them in Ukraine?
All I know is in world of tanks it’s a balanced tank and in the Ukraine war going on it’s PREY for drones
most likely yes, it we are assuming it will be used in the ukraine war, but then again it is not that much larger than the average tank so it might not actually do *that* bad compared to other tanks :)
@@LearningHistoryTogetherhonestly them pulling out old tanks and see real results is cool but sad 😞 for the ones using or fighting it this video is very good 👍
it is! i'd much rather see tanks doing a demonstration than them actually being used in warfare.
The title literally means the same thing. It dumb or stupid!
No it doesnt, we are talking here about tanks which either, havent been used a lot. Or not at all, so in that series we investigate it the tank was either a failure (which means it sucks) or is it wasted potential? (Which means it had potential but it was just barely used)
It was a failure the IS-7 was better a tank
I mean, there was a reason the IS-7 was only produced 6 times ;)
I wouldn’t go that far
IS-7 was at top 5 tanks with the best armor ever made. But problem with this tank, was shape made for crew. Also tank was to heavy, and this one was at least 15 tons less heavy. From this tank, Soviets started to look for a tank to be main battle tank, good in almost evey aspect.
I don't believe those armour claims at all. It weighs 20 less tons less than a king tiger and has inferior metal and some how it's armour is twice the effective thickness all over.
It’s sloped and the tank over all is smaller
King tigers front isnt piked and the front face of te turret is flat,and the mantlet is far too small to be effective,thus it doesn´t benefit the effects of compound angles,king tiger´s armour at the time of introduction was rather overrated in paper, in reality King T had been suffering from deteriorating quality of both worksmanship and armour quality while soviets had by the 1950s developped their metal industry to the standards of the West and would be far more superior than KT at its date of introduction and atleast or even better than germany in 1939 in terms of metallurgy, In light of these variables, your claim doesn´t hold any water.