Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Share

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  cracker on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:07 am

    Mike sparks claimed another victim... sorry for you mate, I tried.

    I read your full edited message... WOW you're such a butthurt, it's Laughing So keep that tongue of yours inside sparky's end if you like, no prob, just, your message served no purpose, just very bad paraphrasing... We'll see what other members think.


    Last edited by cracker on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Regular on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:11 am

    Is he the same guy who invented name GAVIN for M113 ? Very Happy

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:30 am

    cracker wrote:Mike sparks claimed another victim... sorry for you mate, I tried.

    I read your full edited message... WOW you're such a butthurt, it's Laughing  So keep that tongue of yours inside sparky's end if you like, no prob, just, your message served no purpose, just very bad paraphrasing... We'll see what other members think.
    A) It isn't Sparky, told you this already...

    B) I'm not butt-hurt, I'm just tired of brain-dead trolls like yourself. 

    Regular, yes he is.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:20 am

    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...

    Actually I can say that and I stand by that because the T-80U might be a sophisticated tank but it commits the cardinal sin... and I don't mean it burns a lot of fuel... I mean it incinerates its crew when penetrated. Even the Abrams doesn't do that.

    With only 22 rounds loaded the T-72 and T-90 don't do that either.

    The only model T-80 with no exposed propellent stubs in the turret available to the Russians is the Black Eagle prototype which moved the under floor autoloader to the turret bustle.

    But IS-4, this thing was simply not needed.

    Not needed is not a fault of a tank.

    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.

    T-10 was more feared in the west than the T-55 ever was and had heavy if conventional armour and a powerful gun that no enemy tank of the period was safe from.

    IMO the worst russian tanks ever built were the KV-2

    KV-2 was built for a purpose and when used for that purpose were perfectly adequate.

    I think is was flawed, even without BD's videos.

    Hmmm... a tank that isn't perfect... no... I don't believe you. Razz

    It was the last Soviet heavy tank... if it was perfect its replacement heavy tank would still be in service.

    It was replaced by the T-64 where they went for special armour and a big gun.

    Then freakin reply to him! Why be so confident in your opinion when you cannot even look at the other side?

    Do you think he will change his mind?

    What other side?

    The western propaganda side that had no real inside information and was largely made up of guesses that have become folk lore... I am still waiting for the parade of thousands of one armed tank men who lost their arms to autoloaders... I suspect we may never see that.

    And now its blowing up worse than T-72s do on average

    They also have the problem of exposed propellent stubs in the autoloader, but considering its role of standoff breakthrough tank that punches holes in enemy lines for the thousands of T-72s to break through side and rear turret penetrations become less likely.




    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:49 pm

    It's not the T-80's fault russians hate wet ammo racks or basic ammo compartamentalisation(you know, little things like putting an armor sheet over the main autoloader ammo storage intead of the crew sitting on it) on their armor, something which is possible on tanks without bustles.


    Still, ammo cookoffs are never 100% likely per penetration(It takes a good amount of luck for the enemy shell to actualy hit exactly where the shells are). Besides they're caused mostly not by the propellant, but by the HE charges cooking off. Proellant fires are gradual and can be fought before its too late. So if russian tanks didn't have HE ammo they wouldn't have a very high chance of cooking off. The abrams itself is impssible to cook off not because of genius ammo storage(shells in the bustle are still exposed), but because it simply can't use HE ammo( and the US army(being army smart) won't let it).

    Still, no NATO tank ever built except challengers, chieftains and abrams are immune to cookoffs because these 3 tanks have all their ammo in a bustle(which makes them superheavy unwieldy behemoths), lack HE, or have wet ammo racks. STill I applaud him for his ability to still stay mostly unbiased.

    As for blacktail, he is in the unique position of bieng hated by both sides. However I'm not ashamed to say agree with 85-90% of what he says in his videos.


    I wholly disagree with you on saying he sucks up to western propaganda(he thinks the BMP-3 is arguably the best IFV built, he has great respect for the T-72, T-55, T-90, Black eagle), since he criticizes 80% of the time western equipment.

    I really disagree on his position on the T-64 and T-62, but his position comes from his belief of how tanks should be designed, not because of antirussian bias.

    As for your anger on his critique of the T-10, keep in mind he has the same presentation for all its equivalents of the time(M-103, conqueror).



    Things he stands for AFV design that I agree with him:
    Hatred of DU
    Hatred of wheels
    Love for 12,7mm+ coaxial MGs
    Hatred of gasoline
    Love for TTS(tank thermal sites)
    Love for WP(white phosphorus)
    Love for APERS ammo
    love for long cannons
    Hatred for unmanned turrets
    Hatred for military 5mm rounds

    And things I disagree:
    Hatred for smoothbore
    Hatred for autoloaders
    Love for turret bustles
    Love for battleships



    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I think is was flawed, even without BD's videos.

    Hmmm... a tank that isn't perfect... no... I don't believe you.   Razz

    It was the last Soviet heavy tank... if it was perfect its replacement heavy tank would still be in service.

    It was replaced by the T-64 where they went for special armour and a big gun.

    Then freakin reply to him! Why be so confident in your opinion when you cannot even look at the other side?

    Do you think he will change his mind?

    What other side?
    It has no role, that's my point.... It is a heavy tank in the world of the well-rounded MBT (West still had a couple heavies, which was also a mistake on their part). It's armor wasn't much better than what it would be going up against, and its size wouldn't help that in combat either... For crying out loud, it could probably be destroyed by a SS.10 or .11!

    Exactly, HEAVY-TANK! 

    They replaced it with a MBT, not like that is relevant or anything.... lol1 

    Nope, but hitting a couple pounds of common-sense into his Cranium won't hurt em', or anyone for that matter... 

    Ohh, the side in which I've been "supporting" this whole time...

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:59 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Things he stands for AFV design that I agree with him:
    Hatred of DU
    Hatred of wheels
    Love for 12,7mm+ coaxial MGs
    Hatred of gasoline
    Love for TTS(tank thermal sites)
    Love for WP(white phosphorus)
    Love for APERS ammo
    love for long cannons
    Hatred for unmanned turrets
    Hatred for military 5mm rounds

    And things I disagree:
    Hatred for smoothbore
    Hatred for autoloaders
    Love for turret bustles
    Love for battleships


    You can add light-weight and high-mobility vehicles to the top section....

    He doesn't really hate smooth-bores at all, only time I've seen him not like one was in the case of the 115 mm. 

    Auto-loaders, that's an interesting one.... The reason he doesn't "support them" (rather than dislike them) is because of their added complicity and cost, along with the loss of a crewman which he doesn't like for some reason. I believed he explained that once before, but I don't know where...

    Bustle racks? How come you don't like them? - I don't really care for them, but I don't hate em' either...

    Battleships, his most controversial topic by far... I argue in between someone like you and someone like him, because both sides actually provide good points to back up their arguments. He primarily like them for the big guns, which can be used for affordable and effective land bombardment versus missiles which are much more expensive etc. VietNAM' and Desert Storm showed that they still have a role in modern warfare, despite what is often considered to be their obsolesce after WW2. Using a mix of their big guns and Tomahawks, they were extremely cost-effective and effective in general. The other main reason he likes them is armor, in which case he doesn't have that much of an argument... Iowa-class ships could withstand tens of torpedoes (their hull was designed to do so) and similar numbers of bombs. Chances are they could withstand a few missile hits, as long as they hit an armored area. - I don't even want to now how many CIWS systems one could hold, probably 30 for all I care! - Once again, he believes in mixing guns and missiles, so don't call him an idiot because it would have no defensive missile armament (it would).... Finally, he likes them for their purpose of power projection. Obviously only the US really cares about that crap, but battleships (you have to admit) are still pretty darn intimidating. Kirov's intimidated the US....

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:00 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:It's not the T-80's fault russians hate  wet ammo racks or basic ammo compartamentalisation(you know, little things like putting an armor sheet over the main autoloader ammo storage intead of the crew sitting on it) on their armor, something which is possible on tanks without bustles.


    Still, ammo cookoffs are never 100% likely per penetration(It takes a good amount of luck for the enemy shell to actualy hit exactly where the shells are). Besides they're caused mostly not by the propellant, but by the HE charges cooking off. Proellant fires are gradual and can be fought before its too late. So if russian tanks didn't have HE ammo they wouldn't have a very high chance of cooking off. The abrams itself is impssible to cook off not because of genius ammo storage(shells in the bustle are still exposed), but because it simply can't use HE ammo( and the US army(being army smart) won't let it).

    Still, no NATO tank ever built except challengers, chieftains and abrams are immune to cookoffs because these 3 tanks have all their ammo in a bustle(which makes them superheavy unwieldy behemoths), lack HE, or have wet ammo racks. STill I applaud him for his ability to still stay mostly unbiased.

    As for blacktail, he is in the unique position of bieng hated by both sides. However I'm not ashamed to say agree with 85-90% of what he says in his videos.


    I wholly disagree with you on saying he sucks up to western propaganda(he thinks the BMP-3 is arguably the best IFV built, he has great respect for the T-72, T-55, T-90, Black eagle), since he criticizes 80% of the time western equipment.

    I really disagree on his position on the T-64 and T-62, but his position comes from his belief of how tanks should be designed, not because of antirussian bias.

    As for your anger on his critique of the T-10, keep in mind he has the same presentation for all its equivalents of the time(M-103, conqueror).



    Things he stands for AFV design that I agree with him:
    Hatred of DU
    Hatred of wheels
    Love for 12,7mm+ coaxial MGs
    Hatred of gasoline
    Love for TTS(tank thermal sites)
    Love for WP(white phosphorus)
    Love for APERS ammo
    love for long cannons
    Hatred for unmanned turrets
    Hatred for military 5mm rounds

    And things I disagree:
    Hatred for smoothbore
    Hatred for autoloaders
    Love for turret bustles
    Love for battleships

    Since you did not clearify who you meant of us of hating him for his "propaganda" believes, i stated that he has some propaganda believes like this autoloader arm eater or T-64 to be failed tank etc, not that he is generally a propaganda victim, just some myths he believes in without putting sources up.

    And i really can not understand how someone can Love white phosphorous.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  cracker on Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:22 am

    Garry, then you must consider the whole T-64/80 family as failed tanks?

    Seriously, if these tanks are penetrated, yes they have higher chance of burning or exploding, but, they achieve SO MUCH ! all that mobility and armour in such small package, with a huge firepower and the best technology possible for accurate shooting, whereas T-62 and T-72 and T-55 were definitely not capable of the same achievements.

    Maybe russians should consider integrating the T-90A style AL in all T-80 in service, but, I guess they just don't give a damn...

    The T-80BV has so much greater capabilities than the basic T-72B (both are the main type of tanks in russian army) than it might actually save him, because he will get the job done quickly and properly, instead of counting on a semi fantasy better survavibility in the T-72 if it's penetrated

    T-80 tanks remain the most beautiful in any case, not that it might help them... Laughing

    Still, T-80s have better suspension compared to T-72/T-90, a more powerful engine, multifuel and very reliable, great armour, better FCS and faster autoloader, good on-the-move shooting accuracy, and, except the very exposed ammo, they are basically superior to the T-72 design in every aspect, not even talking about T-64. Just look the ukrainian T-84BM, isn't it a fantastic tank? Granted, some choices about it are bad, but it was made in low budget and one-trick poney ukraine, a russian version would be fantastic. It's not for nothing that T-80BV and T-80U stayed the top tanks of russian army before enough T-90A were available, or recently replaced by modernised T-72. In conventional war, T-80 remained the best asset for ground warfare


    Y U NO IMPLORE YOUR MASTER Twisted Evil









    About T-10 again, yes it was not really needed... But in the end it was all but failed: it worked well, it was a good design, and had a fantastic gun, those who claim the D-10T is equal of M-62T2S are retarded. At best, M-62 was equaled by D-81 (2A46). Chieftain gun, L11, is direct equivalent of M-62 to give an idea.

    In a standard conventional WW3 as we like to fantasm about, NATO could have done little to nothing to counter regiments of T-10M in the 1960s. Nukes excluded of course. These units would have been used as spearheads in key sectors or kept in reserve to blunt armored counter attacks.

    T-10M overall performance is equal to early chieftain, or basic T-72, but with better side armour.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  TR1 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:33 am

    1.) The T-80 is more mobile than the T-72 or the T-90. Yes.
    But it also burns far more fuel. That is a problem.
    Also the suspension uses road wheels that expose more of the already larger ammunition storage profile, compared to T-72. It's not a giant difference, since any decent weapon will penetrate the wheels in any case, but still...

    2.) Once they are penetrated, T-72 or T-90 has pretty similar chance of blowing up. Practical experience with T-80 and T-72 in Chechnya shows this.
    The T-80 is more vulnerable from the side, but neither T-72 nor the T-90 are immune, so let's not pretend like it is much of a strength for the latter.

    3.) Whoever said Cheiftan does not cook off ammo is wrong. There are plenty of pics of Cheiftans from Iran that are blown to pieces, much like T-64s today.

    4.) T-80 has a more elaborate FCS than T-72, no doubt about that. However I am not aware of hard proof that points to its superiority in firing on the move. I would not be shocked..but in the absence of proof....

    5.) T-80 actually has marginally thinner armor than T-72B, not to even speak of T-90.

    6.) The auto-loader (MZ) is a bit faster than the T-72/90 style (AZ), but let's not pretend that the difference is major.


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:25 am

    ) Once they are penetrated, T-72 or T-90 has pretty similar chance of blowing up. Practical experience with T-80 and T-72 in Chechnya shows this.
    The T-80 is more vulnerable from the side, but neither T-72 nor the T-90 are immune, so let's not pretend like it is much of a strength for the latter.

    Actually in case of penetration for the T-64/80 it is far more vulnerable than a T-72/90, this lays with the fact that on T-72/90 the autoloader carosel is covered with armor, preventing that even the slightest of burning material which occure after penetration in hundreds to thousands of little sparks and spalls that could ignite the propellant charges that are pressed in "paper" cases, this is not the case for T-64/80, because their autoloader isn't covered giving hire probability of ignition of the stored ammunition. Only a direct penetration into the Autoloader for the T-72/90 can achieve a fatal destruction which is the same case for all western tanks, since all of them store part of their ammunition in the hull in direct sight of the crew except for Abrams.

    So for that matter the T-64/80 is indeed less protected than T-72/90 which have similiar and often superior protection then western tanks due the ERA and better hull protection of armor strength itself, which of course only benefitial due the ERA on the hull.

    Aggreed with the rest.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Zivo on Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:47 am

    The T-72/90 only benefits from the armored plate over the carousel magazine if ALL other loose ammo is removed from the crew compartment. The racks next to the driver and between the carousel and the rear of the hull are safer than the loose rounds, but still exposed to flanking attacks. Basically with half a load of ammo, it's safe from cookoff, unless the magazine is DIRECTLY hit, and on the T-72 that's a real challenge.

    Bustles are a simple solution to protect the crew, but bustles are highly exposed to enemy fire. More so than a T-72 in the aforementioned half ammo load.

    Blah blah blah, this has been discussed ad nauseam.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  TR1 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:56 am

    Yes, exactly.

    If penetration occurs and sprays crap everywhere, it has as much chance of hitting turret ammo as the T-80 carousel.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Zivo on Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:54 am

    TR1 wrote:Yes, exactly.

    If penetration occurs and sprays crap everywhere, it has as much chance of hitting turret ammo as the T-80 carousel.

    The problem is the you can't use the half load tactic in a T-80, that's were the disadvantage is.

    We need to keep in mind that this tactic can be used on western tanks too. Many people don't realize that the M1 has a small ammo box in the hull which holds a few rounds, and in dangerous environments, could be left empty.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:33 pm

    He clearly means that they were large by their day and age, not that they were the largest... 46 ton tanks were still behemoths in WW2, when the average "medium tank" would be somewhere around low-30 tons. Obviously the Tiger(s) was larger, but that thing was a monster of its day, and what difference does it make anyway?

    It was for Soviet tanks because it was a heavy tank...

    In comparison with heavy tanks from other countries like Germany it was tiny and light but still had a very powerful gun.

    Most do, and I agree even though the T-54 was closer to the modern definition on a MBT. - Look up "first MBT", the Centurion will show up every time.

    Do you mean look up in western literature and find the western view of which was the first MBT?

    The T-54/55 and T-62 were designed to be the standard tanks and so are MBTs too by definition.

    If you want to be pedantic about it neither the Centurion nor the T-54 count as MBTs as they were actually medium tanks built at a time when heavy tanks were also in production... the first MBT would have to be the T-64 which combined the heavy firepower and armour of a heavy tank with a medium weight vehicle, and therefore made heavy tanks unnecessary.

    Stalin, much like his German rival, clearly liked heavy armor...

    All major armies of the immediate post war period had their heavy tanks... UK, US, Germany, Soviet Union. The fact that they generally were produced in fairly small numbers... generally less than 6,000, usually rather less, was because of their cost and specific roles.. it was simply cheaper to make lighter vehicles.

    Khrushchev quickly trashed the T-10's namesake, as if that wasn't enough proof already..

    Enough proof of what?

    Khrushchev didn't cancel the vehicle type... he merely changed is name. It was built and in service because tactics at the time had a use for such a vehicle... no matter what it was called.

    52 tons is pretty big (think about the era!) when you think about it, more so when the overall protection is only so-so. It dwarfed the Sherman in everything but height, as mentioned before... It was no light-weight tank, and I don't understand why you object this...

    It was a heavy tank, yet compared with contemporary heavy tanks it was very light... the British Conquerer was 66 tons, the M103 was almost 60 tons.

    At the start of WWII the Soviets had the best heavy tank of any side... the KV-1 at 45 tons... by the end of the war their heavy tank was only 52 tons... compare that with the heaviest German tank at the start of the war and some of their heaviest tanks at the end of the war...

    It was by no means a mobile-tank,

    By definition a tank is mobile... a static tank is called a bunker.

    To give you an idea, the M-48 which was just as old had a range of 287 mi, while weighing only a little bit less... The Centurion had a range of 280 mi, where on Earth do you find that crap??? 217 mi wasn't bad, but like he said, it was less than the T-54 and that is what really counts when that tank is so crucial to your forces. - Many sources claimed the T-10 had a range of 250 km, which would be much worse...

    To give you an idea a horse could manage much greater distances than the T-10, but the T-10 wasn't a long distance tank... it was a breakthrough tank designed to punch through heavy enemy defences/lines so other lighter vehicles could stream through and attack the enemies rear areas... the T-10 needed long range like it needed a coffee machine.

    23 mph is terrible, and 31 mph actually is a big improvement. I agree with him, 31 mph is good, 23 mph is not! - The T-54 hit 30 mph tops, so the 23 mph models would have literally been a drag. All while consuming a lot more fuel! The all-too similar M-48 was capable of high-twenties at the time, so it one-upped the earlier models. So, if I slap "heavy tank" on my 10 mph MBT, is it now adequate? Stop kidding yourself...

    Stop kidding yourself... you don't go flying into heavy enemy lines at 40 miles an hour and expect to survive. This is a breakthrough tank... it has to break through... it is the lighter follow up tanks that exploit the breakthrough and disrupt enemy rear units and lines of logistics and support... the T-10 needs speed like it needs a much smaller gun and thinner armour.

    For crying out loud... He suggested that the design of the D-10T and its rounds were superior, and they were.... What difference does it make, obviously a 122 mm gun will fire more powerful rounds than a much smaller one...

    The main criticism of the KV-1 was that it was a heavy tank with the same gun as the T-34 medium tank... do you think the T-10 would be able to engage enemy armour at extended range with a much smaller gun?

    Where does he say that? - Actually cannot find that one... Anyway, if he actually suggested that, he probably added that it should of had a variant of the T-54 gun or something like that.

    Or no main gun at all?

    For its size, the 122 mm wasn't a world beater like it should of been. He probably is suggesting that it is an old and outdated design, and he'd be correct... A larger caliber doesn't mean the gun will be more successful.

    Perhaps the two of you know more about tank guns than the Soviets did... when they selected the 122mm gun there were many considerations and alternatives including a new 100mm gun. They chose the 122mm gun because it had a far more effective HE shell and even when it couldn't penetrate the armour of an enemy tanks turret it often blew it off the turret ring and disabled the tank. The 122mm gun was also in production, while the 100mm gun was new.

    The fact that they kept the 122mm gun in service for all the IS tanks suggests it was able to do the job.


    Gun depression and coaxial round quantity is important, suggesting otherwise is idiocy...

    Equally ludicrus is to expect thousands of coaxial rounds when the gun is a 12,7mm or 14.5mm machine gun.

    For the millionth time this is a breakthrough tank... 30 cal could have 5,000 rounds but will be fucking useless at the ranges the T-10 will be firing at the enemy from.

    ONLY having a few hundred much heavier rounds that will actually have some effect at the 2-3km they will be fired over is better than nothing... a 30 cal coaxial on the T-10... well it might as well be a 9 x 19mm weapon with 20,000 rounds. Razz

    Remember Syria's tank battles with Israel? (I believe this was with T-55's) Syria crushed them in numbers at first, but once they began hitting hills that had tanks below, they were killed because their low depression meant they has to go down peek over and down the hill to fire. Israeli tanks capitalized on this, and possibly won because of it. That enough facts for you?

    Yeah... in the flat open plains of Europe combat in the middle east should be the basis for tank design for the Soviets... NOT.

    Too bad the T-10 was introduced EIGHT FRIGGIN' years after WW2, huh? At least research before you start posting such wild claims. Much like with Western tanks of that era, they'd be screwed is a large round hit their sides... Not exactly a good thing in a heavy tank!

    Why would a breakthrough tank present its sides to the enemy?

    it was too large to have the armor be of any use (being a heavy-tank and all).

    Have you even seen the tank? It is less than 2.4m high... compared with most western tanks it is tiny.

    The height and width of both the T-10 and T-54 are almost the same.

    The T-10 has thicker armour on its hull and turret front.

    Why do you keep comparing the T-10 with the M48?

    It is HEAVY TANK, WHICH IS ONE REASON IT IS A "FAILED TANK"! I'm getting tired of dealing with all this idiocy, do you even try?

    If it was a failure, why was the T-64 developed to replace it in its breakthrough role?

    A role continued by the T-80 and now performed by the T-90?

    He said that there was no recovery vehicle built for it, which itself can make recovery a pain in the #$%!

    Are you suggesting there was no recovery vehicle based on the IS design?

    He has a point on the ammo, and you never even denied it... Complicated logistics because it was a large outlier, how don't you get this obvious information?

    122mm ammo wasn't hard to make or transport. The modern 125mm ammo is also two piece.

    He has a point there as well. It had a very small interior for a tank of its size.

    Hang on... too big on the outside (yet only the size of the standard medium tank) AND too small on the inside???

    The T-10 didn't have a purpose, it was a mission-less dinosaur that should of never been made. It was (would've been) relevant in 1945 and no longer.

    It was a breakthrough tank... it has a very specific mission and role... the fact that you and this person making videos doesn't understand that doesn't make it not true.

    He said that HEAVY-TANKS should of never been used after WW2, and guess what (?), he was correct, again! - BD is a supporter of tank destroyers, and aircraft do a much better job when combined with ATGM's...

    So he has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. Aircraft are very good when they turn up and if they can see through the smoke and dust and tell your tanks from theirs... Otherwise they are crap.

    "oh but it was Russian so it was good!" ignorance in this thread.

    I have been reading this thread and I have not seen anyone say such nonsense.

    Quote it or retract.

    It's not the T-80's fault russians hate wet ammo racks or basic ammo compartamentalisation(you know, little things like putting an armor sheet over the main autoloader ammo storage intead of the crew sitting on it) on their armor, something which is possible on tanks without bustles.

    Lets blame the Russians... the T-64 was a SOVIET TANK built mainly in the Ukraine if you want to point the finger.

    the T-72 corrected the problem, but the correction was not applied to the T-80 because it was identified after production of the T-80 was ended in Russia.

    The Black Eagle prototype would have fixed the problem, but the t-90 didn't have the problem in the first place.

    Still, ammo cookoffs are never 100% likely per penetration(It takes a good amount of luck for the enemy shell to actualy hit exactly where the shells are). Besides they're caused mostly not by the propellant, but by the HE charges cooking off. Proellant fires are gradual and can be fought before its too late. So if russian tanks didn't have HE ammo they wouldn't have a very high chance of cooking off. The abrams itself is impssible to cook off not because of genius ammo storage(shells in the bustle are still exposed), but because it simply can't use HE ammo( and the US army(being army smart) won't let it).

    Oh dear... first of all HE shells don't spontaneously explode... you can take some HE and set fire to it and it will just burn. To get it to explode you need a real shock or another explosive. That is what High in High explosive means... it needs an explosion to make it explode. Low explosive is things like black powder, which can be made to explode readily and is often used to set off high explosive.

    By the time HE shells are exploding in a tank the tank will have been burning for a good 20 minutes or more because all the safeties in the fuses have all sorts of protections to stop them from setting off unfired rounds.

    propellent charges on the other hand with combustable cases are highly flammable and when you look at the tank sized flame coming out a 125mm gun barrel when it is fired, and then multiply that by the 22 charges in the autoloader and add perhaps another 20 all around the crew compartment in a T-80 you can easily work out that all of them going off at once... even with not a single HE round there... will blow the tank turret off.

    It is basic common senses really... if the explosion was caused by all the HE shells going off the turret and tank would be shattered... instead the turret is pushed up and away from the tank like a shell down a barrel... it is propellent doing what propellent does...

    Still, no NATO tank ever built except challengers, chieftains and abrams are immune to cookoffs because these 3 tanks have all their ammo in a bustle(which makes them superheavy unwieldy behemoths), lack HE, or have wet ammo racks. STill I applaud him for his ability to still stay mostly unbiased.

    You might want to check that information... the abrams has 8 rounds next to the driver, and the challengers and chiefains also carry spare rounds in the crew compartment.

    Their ammo is however much safer than the Soviet ammo because their ammo has the propellent inside a shell case that is not combustable.

    I wholly disagree with you on saying he sucks up to western propaganda(he thinks the BMP-3 is arguably the best IFV built, he has great respect for the T-72, T-55, T-90, Black eagle), since he criticizes 80% of the time western equipment.

    Don't really care what he likes or dislikes... his comments about the T-10 are wrong.

    I really disagree on his position on the T-64 and T-62, but his position comes from his belief of how tanks should be designed, not because of antirussian bias.

    So he is arguing from a position of ignorance...

    It has no role, that's my point.... It is a heavy tank in the world of the well-rounded MBT (West still had a couple heavies, which was also a mistake on their part). It's armor wasn't much better than what it would be going up against, and its size wouldn't help that in combat either... For crying out loud, it could probably be destroyed by a SS.10 or .11!

    It had a role taken over initially by the T-64 and now probably Kornet EM.

    They replaced it with a MBT, not like that is relevant or anything....

    For it to be a failure there would have to have been a MBT that was better than it was at the time it was operational... and if you claim the Centurion as being that MBT... I would say at 52 tons that the Centurion was a heavy tank too.

    Bustle racks? How come you don't like them? - I don't really care for them, but I don't hate em' either...

    The Russian Army doesn't like them because it exposes the ammo to enemy fire.

    Garry, then you must consider the whole T-64/80 family as failed tanks?

    Not the whole family. With a 120mm smoothbore the ammo is more resistant to light up, and of course the Black Eagle prototype also solved the problem in a very elegant way.

    and armour in such small package, with a huge firepower and the best technology possible for accurate shooting, whereas T-62 and T-72 and T-55 were definitely not capable of the same achievements.

    The 55 and 62 were a previous generation and the 72 was a keep it simple and cheap solution.

    The T-90 is the best of both worlds.

    Maybe russians should consider integrating the T-90A style AL in all T-80 in service, but, I guess they just don't give a damn...

    They might look very similar but these two tanks have very different components... it just makes more sense to get rid of the T-80s.

    The T-80BV has so much greater capabilities than the basic T-72B (both are the main type of tanks in russian army) than it might actually save him, because he will get the job done quickly and properly, instead of counting on a semi fantasy better survavibility in the T-72 if it's penetrated

    In their original forms perhaps, but with upgrades the T-72 is much safer and just as capable.

    The problem is the you can't use the half load tactic in a T-80, that's were the disadvantage is.

    Exactly... in a T-72 or T-90, you can go into combat with 22 rounds loaded in the autoloader and be relatively safe from cookoffs... in a T-64 or T-80 even with only 22 rounds in the autoloader all 22 propellent stubs are exposed and in the crew compartment...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    a89
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  a89 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:32 pm

    Do you mean look up in western literature and find the western view of which was the first MBT?

    The T-54/55 and T-62 were designed to be the standard tanks and so are MBTs too by definition.

    T-55/55 definitely not, because T-10 was still operational for a few more years. The same goes with T-62, which was only a temporary solution until T-64 was fielded.

    If you want to be pedantic about it neither the Centurion nor the T-54 count as MBTs as they were actually medium tanks built at a time when heavy tanks were also in production...

    Exactly. Centurion was a medium tank. Conqueror was the heavy model deployed by British Army.

    They chose the 122mm gun because it had a far more effective HE shell and even when it couldn't penetrate the armour of an enemy tanks turret it often blew it off the turret ring and disabled the tank. The 122mm gun was also in production, while the 100mm gun was new.

    The only advantage of 100mm was faster ROF, but as gun was fitted in a turret, the gain was very small. The ROF depended on the ability of the loader to swing and insert rounds. The fact that it was a single piece round did not make much difference.

    The T-72/90 only benefits from the armored plate over the carousel magazine if ALL other loose ammo is removed from the crew compartment.

    I am not so sure about this. Latest T-90 has an armoured plate and extra ammo in an especial compartment. The danger lies in the extra rounds of ammunition stored in the compartment, not in the autoloader itself. In Chechnya crews removed these rounds to increase safety.

    T-80 autoloader has more rounds in AL (28 vs 22). The latest versions offer up to 1500HP, 40-50% more than T-90. They also incorporate a thermal sight. It is a shame they are going to be retired.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  cracker on Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:35 pm

    Garry, 28 rounds in the T-64 and T-80 AL.

    About the gun on the T-10.... Please everyone get out of your head the idea that it's a WW2 gun! It's not the D-25, it's the M-62T2S. If T-10 served the soviet army with D-25TA for all the carreer, ok, but it's not the case at all, from late 1957, T-10 were fabricated as T-10M with M-62, and all other previous tanks were converted. By 1962 you can bet all T-10 were T-10M. Don't fool yourselves, M-62 is not a low velocity gun, it's equivalent to the chieftain / challenger gun, the L11.

    The term MBT gives me cancer, like really. Everyone like to use it for nothing, look, a MBT can be anything, as long as it represents the main AFV used by an army. T-34 was the first real MBT if we consider the fact it was the first tank with balanced and high level for the time (it can be balanced but if it's outclassed by everything the world offers, it's failed) armour, gun and mobility. Panther isn't the first MBT, just like centurion or T-54 aren't.

    MBT is a concept and a doctrinal term, not a technical description.

    What T-80 has 1500hp engine? I am aware only of GTD-1250 1250hp, used on T-80U and fitted to some T-80BV

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:51 pm

    Can anyone explain why soviets never made any effort in making their propellants less dangerous to cookoffs?

    a89
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  a89 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:59 pm

    What T-80 has 1500hp engine? I am aware only of GTD-1250 1250hp, used on T-80U and fitted to some T-80BV

    Actually it is 1400HP, I made a typo. GTD-1250 has a "forsazh" mode to reach the aforementioned value. a couple of links in Russian and Spanish, use Google translate.

    http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-9251.htm
    http://alejandro-8.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/modernizaciones-del-t-80-en-rusia.html

    Can anyone explain why soviets never made any effort in making their propellants less dangerous to cookoffs?

    Well, it has to be some powder/explosive chemical... Soviets designed tanks as small as possible to reduce chances of being hit. Also, in WW3 frontal and massive engagements would have taken place. Western tanks (except Abrams to a degree) have similar problems with ammunition storage.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Zivo on Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:58 pm

    I am not so sure about this. Latest T-90 has an armoured plate and extra ammo in an especial compartment. The danger lies in the extra rounds of ammunition stored in the compartment, not in the autoloader itself. In Chechnya crews removed these rounds to increase safety.

    Which is exactly what I'm talking about.  Rolling Eyes



    Anyways, I went back and dug up some older posts which presented interior shots of T-72/90 and T-90 ammo storage from the T-90MS thread. Edited for relevance.

    Zivo wrote:

    (...)

    2) Why is the autoloader beneath the crew compartment and are they separated and if so what separates them (pics and Diagrams would be nice, cause i couldn't find anything useful with Google or Bing)?
    Bustle magazines are highly exposed, too much so for conventional armored warfare between the superpowers. They're also more exposed to aerial attacks. Ammo stored deep in the hull is harder to hit.

    As the turret rotates, bustle magazines become exposed from the frontal azimuth, even when in a hull down position.



    T-72 magazine diagram.



    Here's the armored bulkhead from all three crew positions.







    (...)


    And the T-80's autoloader magazine. Links for the panoramic views are still good, if you're interested.

    Zivo wrote:Here's some interior panoramic shots of the T-80.

    Commander's station


    http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=310.55&v=-4.13&f=155.00&l=commander&m=view_fisheye

    Gunner's station

    http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=377.79&v=10.98&f=155.00&l=gunner&m=view_fisheye&lang=en

    Driver's station

    http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=378.84&v=34.84&f=155.00&l=driver&m=view_fisheye&lang=en


    Take a look at this image, it's an autoloader model from the T-84, functionally the same as the T-80.



    Notice those large white cylinders behind the screens. Those are what holds the propellant charges.

    Here's a single unit.




    Now, open the commander's station link in a separate tab.

    First, look down were your feet would be.

    Second, zoom in as far as it will go.

    Third, look down in that large hole beyond the footrest.

    In that open space you can see some very odd looking rusted metal pieces. Do they look familiar?




    That is what an unarmored magazine looks like.

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Asf on Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:04 pm

    The T-54/55 and T-62 were designed to be the standard tanks and so are MBTs too by definition.
    Actually, even a T-90 is a medium tank according to official classification of MoD, General Staff and other military officials. MBT isn't official term in Russia

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Asf on Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:06 pm

    What T-80 has 1500hp engine?
    There was only non-serial 1500 hp engine.

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Asf on Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:07 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Can anyone explain why soviets never made any effort in making their propellants less dangerous to cookoffs?
    Because no one made - it's impossible.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Mike E on Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    He clearly means that they were large by their day and age, not that they were the largest... 46 ton tanks were still behemoths in WW2, when the average "medium tank" would be somewhere around low-30 tons. Obviously the Tiger(s) was larger, but that thing was a monster of its day, and what difference does it make anyway?

    It was for Soviet tanks because it was a heavy tank...

    In comparison with heavy tanks from other countries like Germany it was tiny and light but still had a very powerful gun.

    Most do, and I agree even though the T-54 was closer to the modern definition on a MBT. - Look up "first MBT", the Centurion will show up every time.

    Do you mean look up in western literature and find the western view of which was the first MBT?

    The T-54/55 and T-62 were designed to be the standard tanks and so are MBTs too by definition.

    If you want to be pedantic about it neither the Centurion nor the T-54 count as MBTs as they were actually medium tanks built at a time when heavy tanks were also in production... the first MBT would have to be the T-64 which combined the heavy firepower and armour of a heavy tank with a medium weight vehicle, and therefore made heavy tanks unnecessary.

    Stalin, much like his German rival, clearly liked heavy armor...

    All major armies of the immediate post war period had their heavy tanks... UK, US, Germany, Soviet Union. The fact that they generally were produced in fairly small numbers... generally less than 6,000, usually rather less, was because of their cost and specific roles.. it was simply cheaper to make lighter vehicles.

    Khrushchev quickly trashed the T-10's namesake, as if that wasn't enough proof already..

    Enough proof of what?

    Khrushchev didn't cancel the vehicle type... he merely changed is name. It was built and in service because tactics at the time had a use for such a vehicle... no matter what it was called.

    52 tons is pretty big (think about the era!) when you think about it, more so when the overall protection is only so-so. It dwarfed the Sherman in everything but height, as mentioned before... It was no light-weight tank, and I don't understand why you object this...

    It was a heavy tank, yet compared with contemporary heavy tanks it was very light... the British Conquerer was 66 tons, the M103 was almost 60 tons.

    At the start of WWII the Soviets had the best heavy tank of any side... the KV-1 at 45 tons... by the end of the war their heavy tank was only 52 tons... compare that with the heaviest German tank at the start of the war and some of their heaviest tanks at the end of the war...

    It was by no means a mobile-tank,

    By definition a tank is mobile... a static tank is called a bunker.

    To give you an idea, the M-48 which was just as old had a range of 287 mi, while weighing only a little bit less... The Centurion had a range of 280 mi, where on Earth do you find that crap??? 217 mi wasn't bad, but like he said, it was less than the T-54 and that is what really counts when that tank is so crucial to your forces. - Many sources claimed the T-10 had a range of 250 km, which would be much worse...

    To give you an idea a horse could manage much greater distances than the T-10, but the T-10 wasn't a long distance tank... it was a breakthrough tank designed to punch through heavy enemy defences/lines so other lighter vehicles could stream through and attack the enemies rear areas... the T-10 needed long range like it needed a coffee machine.

    23 mph is terrible, and 31 mph actually is a big improvement. I agree with him, 31 mph is good, 23 mph is not! - The T-54 hit 30 mph tops, so the 23 mph models would have literally been a drag. All while consuming a lot more fuel! The all-too similar M-48 was capable of high-twenties at the time, so it one-upped the earlier models. So, if I slap "heavy tank" on my 10 mph MBT, is it now adequate? Stop kidding yourself...

    Stop kidding yourself... you don't go flying into heavy enemy lines at 40 miles an hour and expect to survive. This is a breakthrough tank... it has to break through... it is the lighter follow up tanks that exploit the breakthrough and disrupt enemy rear units and lines of logistics and support... the T-10 needs speed like it needs a much smaller gun and thinner armour.

    For crying out loud... He suggested that the design of the D-10T and its rounds were superior, and they were.... What difference does it make, obviously a 122 mm gun will fire more powerful rounds than a much smaller one...

    The main criticism of the KV-1 was that it was a heavy tank with the same gun as the T-34 medium tank... do you think the T-10 would be able to engage enemy armour at extended range with a much smaller gun?

    Where does he say that? - Actually cannot find that one... Anyway, if he actually suggested that, he probably added that it should of had a variant of the T-54 gun or something like that.

    Or no main gun at all?

    For its size, the 122 mm wasn't a world beater like it should of been. He probably is suggesting that it is an old and outdated design, and he'd be correct... A larger caliber doesn't mean the gun will be more successful.

    Perhaps the two of you know more about tank guns than the Soviets did... when they selected the 122mm gun there were many considerations and alternatives including a new 100mm gun. They chose the 122mm gun because it had a far more effective HE shell and even when it couldn't penetrate the armour of an enemy tanks turret it often blew it off the turret ring and disabled the tank. The 122mm gun was also in production, while the 100mm gun was new.

    The fact that they kept the 122mm gun in service for all the IS tanks suggests it was able to do the job.


    Gun depression and coaxial round quantity is important, suggesting otherwise is idiocy...

    Equally ludicrus is to expect thousands of coaxial rounds when the gun is a 12,7mm or 14.5mm machine gun.

    For the millionth time this is a breakthrough tank... 30 cal could have 5,000 rounds but will be fucking useless at the ranges the T-10 will be firing at the enemy from.

    ONLY having a few hundred much heavier rounds that will actually have some effect at the 2-3km they will be fired over is better than nothing... a 30 cal coaxial on the T-10... well it might as well be a 9 x 19mm weapon with 20,000 rounds.  Razz

    Remember Syria's tank battles with Israel? (I believe this was with T-55's) Syria crushed them in numbers at first, but once they began hitting hills that had tanks below, they were killed because their low depression meant they has to go down peek over and down the hill to fire. Israeli tanks capitalized on this, and possibly won because of it. That enough facts for you?

    Yeah... in the flat open plains of Europe combat in the middle east should be the basis for tank design for the Soviets... NOT.

    Too bad the T-10 was introduced EIGHT FRIGGIN' years after WW2, huh? At least research before you start posting such wild claims. Much like with Western tanks of that era, they'd be screwed is a large round hit their sides... Not exactly a good thing in a heavy tank!

    Why would a breakthrough tank present its sides to the enemy?

    it was too large to have the armor be of any use (being a heavy-tank and all).

    Have you even seen the tank?  It is less than 2.4m high... compared with most western tanks it is tiny.

    The height and width of both the T-10 and T-54 are almost the same.

    The T-10 has thicker armour on its hull and turret front.

    Why do you keep comparing the T-10 with the M48?

    It is HEAVY TANK, WHICH IS ONE REASON IT IS A "FAILED TANK"! I'm getting tired of dealing with all this idiocy, do you even try?

    If it was a failure, why was the T-64 developed to replace it in its breakthrough role?

    A role continued by the T-80 and now performed by the T-90?

    He said that there was no recovery vehicle built for it, which itself can make recovery a pain in the #$%!

    Are you suggesting there was no recovery vehicle based on the IS design?

    He has a point on the ammo, and you never even denied it...  Complicated logistics because it was a large outlier, how don't you get this obvious information?

    122mm ammo wasn't hard to make or transport. The modern 125mm ammo is also two piece.

    He has a point there as well. It had a very small interior for a tank of its size.

    Hang on... too big on the outside (yet only the size of the standard medium tank) AND too small on the inside???

    The T-10 didn't have a purpose, it was a mission-less dinosaur that should of never been made. It was (would've been) relevant in 1945 and no longer.

    It was a breakthrough tank... it has a very specific mission and role... the fact that you and this person making videos doesn't understand that doesn't make it not true.

    He said that HEAVY-TANKS should of never been used after WW2, and guess what (?), he was correct, again! - BD is a supporter of tank destroyers, and aircraft do a much better job when combined with ATGM's...

    So he has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. Aircraft are very good when they turn up and if they can see through the smoke and dust and tell your tanks from theirs... Otherwise they are crap.

    "oh but it was Russian so it was good!" ignorance in this thread.

    I have been reading this thread and I have not seen anyone say such nonsense.

    Quote it or retract.

    It's not the T-80's fault russians hate wet ammo racks or basic ammo compartamentalisation(you know, little things like putting an armor sheet over the main autoloader ammo storage intead of the crew sitting on it) on their armor, something which is possible on tanks without bustles.

    Lets blame the Russians... the T-64 was a SOVIET TANK built mainly in the Ukraine if you want to point the finger.

    the T-72 corrected the problem, but the correction was not applied to the T-80 because it was identified after production of the T-80 was ended in Russia.

    The Black Eagle prototype would have fixed the problem, but the t-90 didn't have the problem in the first place.

    Still, ammo cookoffs are never 100% likely per penetration(It takes a good amount of luck for the enemy shell to actualy hit exactly where the shells are). Besides they're caused mostly not by the propellant, but by the HE charges cooking off. Proellant fires are gradual and can be fought before its too late. So if russian tanks didn't have HE ammo they wouldn't have a very high chance of cooking off. The abrams itself is impssible to cook off not because of genius ammo storage(shells in the bustle are still exposed), but because it simply can't use HE ammo( and the US army(being army smart) won't let it).

    Oh dear... first of all HE shells don't spontaneously explode... you can take some HE and set fire to it and it will just burn. To get it to explode you need a real shock or another explosive. That is what High in High explosive means... it needs an explosion to make it explode. Low explosive is things like black powder, which can be made to explode readily and is often used to set off high explosive.

    By the time HE shells are exploding in a tank the tank will have been burning for a good 20 minutes or more because all the safeties in the fuses have all sorts of protections to stop them from setting off unfired rounds.

    propellent charges on the other hand with combustable cases are highly flammable and when you look at the tank sized flame coming out a 125mm gun barrel when it is fired, and then multiply that by the 22 charges in the autoloader and add perhaps another 20 all around the crew compartment in a T-80 you can easily work out that all of them going off at once... even with not a single HE round there... will blow the tank turret off.

    It is basic common senses really... if the explosion was caused by all the HE shells going off the turret and tank would be shattered... instead the turret is pushed up and away from the tank like a shell down a barrel... it is propellent doing what propellent does...

    Still, no NATO tank ever built except challengers, chieftains and abrams are immune to cookoffs because these 3 tanks have all their ammo in a bustle(which makes them superheavy unwieldy behemoths), lack HE, or have wet ammo racks. STill I applaud him for his ability to still stay mostly unbiased.

    You might want to check that information... the abrams has 8 rounds next to the driver, and the challengers and chiefains also carry spare rounds in the crew compartment.

    Their ammo is however much safer than the Soviet ammo because their ammo has the propellent inside a shell case that is not combustable.

    I wholly disagree with you on saying he sucks up to western propaganda(he thinks the BMP-3 is arguably the best IFV built, he has great respect for the T-72, T-55, T-90, Black eagle), since he criticizes 80% of the time western equipment.

    Don't really care what he likes or dislikes... his comments about the T-10 are wrong.

    I really disagree on his position on the T-64 and T-62, but his position comes from his belief of how tanks should be designed, not because of antirussian bias.

    So he is arguing from a position of ignorance...

    It has no role, that's my point.... It is a heavy tank in the world of the well-rounded MBT (West still had a couple heavies, which was also a mistake on their part). It's armor wasn't much better than what it would be going up against, and its size wouldn't help that in combat either... For crying out loud, it could probably be destroyed by a SS.10 or .11!

    It had a role taken over initially by the T-64 and now probably Kornet EM.

    They replaced it with a MBT, not like that is relevant or anything....

    For it to be a failure there would have to have been a MBT that was better than it was at the time it was operational... and if you claim the Centurion as being that MBT... I would say at 52 tons that the Centurion was a heavy tank too.

    Bustle racks? How come you don't like them? - I don't really care for them, but I don't hate em' either...

    The Russian Army doesn't like them because it exposes the ammo to enemy fire.

    Garry, then you must consider the whole T-64/80 family as failed tanks?

    Not the whole family. With a 120mm smoothbore the ammo is more resistant to light up, and of course the Black Eagle prototype also solved the problem in a very elegant way.

    and armour in such small package, with a huge firepower and the best technology possible for accurate shooting, whereas T-62 and T-72 and T-55 were definitely not capable of the same achievements.

    The 55 and 62 were a previous generation and the 72 was a keep it simple and cheap solution.

    The T-90 is the best of both worlds.

    Maybe russians should consider integrating the T-90A style AL in all T-80 in service, but, I guess they just don't give a damn...

    They might look very similar but these two tanks have very different components... it just makes more sense to get rid of the T-80s.

    The T-80BV has so much greater capabilities than the basic T-72B (both are the main type of tanks in russian army) than it might actually save him, because he will get the job done quickly and properly, instead of counting on a semi fantasy better survavibility in the T-72 if it's penetrated

    In their original forms perhaps, but with upgrades the T-72 is much safer and just as capable.

    The problem is the you can't use the half load tactic in a T-80, that's were the disadvantage is.

    Exactly... in a T-72 or T-90, you can go into combat with 22 rounds loaded in the autoloader and be relatively safe from cookoffs... in a T-64 or T-80 even with only 22 rounds in the autoloader all 22 propellent stubs are exposed and in the crew compartment...
    And? That's what I've been saying this whole time, it was an outdated dinosaur "heavy tank" in the age of, well, anything else! It would be like bringing back the human-powered submarine!

    "tiny and light". - Not at all, yeah it was smaller than the Tiger, but it absolutely dwarfed the Panzers. Why are we even talking about the Krauts? The T-10 was introduced into service eight years after the war ended!

    Nope, any credible source will call the Centurion the first MBT... The T-54, like I said, was a better example of one, but that doesn't mean it was the first one. As for "neither were MBT's".... Like I said, the Centurion was the first MBT, albeit a "sketchy" one because of its specs. BUT, MBT is an ideology when building a tank IMO and not much more. The Centurion represents what a first-gen MBT was, and its successful variants (in service for many years) showed the flexibility (MBT-ness) of its design. I'd say that the T-64 was the first true second-gen. MBT though.

    Agreed, and I stated that later in my comment. However, what I'm stating, is that Stalin directly (or indirectly to some) influenced the tank, much like Hitler did to the Tigers. 


    That's what I said! Khrushchev "de-Stalinified" the tank, which supports what I said. 

    It was a heavy tank.... That's what I've said a hundred times already... Anyway, the M103 and Conqueror were two other crappy-tanks, funny isn't it? 

    You too? How do you guys not understand what I mean? Or is it just sheer ignorance? It isn't mobile, compared to other designs of its era. It was slow, heavy, had high-ground pressure, and was large! What does that equal, a (rather bad) vehicle when it comes to mobility! 


    So what! A tanks' role is no excuse for having dismissal range, and the T-10 would technically need it in order to "help"  (more like slow down) the tanks that it would "protect" and "breakthrough with". 

    Lol, so I guess a tank doesn't need speed either, does it? Hey everybody, let's put a 100 hp diesel in the Armata, what an idea! If anything, a task like braking through enemy lines requires speed. Look at the Hellcat (an example here and not a comparo), it often went behind enemy lines, destroyed their armor, and got the heck out of there. Guess what (?), it worked! That is a much better design for what the T-10 did so poorly... A heavy-tank was (and is) a flawed ideology. 

    And? I suggested nothing more than that the design of the gun wasn't up-to date, not that it needed a smaller gun... 

    You don't understand... BD implied that its gun needed to replaced, and an enlarged T-54 gun would do just that.

    I'm suggesting that for its size, the 122 mm wasn't all that impressive. A 100 mm would defeat the purpose of the already doomed tank design known as the T-10.

    How is that relevant? Every tank should have enough coaxial ammunition, that in the worst-case scenario (let's say in between fighting enemy armor and personally with AT weapons), it will have enough ammo to suppress the personal while engaging the armor at the same time. 

    lol1 Once again GarryB, why all the excuses? Gun depression may not seem important, but armor-engagements throughout (modern) history show the opposite to be true. A similar situation to the Syrian one could have happened w/o much preparation.   

    Because we aren't in the friggin 18th century where the enemy lines up in a line... Warfare is three-dimensional you know....

    It was large for its era, I researched its size vs other tanks of its time and it dwarfed them. Your troloolollol friend cracker said that the Sherman was bigger for crying out loud. Of course there were bigger tanks back then (and even today), but that doesn't matter when we are talking about this tank and not them. 


    The M-48 was built on a similar ideology, was put into service right around the same time, and was a similar tank in general. Why not use it as a comparison?

    Keep kidding yourself and I'll......... The T-64 was a completely different kind of tank, its role doesn't matter in that case. Never said its role was flawed....

    Not that I know of... Are there any? And are they built *for* recovering the T-10? 

    Sure it is, but one-piece designs are easier to transport and load etc. More so when there are not multiple charges etc. 

    Yes, can you read? For its size, the T-10's interior was small in comparison. 

    A role that is would completely fail at doing! Lighter vehicles (back then) would have excelled there, much like the Hellcat did!

    "Such nonsense" - You are saying it yourself GarryB...................

     - This thread just went down the crapper... Bye-bye!

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:19 am

    Mike E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    He clearly means that they were large by their day and age, not that they were the largest... 46 ton tanks were still behemoths in WW2, when the average "medium tank" would be somewhere around low-30 tons. Obviously the Tiger(s) was larger, but that thing was a monster of its day, and what difference does it make anyway?

    It was for Soviet tanks because it was a heavy tank...

    In comparison with heavy tanks from other countries like Germany it was tiny and light but still had a very powerful gun.

    Most do, and I agree even though the T-54 was closer to the modern definition on a MBT. - Look up "first MBT", the Centurion will show up every time.

    Do you mean look up in western literature and find the western view of which was the first MBT?

    The T-54/55 and T-62 were designed to be the standard tanks and so are MBTs too by definition.

    If you want to be pedantic about it neither the Centurion nor the T-54 count as MBTs as they were actually medium tanks built at a time when heavy tanks were also in production... the first MBT would have to be the T-64 which combined the heavy firepower and armour of a heavy tank with a medium weight vehicle, and therefore made heavy tanks unnecessary.

    Stalin, much like his German rival, clearly liked heavy armor...

    All major armies of the immediate post war period had their heavy tanks... UK, US, Germany, Soviet Union. The fact that they generally were produced in fairly small numbers... generally less than 6,000, usually rather less, was because of their cost and specific roles.. it was simply cheaper to make lighter vehicles.

    Khrushchev quickly trashed the T-10's namesake, as if that wasn't enough proof already..

    Enough proof of what?

    Khrushchev didn't cancel the vehicle type... he merely changed is name. It was built and in service because tactics at the time had a use for such a vehicle... no matter what it was called.

    52 tons is pretty big (think about the era!) when you think about it, more so when the overall protection is only so-so. It dwarfed the Sherman in everything but height, as mentioned before... It was no light-weight tank, and I don't understand why you object this...

    It was a heavy tank, yet compared with contemporary heavy tanks it was very light... the British Conquerer was 66 tons, the M103 was almost 60 tons.

    At the start of WWII the Soviets had the best heavy tank of any side... the KV-1 at 45 tons... by the end of the war their heavy tank was only 52 tons... compare that with the heaviest German tank at the start of the war and some of their heaviest tanks at the end of the war...

    It was by no means a mobile-tank,

    By definition a tank is mobile... a static tank is called a bunker.

    To give you an idea, the M-48 which was just as old had a range of 287 mi, while weighing only a little bit less... The Centurion had a range of 280 mi, where on Earth do you find that crap??? 217 mi wasn't bad, but like he said, it was less than the T-54 and that is what really counts when that tank is so crucial to your forces. - Many sources claimed the T-10 had a range of 250 km, which would be much worse...

    To give you an idea a horse could manage much greater distances than the T-10, but the T-10 wasn't a long distance tank... it was a breakthrough tank designed to punch through heavy enemy defences/lines so other lighter vehicles could stream through and attack the enemies rear areas... the T-10 needed long range like it needed a coffee machine.

    23 mph is terrible, and 31 mph actually is a big improvement. I agree with him, 31 mph is good, 23 mph is not! - The T-54 hit 30 mph tops, so the 23 mph models would have literally been a drag. All while consuming a lot more fuel! The all-too similar M-48 was capable of high-twenties at the time, so it one-upped the earlier models. So, if I slap "heavy tank" on my 10 mph MBT, is it now adequate? Stop kidding yourself...

    Stop kidding yourself... you don't go flying into heavy enemy lines at 40 miles an hour and expect to survive. This is a breakthrough tank... it has to break through... it is the lighter follow up tanks that exploit the breakthrough and disrupt enemy rear units and lines of logistics and support... the T-10 needs speed like it needs a much smaller gun and thinner armour.

    For crying out loud... He suggested that the design of the D-10T and its rounds were superior, and they were.... What difference does it make, obviously a 122 mm gun will fire more powerful rounds than a much smaller one...

    The main criticism of the KV-1 was that it was a heavy tank with the same gun as the T-34 medium tank... do you think the T-10 would be able to engage enemy armour at extended range with a much smaller gun?

    Where does he say that? - Actually cannot find that one... Anyway, if he actually suggested that, he probably added that it should of had a variant of the T-54 gun or something like that.

    Or no main gun at all?

    For its size, the 122 mm wasn't a world beater like it should of been. He probably is suggesting that it is an old and outdated design, and he'd be correct... A larger caliber doesn't mean the gun will be more successful.

    Perhaps the two of you know more about tank guns than the Soviets did... when they selected the 122mm gun there were many considerations and alternatives including a new 100mm gun. They chose the 122mm gun because it had a far more effective HE shell and even when it couldn't penetrate the armour of an enemy tanks turret it often blew it off the turret ring and disabled the tank. The 122mm gun was also in production, while the 100mm gun was new.

    The fact that they kept the 122mm gun in service for all the IS tanks suggests it was able to do the job.


    Gun depression and coaxial round quantity is important, suggesting otherwise is idiocy...

    Equally ludicrus is to expect thousands of coaxial rounds when the gun is a 12,7mm or 14.5mm machine gun.

    For the millionth time this is a breakthrough tank... 30 cal could have 5,000 rounds but will be fucking useless at the ranges the T-10 will be firing at the enemy from.

    ONLY having a few hundred much heavier rounds that will actually have some effect at the 2-3km they will be fired over is better than nothing... a 30 cal coaxial on the T-10... well it might as well be a 9 x 19mm weapon with 20,000 rounds.  Razz

    Remember Syria's tank battles with Israel? (I believe this was with T-55's) Syria crushed them in numbers at first, but once they began hitting hills that had tanks below, they were killed because their low depression meant they has to go down peek over and down the hill to fire. Israeli tanks capitalized on this, and possibly won because of it. That enough facts for you?

    Yeah... in the flat open plains of Europe combat in the middle east should be the basis for tank design for the Soviets... NOT.

    Too bad the T-10 was introduced EIGHT FRIGGIN' years after WW2, huh? At least research before you start posting such wild claims. Much like with Western tanks of that era, they'd be screwed is a large round hit their sides... Not exactly a good thing in a heavy tank!

    Why would a breakthrough tank present its sides to the enemy?

    it was too large to have the armor be of any use (being a heavy-tank and all).

    Have you even seen the tank?  It is less than 2.4m high... compared with most western tanks it is tiny.

    The height and width of both the T-10 and T-54 are almost the same.

    The T-10 has thicker armour on its hull and turret front.

    Why do you keep comparing the T-10 with the M48?

    It is HEAVY TANK, WHICH IS ONE REASON IT IS A "FAILED TANK"! I'm getting tired of dealing with all this idiocy, do you even try?

    If it was a failure, why was the T-64 developed to replace it in its breakthrough role?

    A role continued by the T-80 and now performed by the T-90?

    He said that there was no recovery vehicle built for it, which itself can make recovery a pain in the #$%!

    Are you suggesting there was no recovery vehicle based on the IS design?

    He has a point on the ammo, and you never even denied it...  Complicated logistics because it was a large outlier, how don't you get this obvious information?

    122mm ammo wasn't hard to make or transport. The modern 125mm ammo is also two piece.

    He has a point there as well. It had a very small interior for a tank of its size.

    Hang on... too big on the outside (yet only the size of the standard medium tank) AND too small on the inside???

    The T-10 didn't have a purpose, it was a mission-less dinosaur that should of never been made. It was (would've been) relevant in 1945 and no longer.

    It was a breakthrough tank... it has a very specific mission and role... the fact that you and this person making videos doesn't understand that doesn't make it not true.

    He said that HEAVY-TANKS should of never been used after WW2, and guess what (?), he was correct, again! - BD is a supporter of tank destroyers, and aircraft do a much better job when combined with ATGM's...

    So he has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. Aircraft are very good when they turn up and if they can see through the smoke and dust and tell your tanks from theirs... Otherwise they are crap.

    "oh but it was Russian so it was good!" ignorance in this thread.

    I have been reading this thread and I have not seen anyone say such nonsense.

    Quote it or retract.

    It's not the T-80's fault russians hate wet ammo racks or basic ammo compartamentalisation(you know, little things like putting an armor sheet over the main autoloader ammo storage intead of the crew sitting on it) on their armor, something which is possible on tanks without bustles.

    Lets blame the Russians... the T-64 was a SOVIET TANK built mainly in the Ukraine if you want to point the finger.

    the T-72 corrected the problem, but the correction was not applied to the T-80 because it was identified after production of the T-80 was ended in Russia.

    The Black Eagle prototype would have fixed the problem, but the t-90 didn't have the problem in the first place.

    Still, ammo cookoffs are never 100% likely per penetration(It takes a good amount of luck for the enemy shell to actualy hit exactly where the shells are). Besides they're caused mostly not by the propellant, but by the HE charges cooking off. Proellant fires are gradual and can be fought before its too late. So if russian tanks didn't have HE ammo they wouldn't have a very high chance of cooking off. The abrams itself is impssible to cook off not because of genius ammo storage(shells in the bustle are still exposed), but because it simply can't use HE ammo( and the US army(being army smart) won't let it).

    Oh dear... first of all HE shells don't spontaneously explode... you can take some HE and set fire to it and it will just burn. To get it to explode you need a real shock or another explosive. That is what High in High explosive means... it needs an explosion to make it explode. Low explosive is things like black powder, which can be made to explode readily and is often used to set off high explosive.

    By the time HE shells are exploding in a tank the tank will have been burning for a good 20 minutes or more because all the safeties in the fuses have all sorts of protections to stop them from setting off unfired rounds.

    propellent charges on the other hand with combustable cases are highly flammable and when you look at the tank sized flame coming out a 125mm gun barrel when it is fired, and then multiply that by the 22 charges in the autoloader and add perhaps another 20 all around the crew compartment in a T-80 you can easily work out that all of them going off at once... even with not a single HE round there... will blow the tank turret off.

    It is basic common senses really... if the explosion was caused by all the HE shells going off the turret and tank would be shattered... instead the turret is pushed up and away from the tank like a shell down a barrel... it is propellent doing what propellent does...

    Still, no NATO tank ever built except challengers, chieftains and abrams are immune to cookoffs because these 3 tanks have all their ammo in a bustle(which makes them superheavy unwieldy behemoths), lack HE, or have wet ammo racks. STill I applaud him for his ability to still stay mostly unbiased.

    You might want to check that information... the abrams has 8 rounds next to the driver, and the challengers and chiefains also carry spare rounds in the crew compartment.

    Their ammo is however much safer than the Soviet ammo because their ammo has the propellent inside a shell case that is not combustable.

    I wholly disagree with you on saying he sucks up to western propaganda(he thinks the BMP-3 is arguably the best IFV built, he has great respect for the T-72, T-55, T-90, Black eagle), since he criticizes 80% of the time western equipment.

    Don't really care what he likes or dislikes... his comments about the T-10 are wrong.

    I really disagree on his position on the T-64 and T-62, but his position comes from his belief of how tanks should be designed, not because of antirussian bias.

    So he is arguing from a position of ignorance...

    It has no role, that's my point.... It is a heavy tank in the world of the well-rounded MBT (West still had a couple heavies, which was also a mistake on their part). It's armor wasn't much better than what it would be going up against, and its size wouldn't help that in combat either... For crying out loud, it could probably be destroyed by a SS.10 or .11!

    It had a role taken over initially by the T-64 and now probably Kornet EM.

    They replaced it with a MBT, not like that is relevant or anything....

    For it to be a failure there would have to have been a MBT that was better than it was at the time it was operational... and if you claim the Centurion as being that MBT... I would say at 52 tons that the Centurion was a heavy tank too.

    Bustle racks? How come you don't like them? - I don't really care for them, but I don't hate em' either...

    The Russian Army doesn't like them because it exposes the ammo to enemy fire.

    Garry, then you must consider the whole T-64/80 family as failed tanks?

    Not the whole family. With a 120mm smoothbore the ammo is more resistant to light up, and of course the Black Eagle prototype also solved the problem in a very elegant way.

    and armour in such small package, with a huge firepower and the best technology possible for accurate shooting, whereas T-62 and T-72 and T-55 were definitely not capable of the same achievements.

    The 55 and 62 were a previous generation and the 72 was a keep it simple and cheap solution.

    The T-90 is the best of both worlds.

    Maybe russians should consider integrating the T-90A style AL in all T-80 in service, but, I guess they just don't give a damn...

    They might look very similar but these two tanks have very different components... it just makes more sense to get rid of the T-80s.

    The T-80BV has so much greater capabilities than the basic T-72B (both are the main type of tanks in russian army) than it might actually save him, because he will get the job done quickly and properly, instead of counting on a semi fantasy better survavibility in the T-72 if it's penetrated

    In their original forms perhaps, but with upgrades the T-72 is much safer and just as capable.

    The problem is the you can't use the half load tactic in a T-80, that's were the disadvantage is.

    Exactly... in a T-72 or T-90, you can go into combat with 22 rounds loaded in the autoloader and be relatively safe from cookoffs... in a T-64 or T-80 even with only 22 rounds in the autoloader all 22 propellent stubs are exposed and in the crew compartment...
    And? That's what I've been saying this whole time, it was an outdated dinosaur "heavy tank" in the age of, well, anything else! It would be like bringing back the human-powered submarine!

    "tiny and light". - Not at all, yeah it was smaller than the Tiger, but it absolutely dwarfed the Panzers. Why are we even talking about the Krauts? The T-10 was introduced into service eight years after the war ended!

    Nope, any credible source will call the Centurion the first MBT... The T-54, like I said, was a better example of one, but that doesn't mean it was the first one. As for "neither were MBT's".... Like I said, the Centurion was the first MBT, albeit a "sketchy" one because of its specs. BUT, MBT is an ideology when building a tank IMO and not much more. The Centurion represents what a first-gen MBT was, and its successful variants (in service for many years) showed the flexibility (MBT-ness) of its design. I'd say that the T-64 was the first true second-gen. MBT though.

    Agreed, and I stated that later in my comment. However, what I'm stating, is that Stalin directly (or indirectly to some) influenced the tank, much like Hitler did to the Tigers. 


    That's what I said! Khrushchev "de-Stalinified" the tank, which supports what I said. 

    It was a heavy tank.... That's what I've said a hundred times already... Anyway, the M103 and Conqueror were two other crappy-tanks, funny isn't it? 

    You too? How do you guys not understand what I mean? Or is it just sheer ignorance? It isn't mobile, compared to other designs of its era. It was slow, heavy, had high-ground pressure, and was large! What does that equal, a (rather bad) vehicle when it comes to mobility! 


    So what! A tanks' role is no excuse for having dismissal range, and the T-10 would technically need it in order to "help"  (more like slow down) the tanks that it would "protect" and "breakthrough with". 

    Lol, so I guess a tank doesn't need speed either, does it? Hey everybody, let's put a 100 hp diesel in the Armata, what an idea! If anything, a task like braking through enemy lines requires speed. Look at the Hellcat (an example here and not a comparo), it often went behind enemy lines, destroyed their armor, and got the heck out of there. Guess what (?), it worked! That is a much better design for what the T-10 did so poorly... A heavy-tank was (and is) a flawed ideology. 

    And? I suggested nothing more than that the design of the gun wasn't up-to date, not that it needed a smaller gun... 

    You don't understand... BD implied that its gun needed to replaced, and an enlarged T-54 gun would do just that.

    I'm suggesting that for its size, the 122 mm wasn't all that impressive. A 100 mm would defeat the purpose of the already doomed tank design known as the T-10.

    How is that relevant? Every tank should have enough coaxial ammunition, that in the worst-case scenario (let's say in between fighting enemy armor and personally with AT weapons), it will have enough ammo to suppress the personal while engaging the armor at the same time. 

    lol1 Once again GarryB, why all the excuses? Gun depression may not seem important, but armor-engagements throughout (modern) history show the opposite to be true. A similar situation to the Syrian one could have happened w/o much preparation.   

    Because we aren't in the friggin 18th century where the enemy lines up in a line... Warfare is three-dimensional you know....

    It was large for its era, I researched its size vs other tanks of its time and it dwarfed them. Your troloolollol friend cracker said that the Sherman was bigger for crying out loud. Of course there were bigger tanks back then (and even today), but that doesn't matter when we are talking about this tank and not them. 


    The M-48 was built on a similar ideology, was put into service right around the same time, and was a similar tank in general. Why not use it as a comparison?

    Keep kidding yourself and I'll......... The T-64 was a completely different kind of tank, its role doesn't matter in that case. Never said its role was flawed....

    Not that I know of... Are there any? And are they built *for* recovering the T-10? 

    Sure it is, but one-piece designs are easier to transport and load etc. More so when there are not multiple charges etc. 

    Yes, can you read? For its size, the T-10's interior was small in comparison. 

    A role that is would completely fail at doing! Lighter vehicles (back then) would have excelled there, much like the Hellcat did!

    "Such nonsense" - You are saying it yourself GarryB...................

     - This thread just went down the crapper... Bye-bye!

    Mike,

    I skimmed over this thread. I am not necessarily supporting the opinions of any particular poster, except for some of the points that "cracker" has made.

    However, it seems that you are copy-and-pasting from the "Discovery channels" of the world. Don't you know that the Discovery Channel, among all the other prolefeed sources, has never said anything nontrivial that wasn't completely wrong?

    Instead of making all these assertions, why aren't you asking questions? By asking questions, you can learn things.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Worst tank that the Soviets produced

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:55 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:55 am