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.
They tested a lot of heavy tank replacements, including the IT-1 etc missile tanks and later fitted the T-64 with gun launched missiles.
To be fair the US and France did the same with the failed 152mm Shillaghlagh (spelling) nd in the french case some 142mm calibre gun that was even worse than the US attempt.
At the end of the day the US decided a modified M113 with TOW was cheaper and simpler, while the Soviets got gun tube launched missiles for most of its heavy gun armed vehicles including artillery, but also went for the Shturm/ataka on an MTLB chassis and now the Kristantema and Kornet-EM on BMP-3 chassis.
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.
Quite true... the T-90AM/MS has 22 rounds in the autoloader, protected, plus 8 rounds at the rear base of the turret in a covered box, while the remaining rounds are in the rear turret bustle separated from the crew compartment.
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.
The thermal sights originally fitted to the T-80s were domestic and rather limited... though certainly better than nothing. they were also quite expensive and were effective to a max of about 2-2.4km. Modern Catherine thermals fitted to the T-90s can see blades of grass at 2km, and were effective to 6-7km depending on the conditions.
Garry, 28 rounds in the T-64 and T-80 AL.
Which means 28 exposed propellent stubs... which will probably add 2-3 metres to the distance the turret travels from the hull.
Can anyone explain why soviets never made any effort in making their propellants less dangerous to cookoffs?
The only Russian ammo that suffers the problem is the 125mm ammo, which is in two parts to shorten the ammo and allow underfloor autoloading.
As you might imagine having rounds under the turret ring means the parts of the rounds can't be longer than half the diameter of the turret ring, so a separate propellent stub means bigger propellent charge, making the round more powerful.
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!
It was similar weight and had a gun that was just as powerful as the Centurion that was not outdated nor considered obsolete...
"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!
Most of Europe used WWII tanks for well over 20 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.
Almost a metre taller than the Soviet Heavy tanks, perhaps your credible sources are biased western sources? The fact that they also had a heavy tank... the conquerer, makes the centurion a medium tank... not their main battle tank.
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.
In the Soviet Military the Centurion would be a heavy tank... in the British military it was a medium tank.
However, what I'm stating, is that Stalin directly (or indirectly to some) influenced the tank, much like Hitler did to the Tigers.
Don't really understand what you mean... most armies of the period had light, medium, and heavy tanks. The fact that Stalin didn't put an end to that at the time is no great surprise because it would take composite armour to get heavy tank protection in a medium tank chassis/weight range.
That's what I said! Khrushchev "de-Stalinified" the tank, which supports what I said.
Your claim appeared to me to be that the only reason the tank stayed in service was because it had Stalins name and his ego kept it in service after it stopped being useful.
When its name was changed and Stalin was dead... what exactly kept it in service?
Except if you are wrong and it actually had a purpose?
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 are not getting it.
It wasn't a "heavy tank", it was a purpose built tank to have heavy armour and be able to engage targets at standoff ranges. For those purposes it had heavier armour than the medium tank and a bigger gun than the medium tank. The result is pretty much a tank destroyer that happened to be heavy. Its focus wasn't zipping around the battlefield at high speed popping off enemy tanks... for which a light small tank with a big gun would do well. It was pretty much a Tiger II.... except much smaller and lighter.
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!
It was very mobile and could be driven over all types of terrain. For the job of firing at enemy tanks from 2km+ it had far too much 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".
It creates the breakthrough, it does not exploit it... once it has shattered the enemy tank lines it goes back and rearms and refuels and continues to hit the front line to keep them engaged so they don't follow the breakthrough tanks and stop them.
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.
Tell that to the Israelis... the Merkava has a top speed of about 55km/h cross country which isn't that much faster than the 42km/h the T-10M can manage.
You don't understand... BD implied that its gun needed to replaced, and an enlarged T-54 gun would do just that.
BD is wrong... the 122mm gun of the T-10M was powerful enough for the job... every bit as powerful as the gun fitted to the Centurion.
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.
Yet they didn't change it... wonder why?
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.
They could easily redesign the tank gun to allow much greater depression angles... the cost would be a much taller turret, and as the turret front has the thickest armour a huge increase in weight of the vehicle. And for what? Careful use of the terrain should prevent or help anticipate such ambushes and across most of the flat open terrain it really wont be an issue. there will also be lots of places where the enemy can't be seen at long distances... they will hardly bring up the heavy breakthrough tanks to fight in hedgerows...
But what would those dumb Soviets know about tank warfare... internet generals know far more.
Because we aren't in the friggin 18th century where the enemy lines up in a line... Warfare is three-dimensional you know....
So they will have random pockets of tanks all over the place?
Good... a large number of the medium tanks can handle those without the need for a breakthrough tank.
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?
Because it was a medium tank... why don't we compare apples with apples and look at the M103 heavy tank... the first model had an 80 mile range and at 34km/h was slower too.
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....
T-64 was their first attempt at a MBT that used composites to get heavy protection without a lot of weight, and a big powerful gun. It proved, like many heavy tanks to be too expensive, so they developed a cheaper tank to make up the numbers. the T-64 was replaced in service by the T-80, but when the SU collapsed all three tanks were replaced with a development of the T-72... the T-90.
They went from heavy, medium, light, to expensive and capable in moderate numbers, and Cheap and good enough in large numbers, to expensive and capable but in moderate numbers.
Not that I know of... Are there any? And are they built *for* recovering the T-10?
Well what do you think? Either they left the tanks that broke down where they were, or they never broke down...
Sure it is, but one-piece designs are easier to transport and load etc. More so when there are not multiple charges etc.
Funny, because they mounted enormous artillery barrages during the latter stages of WWII and most of them seemed to be 152mm, which is also two piece and much heavier than 122mm.
Yes, can you read? For its size, the T-10's interior was small in comparison.
Comparison with what? A matchbox... probably not.
Interiors of most Soviet vehicles are smaller than western vehicle equivalents.
A role that is would completely fail at doing! Lighter vehicles (back then) would have excelled there, much like the Hellcat did!
Funny how the tank destroyers were withdrawn and stopped development well before the heavy tank... once medium tanks started getting medium and high pressure guns the tank destroyer became redundant... the heavy tank remained useful in places where its larger gun gave it a range advantage.
I don't follow a thing that "Discovery Channel" (or whoever you mean) says. AFAIK, they don't cover anything military, at least here in the States'.
He doesn't literally mean you get your info from DC, he likely means your information seems to come from coffee table books for the general public... ie Soviet tanks in 40 pages or less with all the myths and stereotypes included and much of the real detailed info edited out because if it wasn't it would be 4,000 pages and not 40 so no one would even pick it up.
Questions are great, except for when nobody is qualified to answer them.
Charming... just as well we have such well versed scholars as yourself to educate us.
They fit perfectly into the medium tank category, and don't have the firepower of a MBT like the Centurion.
That is funny because when the T-34 entered service in 1939 there weren't many tanks its gun could not penetrate and only heavy artillery that could pierce its armour.
But I don't have a source so that can't possibly be anything but my mere opinion...
There was no clear need... Other kinds of tanks could complete the same role more efficiently and quickly, w/o the complexity of a heavy tank. The M18 Hellcat had a similar role towards the end of the war (quickly break throw and destroy enemy armor) and was a great design in general.
The Soviets had very few vehicles like the Hellcat... except a few vehicles provided by lend lease and the only real tank destroyers they actually built were the Su-85 and Su-122 and Su-100... I loved their nicknames... "Fucking end of everything"... meaning there wasn't much on the battlefield they could not destroy.
The problem with the hellcat is its pathetic armour... the Soviets had plenty of experience during WWII with vehicles that did not have adequate armour... the T-26 was a prime example, and when the war ended you will notice the production of light tanks stopped... so why put a huge gun in a light tank?
The purpose of a heavy tank that is used for breakthrough is for it to sit 2-3km back from the enemy lines and pick off all the visible threats... then send in the medium tanks using the heavy tanks to pick off anything that starts shooting at the medium tanks.
For this role the heavy tank needs a long range powerful gun and it needs protection that will allow it to sit in one place for long periods without shifting position and pound the enemy vehicles... moving means not shooting accurately and not providing support... a heavy tank needs accuracy to hit targets at such range and to be providing support for the lighter vehicles.
Other opinons claimed that heavy tank was phased out due to overweight and cost issues, and the medium tank absorbed some vital traits of the heavu tank and evolved into MBT.
But probably all agree that MBT is something has combination of strong armour, great firepower of the heavy tank, and great mobility, great speed of the medium tank, and is the standard model of heavy armoured forces.
At 70 tons most western tanks are heavy tanks.
Basically I think it is safe to consider all medium tanks which appeared after 1945 as main battle tanks. The T-10, IS-xx, M103,... are not, because they are designed to be much heavier, much stronger than the average standard at that time, and the number of produced pieces is quite low.,
Except the lines are blurred and it is not so easy to classify based on features... a Centurion would be a heavy tank in the Soviet Union, while the T-10 would be called a MBT in Britain... look at the figures.