T-10M | a Failure or Wasted Potential? #2

The Soviets are well know for their sheer quantity of tanks, and today we are going to look at what is commonly described as the last tank of its kind, The T-10 Heavy tank, thank you all for achieving the like goal I set up at my latest video, because we reached it, I held up my end of the bargain, so here is the video. If we can reach the 90 likes on this video I will release a new video on Thursday 1 P.M CET, that video will be about the Panzer IV/70 also known as the Jagdpanzer IV, now let’s get things going and enjoy the ride

Through out history there have been tank designs and prototypes build which had never seen any action and today we are going to look at a tank which had not seen any action, in our newest series, a Failure or Un-used Potential?

The T-10 otherwise known as the Objekt 730 was a tank developed by the Soviets, which was the last Soviet heavy tank ever being developed which, if war broke out between Nato and the Warsaw pact, it had to take on heavy weights like the Conqueror, Centurions, M48’s and the M103. The T-10 was also the last tank of its Family tree, the Josef Stalin line, which entered service for the first time in 1943, the T-10 was accepted into production back in 1952, representing somewhat of a comeback for the Classic Soviet heavy tanks, weighing in at about 52 tonnes heavy, Armed with a 122mm main armament, Having a 4 man crew and having a low profile. These are all things soviet heavy Tanks are known for, The Objekt 730 was initially meant to replace the Is-3 and Is-4 with the first intention being to have it be named the IS-5 but it was subjected to prolonged Testing and rework, so it would be re-designated to the IS-8 but it entered service as the T-10 Partly due to the passing of Josef Stalin. The Prototype now on screen was a model out of September 1949 fotographed at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.



we first are gonna talk about its weight, one of the main contributors of weight is of course its Armor. It was very well armored, to explain it simply, the tank at its weakest point which is the lower glasis also named by some people the lower plate, has a effective Armor thickness of 186mm, to compare this, the King Tigers best Armoured part of the tank is behind the main armament and that is 185mm, and that is what the T-10 Heavy has all over the front of the tank. With the thickest part being effectively 273mm thick, this is the upper glasis.

Of course without a engine you wouldn’t be going anywhere, you would just be a sitting duck. So the T-10 was outfitted with a 12 cylinder V-2 IS Engine which produced up to 700 horse powers. During the trails in September 1949, where they covered about 1000 kilometers, it was found that a cruising speed for this tank would be about 27 kilometers an hour to 31 kilometers an hour on a road, this was about 50% of the testing, the rest of the testing was done on open terrain, and as you can expect, this showed a lot of defects of the tank. After various modifications, there were again tests conducted in late 1949, and then again and again until 1952 they were tested, this only ended in late 1952 after various prototypes were being subject to constant testing rework and modification.

I already brievely mentioned that the T-10 was outfitted with the iconic 122mm D-25TA gun, it had the APHEBC and APHE shells, able to penetrate up to 150mm at a distance of 500 meters which honestly isn’t really that impressive, because these were penetration levels achieved by tanks 10 years prior to the T-10 entering service. As any other tank the T-10 did have secondary armaments, these were in the name of two 12.7 DShK machine guns, this is to deal with nearby infantry or lightly armoured vehicles.
The T-10M was a updated version which of the T-10 tank which allowed the tank to stay into service until the 1980s, and it was officially retired in 1997, so the T-10 outlived the Soviet Union, The T-10m had the 122mm M-62-T2 gun, which arguably is the more iconic look of the T-10’s main armament. It was also given a two plane stabilizer and one machine gun on the roof was replaced with the 14.5 mm KPVT machine gun. other features included infrared night vision, NBC liner inside for collective protection, and a intergraded automatic over pressure system. The tank also became a bit longer and lastly the turret was also slightly up armed.

Due to the newer developments, the T-10 became outdated quickly, developments like the Anti tank Guided Missiles and the T-10’s main armament was also made obsolete after the introduction of the T-64 MBT with a new main armament and ammunition types, this also made the heavy tanks in general redundant, also instead of relying on brute armour thickness tanks began relying more on reactive armour for added protection.

To the disappointment of the western allies the T-10 remain shrouded in mystery, so the official number of times produced remains a mystery but it is estimated that (Word limit)

[LearningHistoryTogether]

10 more subscribers and we are at the 2.600, so if you haven't already, make sure to subscribe!👍

[richardbradley]

If this tank had been built when the IS-3 was it would have been a terrific tank, it can be said it was the right tank at the wrong time. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on it, especially the gun!

[magger]

Definitely not a Failure, but could go for Wasted Potential as mentioned about post WWII heavy tanks. It would have done brilliantly during WWII era but with escalation of anti-tank capabilities during the cold war, it would mean that mobility would take overhand priority.

[Klovaneer]

T-10M was the best of the last heavy tanks (other two being M103 and Conq) but then it didn't weigh much more than M48 either. However most of it's traits that differentiated it from T-55 were a dead end - angled prow and sides armor scheme, longitudinal engine layout, 122mm evolved from field guns and even supported track would all be dropped by soviets with good reason.

[jimrobinson]

A good tank for the 1950's. Reminds you of the British Chieftain. In the Iran-Iraq war it suffered lack of speed and slow rate of fire.

[idraven]

Another to add to my model collection, a cool looking beast.😊

[JeanLucCaptain]

It’s basically impossible to know as it never saw combat. But I’ll bet it could have still done some damage especially given it’s SECONDARY GUNS where both 14.5mm HMGs!

[CenturionBC]

Hm, the presence of a T-10M for us mainly was indicative for order of battle establishment, since there were only specific and known units equipped with them. For the rest it was estimated as a fairly unimpressive and dismal affair that would have been hard-pressed to give even modest account of itself against our Centurions (later Leopards) and AMX-13 (shooting rollerskate) tanks, if they made it across the Iron Curtain in the first place. Not something to trifle with, for sure, but not something that made us tremble on our tracks.

[apyllyon]

T10 was on par with the western counterparts at the time of service and introduction only major thing the soviets suffered was the lack of improvement with their IR-spotlights and gear up to the 1980´s and even then they were not as good as the western top of the line gear. T-10 did beat the conqueror by a hair margin in terms of introduction date as the 1st tank to have a commander controlled target designator system with dual axis designation, the tank itself began in production in 1952 which was 3 whole years before the conqueror which is claimed as the official 1st tank to have true hunter-killer capability. T-10 under soviet armoured doctorine was the finest of its kind to be introduced but in comparison to its western counterparts it´s roughly on par as it has things it´s better and worse at than M103 and Conqueror.

[SilkyDrone]

excited to see some more history from you

[tfftwhoda]

No offense you got a lot of things wrong like first off the gun is not the same as the is 2 is a 122 mm D-25T cannon the t10 cannon is a 122 mm M 62 T2S cannon same caliber but this performance was a huge improvement is 2 cannon only pens 205 mm around there T10 122 can perforate 290mm with its kenetic energy round but can also shoot HEAT OR APDS as well

[Firebird]

So the t10 is the is8 ? I love the videos your putting out ! More obscure less covered vehicles. I can appreciate the amount of effort you put into these videos but it would be great if they were a bit longer. Either way good job ! Thank you . Edit 😊 a video on the t44 would be good, don’t see much about those anywhere.

[REgamesplayer]

Becoming ''obsolete'' after ten years of service to armaments which were finicky and not in widespread service. Somehow mentioning T-64 gun making its armament obsolete. Due to what? New ammunition? That would also be used in T-10M? Furthermore, it is actually T-62 which had superior gun. Also, tanks never stopped relying on their armor in favor of explosive armor. You are also using the incorrect penetration values. It is for the old gun and it is not impressive, because it is literally the same gun from WW2. It was upgraded and then advanced ammo types were added later on.

However, thank was revolutionary and incredible. First, it had the best cannon which USSR had in service and there was precious little which was more powerful at the time in service. Second, it armor was virtually impregnable to any anti tank weapon of its time. It was incredibly advanced tank for its era and allies would find it incredibly difficult to deal with it. Your analysis is completely timing insensitive. You skim through decades as they would be nothing. This is why you do not understand how incredible this tank actually was.

[gavindenton]

Fascinating v comparable to story of the Conqueror

[ozekher]

T-10M also should have been able to shoot APDS and HEAT. Which made it bit more 'modern'.

[davidgoodnow]

Interesting video and I encourage you to continue.
I have questions . . . my old book for recognition, Tanks of the World, has errors I have since 1984 found, but this is the first video in the search results for "T-10M" and the first I watched, so I'll ask. That book said the T-10M was equipped with a 130mm gun derived from the D-30 towed field gun, which was a centerpiece of North Vietnamese Army counter-battery artillery. It outranged all the U.S. artillery except the 203mm self-propelled howitzer and 175mm self-propelled gun, and became the center of NVA fortifications. The D-30s had to be destroyed, so the NVA would ring them with SAM sites to draw in U.S. fighters and attack aircraft.

That Vietnam bit I learned from Vietnam veterans, both artillerymen and bomber and Wild Weasel crews, so I trust it.

Thinking the T-10M has a gun of similar capability (60 kilogram projectile, 40 kilometer range with basic shells), I wondered why the T-10 was not considered a heavily-armored self-propelled gun (armor usually being a significant weakness of such in surviving counter-battery fire).

So, first question: T-10, 122mm and T-10M 130mm? Range as a self-propelled gun, if used as artillery?

Second question: Tanks of the World had the T-10M having the 14.5mm KPV both on top for anti-aircraft and as co-axial for use against lightly armored vehicles such as armored personnel carriers. Yes/No/Sometimes?

I have often thought that such a well-armored tank would be invaluable with a little updating. A split mantle like the AMX-30 allowing high-angle fire against aircraft, possibly a remote mount on the roof for AA; possibly replace the 14.5 with the Steyr 15mm HMG, as that much newer gun is far more capable and the same amount of space or weight provides far more of its more-capable ammunition types. Replacing the tragic bore-evacuator and fume extractor with better, and probably replace the propellant charges with higher-quality, more consistent, and more powerful polymerized electro-thermal propellant. Replace the archaic and obsolescent projectiles with modern smart munitions. And magnetically re-forge the Krupp nickel-steel armor as magnetically-forged aligned-chrystal iron, which is 50% more obdurate than depleted uranium. Even if its thickness was only face- and back-hardened thusly, it would be incredibly tough!

Replace the horrible Soviet-quality wheels and drive-train with the best Germany can make, and replace the engine with a Ford Europe high-efficiency low-emission, quiet, two-stroke turbo diesel with twice the horsepower, add a full-time supercharger to burn fuel with maximum efficiency, and possibly add water injection like a P-47 to further reduce fuel consumption (by 1/3, if it matches the P-47's output efficiency while keeping horsepower the same) while providing a ready source of hot distilled water for tea or coffee which is always appreciated.

Good luck with your channel!

[MarkMcCummins]

Mark McCummins
Considering that the T10M’s likely opponent was the heavily armoured, heavily gunned UK Chieftain, then the Soviets doubtless believed that an equivalent was needed. While the T10M never saw combat, they were deployed to Prague in ‘68, where the crews had their tanks pelted with bottles and rocks; at least one was adorned with a swastika in chalk on its mud flap.

[georgecastiblanco]

El is 10 es la evolución del is 3 y vio mucha acción durante la guerra arabe israelí de 1968 y la ocupación de checoslovaquia en ese mismo año creo fue superado por el t54 y t55 posteriormente al ser mas fiable y mas barato de producir.

The T-10M didndt used 122mm gun of IS-2. It was a new version.

[johnmacmillan]

I think that tank had more potential, nobody can prove me wrong that this tank could not be upgraded in armament even in protection or powertrain, for how big this tank was, it would be not that difficult. The main problem was probably the cost as the medium tanks were cheaper