This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-10 tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from T-10 tank appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 March 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A duplicate of this article (I think) allready exsisted at Iosef Stalin tank. I'm no expert on tanks but from what I gather these are the same things. One should be merged into the other. I reccomend the stalin tank be moved here, but what do I know. Also the histories may need to be merged. I'd like some input from someone who knows anything about these tanks. (cross posted to the other article) Broken Segue 04:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Muchenhaeser, I've reverted your last changes. I've tried to incorporate your additions as much as possible in my previous edits.
Now you're just adding incorrect information (there was no "rise of ATGMs" in the '50s and '60s; making "fewer" tanks doesn't help them "resist ATGM attack methods", and in fact the Soviets fielded more independent tank units), irrelevant info (U.S. introduction of the ATGM-launching Sheridan tank in 1966 didn't affect the Soviet phase-out of obsolescent heavy tanks which was already planned for years; no one was even considering building still heavier heavy tanks), and continuing to ignore spelling and the rules of grammar. — Michael Z. 2005-04-4 07:58 Z
I to incorporated your changes, then you removed them after so I have again had to re-incoporate them- I aplogize for the time before last where I did not check it and there were errors. As for the issue, The deployment of ATGMs (I dont just mean the sheridan) meant it was more usefull to deploy more, more mobile tanks. They Soviets were developing them as well, and they new that ATGMs could be made large enough to destroy medium or heavy tank regardless. The other issue, certainly, was it was very difficult to actually make a tank significantly more armored then the other MBTs due to the size and weight restrictions of the army's eqipment. Muchenhaeser 22:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The discussion here is very interesting, but I want to correct some statements. Firstly, the soviet 130mm gun wasn't only a very powerful anti-infantry weapon and anti-fortification weapon, it was also the strongest anti-tank weapon of the time. So the next generation of soviet heavy tanks was also tasked to destroy ennemy tanks, but it was not their primary task. Secondly, You seem to think that the soviet WWII heavy tanks were not useful. In fact, they were very useful. In 1943, the soviet were in heavy need of a heavy vehicule to attack and destroy the nazi's fortifications. They were also in need of a tank that could fight at a equal term the Tiger and the panther. The T-34/85 was able to fight the panther and the Tiger (but not the King-Tiger), but it was not enough powerful to destroy the german's bunkers. So, at the time, a heavy tank was the best compromise because a heavy assault gun like the SU-152 was not enough mobile and flexible to fight tanks as they lack turrets and medium tanks were not enough powerful to be armed with heavy guns (the projects of rearming T-34/85 with 100mm and 122mm guns failed although they were post-IS-2 projects. But, after the war medium tanks became enough powerful to be armed with large caliber guns and heavy armor. By exemple, the T-55 is armed with a 100mm gun and the front of his turret is better protected than the IS-3's turret. At this time, the heavy tanks became obsolescent, but before that they were useful. Remember that the IS-2 was a heavy breakthrough tank, not like german's heavy tanks that were supposed to be anti-tank weapons. Kovlovsky
T-10s (like the IS tanks they replaced) were deployed in independent tank regiments belonging to armies, and independent tank battalions belonging to divisions. These independent tank units could be attached to mechanized units, to support infantry operations and perform breakthroughs.
Thi is not exactly right. Until 1955 heavy tanks were a part of the tank divisions as one of three line tank regiments. Between 1955 and 1958 the regiments were regrouped into eight heavy tank divisions. These divisions were disbanded in early 1960s and individual battalions were assigned to Fortified Regions mostly along the chinese border at a rate of four battalions (four companies each) per region. Because there were insufficient number of heavy tanks, some T-34-85s were also used.-- Mrg3105 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that "T-10 served with the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries, Egypt, North Vietnam, and Syria" as stated in the last section. All known (to me) russian sources claim that T-10s were never ever exported anywhere. What happened I think, that the israelis counted some destroyed (and disfigured) arabian IS-3s as T-10s. 195.98.64.69 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How many T-10s were built after all? The infobox says 8,000, but it also says in the production history section that some 6000 Soviet heavy tanks were built after WWII (including IS-2, IS-3 and T-10).
Don't know if this is relevant or not but in russia it is called the IP-8, IP-9, IP-10 or EC-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Introduction. The T-10 is not the development of a line of tanks KV, the line breaks in the KV-85.
While the name changes the line never breaks through the KV-13, the first heavy tank after the KV-13 was the IS-1(Object 233) and IS-2(Object 234) both of which were on the KV-13 chassis(The IS-2 even used the KV-9 turret). The demand for new firepower eventually lead to the IS-3(original IS-1 prototype) and the IS-4(IS-1 with 107mm) and so on. Pharoahjared ( talk) 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Demise of Soviet heavy tanks. About anything section is all wrong. Bugs to the first paragraph:
a) What is taken thesis slow heavy tanks? And why did not the infantry entered in the "slow" units? War is not a race!
b) When you write "... medium tanks already had armour and armament comparable ...", specify the criteria on which they are comparable. Otherwise, what is this, a new focus Houdini, equip the tank with the weight of a medium tank such as armor and firepower, which has a heavy tank? :) Never medium tank can not be compared with the thickness of a heavy tank armor. Example - the thickness of the side armor hull of T-54 80 mm, thickness to that of the IS-3 ranges from 90 to over 180 mm.
And then all that is written is...Hm...Is it branchy cranberry:) Heavy tanks continued to be developed in the Soviet Union, just as the large caliber guns (130-152 mm) for them. The development of heavy tanks had been discontinued by decision of Nikita Khrushchev, who Morozov showed his new T-64. Khrushchev in the tanks did not understand, he was a populist politician, so he liked the phrase "firepower and armor of a heavy tank with the weight of a medium tank". In fact, the thickness of the metal part of the combined armor of T-64 is comparable to the armor of the T-10 (there were no technical barriers to the emergence of combined armor of heavy tanks for new projects. Moreover, the side armor of heavy tanks, in principle, could also be a combination!). In order to equip the T-64 this armor, side armor hull T-64 has a thickness of 50 to 80 mm, chassis overly facilitated chosen a very easy and very unreliable engine... Thus, "Demise of Soviet heavy tanks" was not caused by technical factors (such as the use of ATGM). This decision was a political leader who understands nothing in the tanks. Khrushchev also knew nothing about shipbuilding, artillery, farming...
3. Production history.
a) "The T-10 wasn't exported and was never used in military conflicts"- is copied from the external links:)
b) The main modification of the T-10 was a version of the T-10M, with a new turret and a new gun. T-10M was made larger than other modifications, this tank is shown in the illustration, so the data of T-10M should appear in the table. Амрафен ( talk) 13:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There isn't any proof that the T-10 was ever exported to other countries, neither that it fought in the Six Day War neither Yom Kippur War. According to the SIPRI Trade Register, only IS-3 was exported and used in these wars (in total 370 IS-3 tanks exported) but not a single T-10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiccardoTheBeAst ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This article presently uses the forms Obiekt 770 and e.g. Object 272 for Soviet tank projects. For consistency, it should be one or the other. I suggest Obiekt, as Object looks odd and probably isn't a good translation of the Russian term. NelC ( talk) 18:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The Revision as of 22:32, 10 January 2019 by MTWEmperor changed the service time of this tank from 1953-1996 to 1953-present (sources vary.) What sources?
I am having trouble believing any of these tanks still serve in the Russian or South Oessetian forces as both declared them retired. Other former users of Egypt and Syria are already debated in this talk page and thus I would believe them to be retired if they ever were used. And surely the unrest in Syria would have exposed any working models as other late Cold War and WW2 equipment was brought back into the sun to do battle. Also highly doubtful Egypt would be using T10 tanks alongside M1A1 tanks. 2603:7080:4342:C00:24BB:99C7:B2E5:195A ( talk) 21:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been a video released on twitter about the tank possibly being used by the Russian armed forces, yet this source doesn't seem adequate to fully make that claim. Right now I have added the "(possibly) in service" as a temporary solution, but it would be extremely helpfull if anyone could find the original video/source. (or any other source of it being used for that matter.) DukeLeotheFirst ( talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
anybody that takes cheap twitter propaganda at face value should not be editing wikipedia pages Yobushki ( talk) 00:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-10 tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from T-10 tank appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 March 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A duplicate of this article (I think) allready exsisted at Iosef Stalin tank. I'm no expert on tanks but from what I gather these are the same things. One should be merged into the other. I reccomend the stalin tank be moved here, but what do I know. Also the histories may need to be merged. I'd like some input from someone who knows anything about these tanks. (cross posted to the other article) Broken Segue 04:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Muchenhaeser, I've reverted your last changes. I've tried to incorporate your additions as much as possible in my previous edits.
Now you're just adding incorrect information (there was no "rise of ATGMs" in the '50s and '60s; making "fewer" tanks doesn't help them "resist ATGM attack methods", and in fact the Soviets fielded more independent tank units), irrelevant info (U.S. introduction of the ATGM-launching Sheridan tank in 1966 didn't affect the Soviet phase-out of obsolescent heavy tanks which was already planned for years; no one was even considering building still heavier heavy tanks), and continuing to ignore spelling and the rules of grammar. — Michael Z. 2005-04-4 07:58 Z
I to incorporated your changes, then you removed them after so I have again had to re-incoporate them- I aplogize for the time before last where I did not check it and there were errors. As for the issue, The deployment of ATGMs (I dont just mean the sheridan) meant it was more usefull to deploy more, more mobile tanks. They Soviets were developing them as well, and they new that ATGMs could be made large enough to destroy medium or heavy tank regardless. The other issue, certainly, was it was very difficult to actually make a tank significantly more armored then the other MBTs due to the size and weight restrictions of the army's eqipment. Muchenhaeser 22:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The discussion here is very interesting, but I want to correct some statements. Firstly, the soviet 130mm gun wasn't only a very powerful anti-infantry weapon and anti-fortification weapon, it was also the strongest anti-tank weapon of the time. So the next generation of soviet heavy tanks was also tasked to destroy ennemy tanks, but it was not their primary task. Secondly, You seem to think that the soviet WWII heavy tanks were not useful. In fact, they were very useful. In 1943, the soviet were in heavy need of a heavy vehicule to attack and destroy the nazi's fortifications. They were also in need of a tank that could fight at a equal term the Tiger and the panther. The T-34/85 was able to fight the panther and the Tiger (but not the King-Tiger), but it was not enough powerful to destroy the german's bunkers. So, at the time, a heavy tank was the best compromise because a heavy assault gun like the SU-152 was not enough mobile and flexible to fight tanks as they lack turrets and medium tanks were not enough powerful to be armed with heavy guns (the projects of rearming T-34/85 with 100mm and 122mm guns failed although they were post-IS-2 projects. But, after the war medium tanks became enough powerful to be armed with large caliber guns and heavy armor. By exemple, the T-55 is armed with a 100mm gun and the front of his turret is better protected than the IS-3's turret. At this time, the heavy tanks became obsolescent, but before that they were useful. Remember that the IS-2 was a heavy breakthrough tank, not like german's heavy tanks that were supposed to be anti-tank weapons. Kovlovsky
T-10s (like the IS tanks they replaced) were deployed in independent tank regiments belonging to armies, and independent tank battalions belonging to divisions. These independent tank units could be attached to mechanized units, to support infantry operations and perform breakthroughs.
Thi is not exactly right. Until 1955 heavy tanks were a part of the tank divisions as one of three line tank regiments. Between 1955 and 1958 the regiments were regrouped into eight heavy tank divisions. These divisions were disbanded in early 1960s and individual battalions were assigned to Fortified Regions mostly along the chinese border at a rate of four battalions (four companies each) per region. Because there were insufficient number of heavy tanks, some T-34-85s were also used.-- Mrg3105 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that "T-10 served with the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries, Egypt, North Vietnam, and Syria" as stated in the last section. All known (to me) russian sources claim that T-10s were never ever exported anywhere. What happened I think, that the israelis counted some destroyed (and disfigured) arabian IS-3s as T-10s. 195.98.64.69 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How many T-10s were built after all? The infobox says 8,000, but it also says in the production history section that some 6000 Soviet heavy tanks were built after WWII (including IS-2, IS-3 and T-10).
Don't know if this is relevant or not but in russia it is called the IP-8, IP-9, IP-10 or EC-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Introduction. The T-10 is not the development of a line of tanks KV, the line breaks in the KV-85.
While the name changes the line never breaks through the KV-13, the first heavy tank after the KV-13 was the IS-1(Object 233) and IS-2(Object 234) both of which were on the KV-13 chassis(The IS-2 even used the KV-9 turret). The demand for new firepower eventually lead to the IS-3(original IS-1 prototype) and the IS-4(IS-1 with 107mm) and so on. Pharoahjared ( talk) 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Demise of Soviet heavy tanks. About anything section is all wrong. Bugs to the first paragraph:
a) What is taken thesis slow heavy tanks? And why did not the infantry entered in the "slow" units? War is not a race!
b) When you write "... medium tanks already had armour and armament comparable ...", specify the criteria on which they are comparable. Otherwise, what is this, a new focus Houdini, equip the tank with the weight of a medium tank such as armor and firepower, which has a heavy tank? :) Never medium tank can not be compared with the thickness of a heavy tank armor. Example - the thickness of the side armor hull of T-54 80 mm, thickness to that of the IS-3 ranges from 90 to over 180 mm.
And then all that is written is...Hm...Is it branchy cranberry:) Heavy tanks continued to be developed in the Soviet Union, just as the large caliber guns (130-152 mm) for them. The development of heavy tanks had been discontinued by decision of Nikita Khrushchev, who Morozov showed his new T-64. Khrushchev in the tanks did not understand, he was a populist politician, so he liked the phrase "firepower and armor of a heavy tank with the weight of a medium tank". In fact, the thickness of the metal part of the combined armor of T-64 is comparable to the armor of the T-10 (there were no technical barriers to the emergence of combined armor of heavy tanks for new projects. Moreover, the side armor of heavy tanks, in principle, could also be a combination!). In order to equip the T-64 this armor, side armor hull T-64 has a thickness of 50 to 80 mm, chassis overly facilitated chosen a very easy and very unreliable engine... Thus, "Demise of Soviet heavy tanks" was not caused by technical factors (such as the use of ATGM). This decision was a political leader who understands nothing in the tanks. Khrushchev also knew nothing about shipbuilding, artillery, farming...
3. Production history.
a) "The T-10 wasn't exported and was never used in military conflicts"- is copied from the external links:)
b) The main modification of the T-10 was a version of the T-10M, with a new turret and a new gun. T-10M was made larger than other modifications, this tank is shown in the illustration, so the data of T-10M should appear in the table. Амрафен ( talk) 13:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There isn't any proof that the T-10 was ever exported to other countries, neither that it fought in the Six Day War neither Yom Kippur War. According to the SIPRI Trade Register, only IS-3 was exported and used in these wars (in total 370 IS-3 tanks exported) but not a single T-10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiccardoTheBeAst ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This article presently uses the forms Obiekt 770 and e.g. Object 272 for Soviet tank projects. For consistency, it should be one or the other. I suggest Obiekt, as Object looks odd and probably isn't a good translation of the Russian term. NelC ( talk) 18:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The Revision as of 22:32, 10 January 2019 by MTWEmperor changed the service time of this tank from 1953-1996 to 1953-present (sources vary.) What sources?
I am having trouble believing any of these tanks still serve in the Russian or South Oessetian forces as both declared them retired. Other former users of Egypt and Syria are already debated in this talk page and thus I would believe them to be retired if they ever were used. And surely the unrest in Syria would have exposed any working models as other late Cold War and WW2 equipment was brought back into the sun to do battle. Also highly doubtful Egypt would be using T10 tanks alongside M1A1 tanks. 2603:7080:4342:C00:24BB:99C7:B2E5:195A ( talk) 21:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been a video released on twitter about the tank possibly being used by the Russian armed forces, yet this source doesn't seem adequate to fully make that claim. Right now I have added the "(possibly) in service" as a temporary solution, but it would be extremely helpfull if anyone could find the original video/source. (or any other source of it being used for that matter.) DukeLeotheFirst ( talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
anybody that takes cheap twitter propaganda at face value should not be editing wikipedia pages Yobushki ( talk) 00:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)