Even if a breakthrough was successful, the T-10 could not be relied upon to hold the momentum and continue penetrating into the enemy's rear. With the Red Army victorious in Berlin the rest of the world drew its breath as the Allies readied the blows that would smite Imperial Japan. Miranda prefers not to reply to comments, I would like to ask if you have additional information on the turret armour of the Conqueror. Just one year later, in 1957, the T-10B with a dual plane stabilizer codenamed Thunder was introduced, thus cutting short the time needed by the gunner for target acquisition while the tank is mobile and simultaneously giving even better precision. I have gotten some great performance from tanks that are statistically considered among the worst. Gotta argue with you on the armor points. Why go full heavy tank when a low profile, a small turret, a three-man crew and amphibious capabilities were more important? The T-10 was menacing to behold.
In between shots, the loader can place a shell on the tray and have a propellant charge in his hands ready. It is nowhere near as tough as other tanks, and can only reliably bounce shots at autobounce angles, because at 70 degrees the armor is less than 250mm thick pre-normalization, which can be pretty reliably penned at this tier. Well there are british documents stating that Conqueror could penetrate about 440mm at 1km with sabot, so well placed shots to mantlet and turret cheeks of T-10 would work for sure. By the time the Soviets did the same to Afghanistan in 1979 the T-10 was pulled from service and mothballed. Its hull armour will be 140mm thick, which will increase due to the 60-70º slipe on the glacis plate, 138-170mm at 45-55º at the lower front plate, 112mm at its sides and 50 mm on the rear. No more waiting, no more wondering! Yet it never enjoyed the same success as its cost-efficient and weaker replacements the T-55 and the T-62. Now he realizes a handful of powerful countries have made perpetual war a matter of business-as-usual and this is why the 21st century is going to be really something else.
No more heavy tanks, Khrushchev demanded. This is where the myths surrounding the last Soviet heavy tank come to die! In 1956 a much needed vertical stabilizer codenamed Hurricane was added in the updated T-10A to enable the gunner to keep his sights on target while moving directly towards it, thus drastically improving the speed of shooting while driving straight into the enemy. Could be another ammo rack on tracks for anyone who gets a side shot on it. By 1966 the Conquerors were withdrawn and never seen again. Turns out it's just a flat plate on top of the armor fooling me. The old times where a tank could move at the speed of light are far gone, but the legacy of the T-50-2 is still here and so is the vehicle we all cherish. For the sake of great writing, let this be judgment for those who passed judgment on the T-10.
Or just want to start a new account? Imho the current best tier 9 heavy is. So the T-10 did see combat, albeit in a limited role. The T-10 can reverse sidescrape in a pinch, but there is no position where it can hide it's angled rear plate and not have vulnerable sides. In addition, the frontal turret armor right below the gun is 250mm thick, which can be pretty reliably penned, along with most of the turret ring. The auto pen roof armor isn't the biggest liability, agreed, but the easily penned turret ring is a problem.
Anonymous I found this article very interesting although I had read Mr Sewell's article also. T-10 will be placed as tier 9 heavy. The best way to tell a T-10 from a Joseph Stalin is to look at the glacis, the tracks, and the gun. So hop into your Conq and either go hull down or roll with the meds and feast on unsuspecting enemy T-44s that even your hull can bounce. Of course, all of you will ask why are they replacing it, and what will happen to the T-10. The T-10, Conqueror, and M103 were sort of evenly matched on paper. The primary periscope has night vision capabilities and a rudimentary stadiametric rangefinder.
There could be either dozens or hundreds rusting away in Russian scrap yards. I'm surprised that they didn't decide to make it an side-grade tank as opposed to being directly apart of the Soviet prow line. The crew consisted of four men, and the tank had good maneuverability. Turret armor: 40mm roof armor means it can be autopenned by 122mm guns. It is much better than the T-10 in this regard.
Besides all that, there's not much else. The separate charge ammunition was kept until the final T-10M variant was deployed. Their interiors were also more conducive to combat performance. This and other questions form a growing mythology surrounding the T-10—an obscure development locked away in the recesses of the Cold War. As a rule, the crew must be well coordinated to execute shots in between short halts, if firing on the move, which would be frequent, seeing as the T-10 was meant for breakthroughs, after all.
Even today, the requirement still stands, which is why the T-14 Armata weighs only 48 tons. In 1960, Sewell wrote, Khrushchev was shown the T-10M, the prototype T-62, and the prototype T-64. It was armed with the new M62T2 and ran on a 750 horsepower V-12-6 diesel engine. As a true successor to the T-10, Object 277 builds on its strong sides, having better aiming time, damage per minute and armour penetration values. Smitten by the concept of anti-tank missiles, Khrushchev was impressed the most by the T-64 and its promise. For instance, in the Conqueror, the loader must lift the two-part ammo above a guard rail and insert it into the breech from above, putting his body into a mechanically disadvantaged position.