Wow ! great video about this tank. People often ignore its existence, and think the only tanks of ussr were T-55 at this time... It compared quite well with nato tanks even into the 1960's, and totally outnumbered nato heavy tanks M103 and concqueror... T-10M variant is interesting, with nice features, a very powerful gun, and a devastating KPVT for light armor and soft targets...
Отец участник операции Вихрь в Венгрии радист и их перебросили из Урала для наведения порядка в Венгрии 1956 и из воспоминания танки ИС Сталина очень хорошо помогали в боях в г Будапеште..
Fun fact: a better version of this tank was tested, the is-7, but was never entered into production because it was very expensive. The only prototype sits at display in Kubinka.
Something I was never able to understand about modern tank design was how the heck did no one consider the use of Heavy Tanks for Indirect Fire? With a low profile turret like this, I could imagine the elevation being increased to the point of having it being just as capable of launching missiles towards targets directly as it could fire shells in a ballistic trajectory (perhaps ramjet assisted) dozens of kilometers away.
Modern armies prefer to have vehicles specialized on each task. A heavy tank that is used as self-propelled artillery would not be as accurate and its armor would slow it down in tactical maneuvers instead of giving it an advantage in battle. Furthermore, these tanks were too expensive to be used just as artillery pieces. After all, soviet/Russian tank designs are not particularly famous about their elevation angles. I hope I have answered your question!
@@nickfilippos3340 ‘Modern armies prefer to have vehicles specialized in each task’ except they don’t. The whole point of the past half century was in making them as non specialized as possible to improve manufacturability, organization, overall mobility and weight. Heavy tanks in the form that was desired were simply too heavy to fulfill any of those purposes. What I was suggesting and I still suggest is a vehicle with a similar purpose to an SU-152, using a 6 inch gun or thereabouts with a shorter caliber that would have been able to elevate even with such a low profile turret. Depression would have been a limitation but if using guided missiles depression doesn’t really matter so long as the laser designator can point at the target. Also, modern armies are desperate for a tank that can specialize in urban combat instead of ad hoc solutions on MBTs that result in them being excessively heavy, even by WWII German standards. M1A2 Abrams with the SEP upgrades get to 68 tons, which is easily 20-30% heavier than the T-10.
@@nickfilippos3340 Also, a armored vehicle today with specialized heavy armor better arranged and designed to withstand IEDs and anti tank mines while holding a 150-155mm howitzer in a wide, low profile turret that can turn 360°, even if it were to reach the weight of the M1 Abrams would still have options in terms of just using a much more powerful engine. Diesel Turbines are extremely common, for instance.
You know, I've always wondered why they didn't just keep the design and outfit it with modern armor and suspension, etc. That tank really does look badass.
@@Gridlocked They're also faster and generally larger, have auto-stabilizing, have a completely different form of armor than hardened steel, computer-assisted fire control, ect ect. They aren't really 'heavy tanks'. They do weigh a lot.
The IS-10 (JS-10 in URSS) was rename T-10 after the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. During his production he receive differents names, Is-8, Is-9, Is-10, OBJ 730 and after the final production he receive the name of T10. When they upgrade him he receive some others names like T-10A, T-10B and T-10M
my personal opinion is that the latest ww2 versions of this ссср monster were superior over the tiger tank. it s a good tank even against the abrams. it had a tremendous amount of firepower beyond its gigantic cannon. i think it carried at least 4 machine guns
Good tank even against the Abrams? You have to be joking, the Abrams would put a dart through it's front armor from 3 miles away while the Soviet giant wouldn't have had time to react
Cool looking , but sadly obsolete from the moment it left the factory . The days of the Heavy Tank where numbered from the moment MBTs like the Centurion and T-54 started coming out .
...Mate, if the IS-10 was obsolete when it left the factory, then the Centurion was a fossil. The IS-10 (later T-10) was so obsolete that the Americans used it as reference for their M103 heavy tank (which is a clear copy), and the British, who invented the tank but forgot how to build them during the 1930s, started trying to emulate Soviet tank designs with the introduction of the Conqueror. If your design is being copied, that means you are doing something right. You can't seriously say that the Centurion was more advanced than the IS-10. The Centurion was another British box (a nicer one, perhaps, but still a box), the British were still building boxes instead of streamlined tanks during WW2, British tank designers were still living in the 1930s in several aspects. Soviet tank design was already better than the American/British in late 1941, with the T-34. From that point on, Soviet tank design could only improve, and it did. The Soviets kept that lead until the 1970-80s. Sure, the Centurion was successful, that was because it was constantly upgraded, updated and modified to fill different roles, but Soviet tank designs were always better than British ones.
CHANGE THE NAME OF THE VIDEO !! T-10 was the real name of this tank but before transmission the Soviet engeneers had changed the name from T-10 to IS-8 (Joseph Stalin 8). So the T-10 and T-10M is the IS-8. Maybe there was NOT IS-10 but it's only MAYBE !! It is truth T-10/T-10M is the IS-8 and IS-8 is the T-10 !
daniel szabo I repeating :) IS-8 was built only 10 tanks (tanks were tested in April-May 1950). For the IS-10 tank was altered engine transmission compartment. After the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, the IS-10 tank has received the designation the T-10 (the modernized T-10M).
Actually IS-8 and IS-9 were prototypes, the IS-8 was almost the perfect copy of a IS-5 ( objekt 730 in 1950 with the same catalisor than the IS-4) after they maded modifications and makes with it the IS-9. Than when they finally complete the project they maded the IS-10 but after Stalin's death they just put T-10... After the T-10m came. "M" for Modernisation... If we talked about smilaryties... In the family of IS there is IS-1successor of the KVs series and IS-2 ( the IS-1 with 122 mm barrel instead of 85mm )... After the IS-4 ( with the T-34/85 turret shape disign ) then the IS-6 inspired from the IS-4.... For the hemispherical turret shape there is the IS-3, the first tank with that design... After they made the IS-5, witch is very unknow tank. Than the IS-7 witch was more similare to the IS-3 but extremely more heavier ( IS-3 48 tons/ IS-7 68 tons ). Than they remake the IS-5 design into the IS-8/IS-9 and finally the IS-10/T-10 witch is the very last and the direct successor of the IS-3...
Tamiya had a model of this but it is out of production. It was not a very good kit. Time to have a better version! Trumpeter. Tamiya, are you listening?
this thing and other like it is why the NATO forces were panicking so hard and making absurd wnderwaffen like the UKs FV4001 that had little practical battlefield use. and the Americans had no real experiences in heavy tanks either so the M103 was doomed from the start.
Little known fact - The T-10M, in final combat configuration ... can carry up to 4 x SS-18 SATAN Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. These were carried along the side of the hull, similar to where you see logs being carried on lesser soviet tanks. In addition to the 4 sets of Satan ICBMs, the T-10M, the mounting plate you can see on the rear glacis behind the mighty engine was also used to carry 1 single AN602 "TsarBomba" Thermonuclear Detonation Device, jacked up to over 100 MTonnes of yield. Over 100,000 T-10M's were built in this configuration, armed, and on 24/7 standby with safety catches disabled.
Beastly creature. Sure played hell destroying trees and bushes! I wonder how well it would have managed actual combat in tank vs. tank environment. Does anyone know- did the Arabs have T-10s against the Israelis?
8, IS-8 9 never existed and they never got passed 8 IS-1, 2, 3, 6 then 4, 5 and 7 where competitive of each other (designers where), then 8 but 7 was revealed later even if it was designed before IS-8/T-10(M)
if we can see one of this in a modern battlefield this tank are no match for modern anti tank weapons like the javelin missile and attack helicopter or gunships. well in North Korea this tank are still in service alone with the t34 tanks but for official use only but some must be a IS2 or 3.
Well of course its no match for modern warfare. Damn thing was designed in the 40's. But in their era, the IS 3, IS 4, IS 7 and IS 8 (T10) were freaking beasts and could trade blows with anything the US and British could field. But yes, in todays anti-tank warfare weapon systems and modern tanks makes these tanks nothing more than a light snack
Самый запомнившийся момент когда танк напролом едет через лес,ломая вековые сосны как щепки.Конечно,немного жаль деревья...)Лайк.
Tôi thích cảnh bắn súng máy và pháo chính
whenever i think of a "tank" this monster comes to mind: big,noisy and intimidating as hell.....
tank from l4d
then you obviously did not heard of object 260 aka IS-7
Pfffff, IS-7
t-55
@@namespacestd131
But did the IS7 enter mass production like is8 or is5 in the video
Wow ! great video about this tank. People often ignore its existence, and think the only tanks of ussr were T-55 at this time... It compared quite well with nato tanks even into the 1960's, and totally outnumbered nato heavy tanks M103 and concqueror... T-10M variant is interesting, with nice features, a very powerful gun, and a devastating KPVT for light armor and soft targets...
just watching it blow through that snow and those bog marshes is amazing.
That's a beautiful looking monster.
"Blyatful"
@@shykj8892 lol
This tank is bad ass and one of my favorite tanks! I want one so bad! If I had one and could afford fuel for it, I would drive it to work everyday.
you could not afford for parking tickets! lol
Tôi cũng muốn
Wow! The T-10M had 14.5mm coaxial heavy machine gun! And 14.5mm on the roof of turret! Northkorea actually puts 14.5s on the roofs of their tanks.
Лучший танк своего времени!!! Сын ИС-3 с мега дороботками!!! с противоядерной защитой.
0:39 "That one ricochet" "We didn't even scratch them"
War Thunder is better anyways
" *IT SEEMS WE MISSED* "
1:20 is that how they get quick camo 😂😂
Yeah probably
You see ivan, when drive through forest, mother nature give camo
Yes just smash some tree
0:24 *Camera zoom in*
Me:Dat ass XD
A sport tank for your family.
Отец участник операции Вихрь в Венгрии радист и их перебросили из Урала для наведения порядка в Венгрии 1956 и из воспоминания танки ИС Сталина очень хорошо помогали в боях в г Будапеште..
1:17 RIP gun
oof
Broken hahahahah
Т-10М самый красивый советский танк, внешне, да в прочем и всего мира
Tôi không hiểu họ đã chế tạo những xe tăng có tháp pháo hình bán cầu đẹp như vậy tôi rất thích Xe tăng Liên Xô
Fun fact: a better version of this tank was tested, the is-7, but was never entered into production because it was very expensive.
The only prototype sits at display in Kubinka.
Specifications? Audio? Description? Great archival footage of this little-remembered Soviet tank.
дружить с русскими очень приятно, воевать с русскими не надо, никогда и не кому, всем добра
if only the French's AMX 50 B had cool promo video like this, nope, they just let it rot in that museum
Something I was never able to understand about modern tank design was how the heck did no one consider the use of Heavy Tanks for Indirect Fire? With a low profile turret like this, I could imagine the elevation being increased to the point of having it being just as capable of launching missiles towards targets directly as it could fire shells in a ballistic trajectory (perhaps ramjet assisted) dozens of kilometers away.
Modern armies prefer to have vehicles specialized on each task. A heavy tank that is used as self-propelled artillery would not be as accurate and its armor would slow it down in tactical maneuvers instead of giving it an advantage in battle. Furthermore, these tanks were too expensive to be used just as artillery pieces. After all, soviet/Russian tank designs are not particularly famous about their elevation angles. I hope I have answered your question!
@@nickfilippos3340
‘Modern armies prefer to have vehicles specialized in each task’ except they don’t. The whole point of the past half century was in making them as non specialized as possible to improve manufacturability, organization, overall mobility and weight. Heavy tanks in the form that was desired were simply too heavy to fulfill any of those purposes.
What I was suggesting and I still suggest is a vehicle with a similar purpose to an SU-152, using a 6 inch gun or thereabouts with a shorter caliber that would have been able to elevate even with such a low profile turret. Depression would have been a limitation but if using guided missiles depression doesn’t really matter so long as the laser designator can point at the target.
Also, modern armies are desperate for a tank that can specialize in urban combat instead of ad hoc solutions on MBTs that result in them being excessively heavy, even by WWII German standards. M1A2 Abrams with the SEP upgrades get to 68 tons, which is easily 20-30% heavier than the T-10.
@@nickfilippos3340
Also, a armored vehicle today with specialized heavy armor better arranged and designed to withstand IEDs and anti tank mines while holding a 150-155mm howitzer in a wide, low profile turret that can turn 360°, even if it were to reach the weight of the M1 Abrams would still have options in terms of just using a much more powerful engine. Diesel Turbines are extremely common, for instance.
WarThunder Patch 1.51 hype.......
Cutie Marxist it's trash now lol
Marco *rUsSiAn BiAs^
Why did they leave it at 8.7.
I forgot it didn’t come straight with the Tech Tree when Ground Forces dropped.
You know, I've always wondered why they didn't just keep the design and outfit it with modern armor and suspension, etc. That tank really does look badass.
@@Gridlocked They're also faster and generally larger, have auto-stabilizing, have a completely different form of armor than hardened steel, computer-assisted fire control, ect ect. They aren't really 'heavy tanks'. They do weigh a lot.
More modern tanks less weight better Firepower more maneuverable. Fuel for a 35-ton tank versus a 50-ton tank. Run out of fuel you're a Sitting Duck.
for its time nothing would have stopped it
1:26 here's was fores? Which forest you told?
Ehm... it's not IS-10.
T-10 and T-10M is correct, but the project originally named IS-8.
Anyway.... sooooo cool video!!
IS-8 was built only 10 tanks (tanks were tested in April-May 1950). For the IS-10 tank was altered engine transmission compartment.
Didn't know. Thanks! :)
The IS-10 (JS-10 in URSS) was rename T-10 after the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. During his production he receive differents names, Is-8, Is-9, Is-10, OBJ 730 and after the final production he receive the name of T10. When they upgrade him he receive some others names like T-10A, T-10B and T-10M
Math TvGaming there was also prototype called is5
Takumi Fujiwara and is 6 too
This video always gives me the goosebumps.
Ngl I feel like give this thing composite armor era and a Multi Fuel engine and I bet it can still compete with modern tanks
Beautiful work.
Now this is what a Real Tank should look & perform like! Great Video; Thanks for posting it.
Wow..................the Russians sure made some amazing tanks during world war 2! Goes to show their bravery and courage , they never gave up .
This is a post war tank. It was made to fight against NATO tanks like the M 60 and Centurion
Lol... Imagine this tank in barbarossa, instead of KV-1... I think germans would have surrendered on spot.
What would happen if Russian use T-90MS Tagil in the battle of Phokhrovkha?
Um...IS-8/T-10 was Cold War, 1952...
@@nogisonoko5409 that's an export variant
I just think late 40s-50s Soviet heavy tanks are neat.
Не ИС-10, а ИС-8, именно он стал Т-10
my personal opinion is that the latest ww2 versions of this ссср monster were superior over the tiger tank. it s a good tank even against the abrams. it had a tremendous amount of firepower beyond its gigantic cannon. i think it carried at least 4 machine guns
Good tank even against the Abrams? You have to be joking, the Abrams would put a dart through it's front armor from 3 miles away while the Soviet giant wouldn't have had time to react
The music is called? great video
artist / song: Jim Davies - Empire (Electronic Guitar 2012)
yolkhere Thanks here's a cookie for you >^.^>#
GEXGE11
thanks of course, but I do not Hammy Х)
Darud-sandstorm
I was doing a bunch of reading on old tank obstacles (particularily the Czech Hedgehogs) and was directed to this video...Impressive.
this video is a classic bit of badassery.
1:53 после преодоления заснеженного бугра у водителя фактически перекрыт обзор.
Imagine this with T-54/55/62AM upgrades.
i love t-10m best soviet tank
I see where Westwood Studios drew their inspiration for the Apocalypse tank in Red Alert 2.
Soviet cam from the 50's looks like its from the 20's
The most advance tank back in 50s
Cool looking , but sadly obsolete from the moment it left the factory . The days of the Heavy Tank where numbered from the moment MBTs like the Centurion and T-54 started coming out .
...Mate, if the IS-10 was obsolete when it left the factory, then the Centurion was a fossil.
The IS-10 (later T-10) was so obsolete that the Americans used it as reference for their M103 heavy tank (which is a clear copy), and the British, who invented the tank but forgot how to build them during the 1930s, started trying to emulate Soviet tank designs with the introduction of the Conqueror. If your design is being copied, that means you are doing something right. You can't seriously say that the Centurion was more advanced than the IS-10.
The Centurion was another British box (a nicer one, perhaps, but still a box), the British were still building boxes instead of streamlined tanks during WW2, British tank designers were still living in the 1930s in several aspects.
Soviet tank design was already better than the American/British in late 1941, with the T-34.
From that point on, Soviet tank design could only improve, and it did. The Soviets kept that lead until the 1970-80s.
Sure, the Centurion was successful, that was because it was constantly upgraded, updated and modified to fill different roles, but Soviet tank designs were always better than British ones.
@@Goreuncle HEAT FS made all tanks obsolete before composite armor. Then ATGM make them obsolete now
For the mother land
размеры кажутся внушительными, хотя масса почти как у современных средних танков.
IS-8
Cool video. Better music would be Cher’s “Russian” song “Bang Bang.” Even had a musician plucking a balalaika!
An impressive tank which saw no real combat.
Actually did in the Middle East
@@mickvonbornemann3824wait really?
IS-3 on steroids and Stalin's will. Deadly...
Beautiful russian tank. and cool music!
Badass.
Exelentes tanque T10 y T10M gloriosas máquinas soviéticas.❤🇷🇺❤💪💪👏👏
Монстр холодной войны
CHANGE THE NAME OF THE VIDEO !! T-10 was the real name of this tank but before transmission the Soviet engeneers had changed the name from T-10 to IS-8 (Joseph Stalin 8). So the T-10 and T-10M is the IS-8. Maybe there was NOT IS-10 but it's only MAYBE !! It is truth T-10/T-10M is the IS-8 and IS-8 is the T-10 !
daniel szabo
I repeating :)
IS-8 was built only 10 tanks (tanks were tested in April-May 1950). For the IS-10 tank was altered engine transmission compartment.
After the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, the IS-10 tank has received the designation the T-10 (the modernized T-10M).
Really?? then I'm sorry, I didn't know that but thanks the new information.
Actually IS-8 and IS-9 were prototypes, the IS-8 was almost the perfect copy of a IS-5 ( objekt 730 in 1950 with the same catalisor than the IS-4) after they maded modifications and makes with it the IS-9. Than when they finally complete the project they maded the IS-10 but after Stalin's death they just put T-10... After the T-10m came. "M" for Modernisation...
If we talked about smilaryties... In the family of IS there is IS-1successor of the KVs series and IS-2 ( the IS-1 with 122 mm barrel instead of 85mm )... After the IS-4 ( with the T-34/85 turret shape disign ) then the IS-6 inspired from the IS-4.... For the hemispherical turret shape there is the IS-3, the first tank with that design... After they made the IS-5, witch is very unknow tank. Than the IS-7 witch was more similare to the IS-3 but extremely more heavier ( IS-3 48 tons/ IS-7 68 tons ). Than they remake the IS-5 design into the IS-8/IS-9 and finally the IS-10/T-10 witch is the very last and the direct successor of the IS-3...
Eats an E 100 for breakfast
E 100 wasnt even created...
The chassis was a little bit built.
Dumb shit...
The T10m is 15+ years older than the e100
in WoT,E 100 eats you.
no more like gets eaten by e 100
Obstacles around 2:10 look like rubber...
The only heavy tank that can fire APDS out from its barrel.
conqueror mk2
1:17 - től dönti a fát a gép.Mi a jó ebben?Hogy csak tüzifát dönthetnének az erdészek vele.
Great video.. for some reason
Очень жаль, что в Великую Отечественную небыло этих машин!..
ис-1 и ис-2 выпускались с 1943 года, хотя переломный момент уже пройден, согласен.
Был КВ , родоначальник тяжелых танков , отличный танк для своего времени
Soviet power supreme!
That button translation literally says ''sending'' lololo!!!
dude this thing has a Dishka as a coax
KPVT. Kepevete.
doesnt look like it had a stabilizer on it
The T-10Ms did. A More advanced one than used on the American M103.
Tamiya had a model of this but it is out of production. It was not a very good kit. Time to have a better version! Trumpeter. Tamiya, are you listening?
Wow, this is a Nightmare on chains!
what a agile tank here.... cromwell is not that agile in war thunder in realistic battles....
Well the Cromwell has really slender tracks
It's not tank, it is demon
ist an IS-8 but u can also say T-10.Its the same ;)
Russia should remodify and use these super heavy tanks now
Never seen someone call the T-10 an IS-10 before
Great video but the T-10 is the IS-8.
bro, i guess this is a is-8 not an is-10
Joost den Braber You can call them both names.
the last few seconds where the t10m good video tho
song name?
1500 lóerős turbinat motorkene körbe rakni reaktív célzó berendezést ujat
this thing and other like it is why the NATO forces were panicking so hard and making absurd wnderwaffen like the UKs FV4001 that had little practical battlefield use. and the Americans had no real experiences in heavy tanks either so the M103 was doomed from the start.
About T-10: a heavy tank, but 0:28 how is can fast at heck
Not IS-10 but IS-8 aka T-10
oh shit it was originally armed with DsHK mgs
Little known fact - The T-10M, in final combat configuration ... can carry up to 4 x SS-18 SATAN Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. These were carried along the side of the hull, similar to where you see logs being carried on lesser soviet tanks.
In addition to the 4 sets of Satan ICBMs, the T-10M, the mounting plate you can see on the rear glacis behind the mighty engine was also used to carry 1 single AN602 "TsarBomba" Thermonuclear Detonation Device, jacked up to over 100 MTonnes of yield.
Over 100,000 T-10M's were built in this configuration, armed, and on 24/7 standby with safety catches disabled.
Its a good heavy tank
what are you even talking about haha
Nice IS 8
IS-10 hmm sounds like a good tank clicks on video oh it's a T-10
One of them were like IS-3
The big, heavy, nasty JS Beast/T-10......!
Beastly creature. Sure played hell destroying trees and bushes! I wonder how well it would have managed actual combat in tank vs. tank environment. Does anyone know- did the Arabs have T-10s against the Israelis?
No, They didn't have this beast.
8, IS-8
9 never existed and they never got passed 8
IS-1, 2, 3, 6 then 4, 5 and 7 where competitive of each other (designers where), then 8 but 7 was revealed later even if it was designed before IS-8/T-10(M)
Знай наших.
looks like is8..is this is8 or is10?
T10 was derived from is8
Is3>is5>is8>is9>is10/t10
Is like a beautiful nightmare.....that coming for you
that thing was in service as late as 1993?
If that tank didn't exist then we dont have t90s and t72s
I still do think the IS-7 is a better vehicle, that’s just me though.
Stalin be proud
👍
IT IS JS-8!
The Iosif Stalin Tank 10
IS-8. After Stalin's death tank was renamed.
if we can see one of this in a modern battlefield this tank are no match for modern anti tank weapons like the javelin missile and attack helicopter or gunships. well in North Korea this tank are still in service alone with the t34 tanks but for official use only but some must be a IS2 or 3.
it still unknown if North Korea purchase t10 tank.
Well of course its no match for modern warfare. Damn thing was designed in the 40's. But in their era, the IS 3, IS 4, IS 7 and IS 8 (T10) were freaking beasts and could trade blows with anything the US and British could field. But yes, in todays anti-tank warfare weapon systems and modern tanks makes these tanks nothing more than a light snack
the IS-10 never existed it wasn't even a prototype the last tank in the IS line was the IS-7
RoastTheToast is8 is also t10
hmm, this tank able to move pretty fast...
isn't this the IS-8 and not IS-10?