RAID 0+1: We stripe together drives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 into RAID 0 stripe set "A", and drives 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 into RAID 0 stripe set "B". We then mirror A and B using RAID 1. If one drive fails, say drive #2, then the entire stripe set "A" is lost, because RAID 0 has no redundancy; the RAID 0+1 array continues to chug along because the entire stripe set "B" is still functioning. However, at this point you are reduced to running what is in essence a straight RAID 0 array until drive #2 can be fixed. If in the meantime drive #9 goes down, you lose the entire array.
RAID 1+0: We mirror drives 1 and 2 to form RAID 1 mirror set "A"; 3 and 4 become "B"; 5 and 6 become "C"; 7 and 8 become "D"; and 9 and 10 become "E". We then do a RAID 0 stripe across sets A through E. If drive #2 fails now, only mirror set "A" is affected; it still has drive #1 so it is fine, and the RAID 1+0 array continues functioning. If while drive #2 is being replaced drive #9 fails, the array is fine, because drive #9 is in a different mirror pair from #2. Only two failures in the same mirror set will cause the array to fail, so in theory, five drives can fail–as long as they are all in different sets–and the array would still be fine.
Clearly, RAID 1+0 is more robust than RAID 0+1. Now, if the controller running RAID 0+1 were smart, when drive #2 failed it would continue striping to the other four drives in stripe set "A", and if drive #9 later failed it would "realize" that it could use drive #4 in its stead, since it should have the same data. This functionality would theoretically make RAID 0+1 just as fault-tolerant as RAID 1+0. Unfortunately, most controllers aren't that smart. It pays to ask specific questions about how a multiple RAID array implementation handles multiple drive failures, but in general, a controller won't swap drives between component sub-arrays unless the manufacturer of the controller specifically says it will.