T-26 armour not correct - BTS?

[Wol]

All my sources indicated that T-26E had armour added to Hull front and sides, and Turret front and sides, (if not completely around the turret) What photos I have support this. Thus the T-26E needs to have added armour to the sides and probably turret rear (It is oval shaped overall anyway so 'rear' is a little confusing). Pictures actually show added armour to the lower hull front, Upper hull front, and turret front and sides (rear not visible). Pics of OT-133 with Ekranami show armour added, again to upper and lower hull front and sides, and turret front and sides around to at least 165 degrees.

Most sources say that the armour maximum thickness on T-26 m33/37/39 was 25mm. (Perhaps some kind Finn could wander up to Parola and check the thickness on the battered T-26m39 that is shot full of holes by ATR fire)- What sources did you use for the figures that you have?

The OT-133 should have turret off-set to right like OT-134

Why no AA mg fitted to just about all late model BT-7, T-26m37 and m39, T-28 (Ooops not in the game yet but heck a plug for them!) KV-1?

I anticipate soviet penetration at any momment.

No I mean I look forward to your reply

[Guest Mike]

bump

[Vanir Ausf B]

If you have sources that indicate the stats for those vehicles are incorrect in CMBB, I would recommend emailing them to matt@battlefront.com. The BFC armor guy, Charles, rarely posts here.

[ November 18, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Wol]

Ta for the advice

[Wol]

err Bump!

There are rather a lot of T-26 tanks, could you fix them, at least fix the stats even if you do not make them look right!

And umm, a T-28?

The silence is so far golden!

[Nippy]

And umm, a T-28?

Never going to see it. You'll need one of the BTS crew to explain the details, but the Current CM engine can't support Multi-Turreted tanks. That's why the Soviet's don't get Lend-Lease M3 Grant's and Lee's either.

[Wol]

I can dream!

But seriously I would love someone from BTS to at least acknowledge that there might be an issue with the T-26, especially the T-26E.

cheers

[Schrullenhaft]

Apparently you're going to need to provide documented evidence that supports your particular numbers. Realize that not all sources will report the same numbers and the references that BFC/BTS are using may suggest something else. I believe several Finnish members contributed info to CMBB and their sources may not support your numbers for the T-26E armor thicknesses.

So if you're really serious about challenging the numbers you need reputable documented sources. Anything else will get you silence...

Realize that several of the T-26's are still sharing models/textures. So a number of the flamethrower variants don't have the correct appearance (which may or may not be addressed in a future patch), and the T26E may not have unique textures slots assigned to it yet. These are issues that BTS is aware of.

As others have mentioned already - there will be no multi-turretted tanks in CMBB. The engine can't properly support them. The T26m31 (edit: I meant m31 and not m33) is a minor exception, except for the fact that its turrets don't rotate - you get the idea - 'no worky' for multi-turreted AFVs. It's not something that can be 'fixed' with a patch and won't be.

As for AA mount MGs... it will be rare that you'll see them on every tank that possibly mounted them. In combat a number of them were removed on both sides (I don't know how true that may be of all the early-war BTs with their DTs, but I'd guess it may have been a fairly common practice - if they even had the DTs to mount). Steve mentioned in some other recent threads about AA mounted MGs and what the criteria was for getting them represented, I can't recall the exact details, but you may be able to find it if the issue still intrigues you.

[ November 26, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Wol]

I am happy to provide sources as far as I can, I think I would mostly like a quick one-liner from BTS to say something like

"See xxx which we take to be most reliable as a source" and they give yyy

cheers

WOL

And T-28s fit into the same model group as the twin turret T-26. Only one main gun turret, the others are just wide arc bow mgs maybe from an engine point of view.

Wol

[Wol]

Bump

-because I care

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Wol:

And T-28s fit into the same model group as the twin turret T-26. Only one main gun turret, the others are just wide arc bow mgs maybe from an engine point of view.

They modeled T-26 M1931 (in RL it had two turreted MGs) as having two Coaxial MGs. I've never used this tank, and I wonder in what sense they are Coax...I'm sure that they can't both rotate, so essentially they are bow/fwd MGs?

Maybe there is a block against a tank having two bow MGs, or a bow and a "forward" MG like the StuG IIIG had in CMBO? Otherwise why not have main gun, bow MG, fwd MG for T-28?

[Jeff Duquette]

Just did a quick search through my references regarding this topic.

From: Wolfgang Fleischer’s “Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles. 1917 – 1945”

Pages 37 - 38

The experience that came from the Spanish Civil War influenced the production ofT-26 tanks, which had been started again in 1937. They were fitted with shot-deflecting conical turrets, with armor plate the same thickness as before but no longer riveted together; they were now linked by electrical welding. There were two different types of roller mantlets for this turret type, one angular and one with rounded edges. A little later they began to build the hulls with diagonally located armor plates. Here too, electric welding was used.

The change in armament meant that numerous tanks were equipped not only with the machine gun beside the tank gun, but with another in the rear of the turret; some had brackets to hold anti aircraft machine guns. Like the BT-7 tank, the T 26 had also had a vertical stabilizer built in as of 1937. Command vehicles (T-26 TU) for company and platoon leaders, previously easy to recognize with their all-around antennas, now received radio sets with rod antennas. Naturally, the installation of the radio set reduced the amount of ammunition that could be carried. With the enlargement of the fuel tank, the range could be extended from 160 to 225 kilometers. Although the armor thickness of the 1933 T-26 was maintained, the last T-26 version had a fighting weight of some 10.3 tons.

Experience gained in the 1939-1940 winter war against Finland, especially the costly combat along the Mannerheim Line, made it clear once again that even the armor of the most recent T-26 gave no protection against antitank weapons. The following comes from a report by a finnish Army member:

1. The armor of the Russian tanks is poor.

2. Antitank guns made in Sweden penetrate the armor of the Russian 15-ton tank smoothly.

(Photo Caption of T-26 page-37) Based on experience from the 1939-40 winter war with Finland, some 1937 model T-26 light tanks were fitted with added armor 15 to 30 mm thick. The weight gain and loss of mobility were accepted for the sake of better protection. The tanks thus modernized appeared in the summer of 1941 in battle against the German Wehrmacht.(End Photo Caption page-37)

After the combat on the Karelian isthmus in December 1939, additional armor plate began to be applied to a goodly number of T-26 tanks, as well as T-28 medium tanks. This modernization, to be sure, was carried out only on the T-26 tanks made since 1937, as well as on the OT-130 flamethrowing tanks. It brought a considerable gain in weight and a loss in driving characteristics. In 1940 the production of the T-26 and its variants came to an end. In that year 1,549 of the vehicles were produced. Along with the BT tanks, the T-26 was the main type of Soviet tank in the thirties...

Regards

Jeff Duquette

[Wol]

Thankyou all.

From what I can tell, it sems that there are actually very few separate source being used (at least on the web) and I cannot tell without nipping up to Parola (a mere 12000 knm away) how thick the various plates are. I will try the museums (Parola exchanged a T-26 m33 for some UK vehicles in 1990 at Bovington)

As for T-26 with applique armour, I was chuffed to come across a shot of a captured T-26E which again indicated armour on hull sides and turret sides. Wow I ahve 4 photos now of these and they all agree (such a large sample!) None indicate a lack of turret and hull side armour.

BTW For the Finns, as far as I can tell, all OT-133 captured had their flamethrowers removed and a standard 45mm gun fitted. But taking advantage of the LH volume freed up, added a bow mg and a 'head bump' in the hull roof over his head. Presumably they added a 4th crewman and were like the Vickers 6 ton tanks.

Wol