-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Anyway, the KVs are designed as heavy breakthrough tanks according to soviet doctrine. A claim that they are designed for west European terrain is laughable at best but more likely flat out lying.
Yes, have to admit, the BT series tanks were fast and "sleek", and had a really unique look that quickly earned them the nickname of "Mickey Maus" from the Germans during Barbarossa, because the twin round turret hatches stood like "Mickey Mouse ears" when the tank was abandoned. There was clearly no shortage of abandoned BT-7 tanks to amuse the passing German troops after a few weeks of combat, but a growing shortage of working ones for the Soviets.
The Soviet Union's large number of T-26 tanks either broke down or were easily disabled with Anti-tank rifles or light AT guns, and were clearly obsolete and often worn out by that point. Nothing either fast or stylish about them, just obsolete.
Yes people love to make fun of the German AT gun at this time (even German soldiers did) yet it was able to handle of 90% of the soviet tanks.
Well it's just the general skew of perceptions of when equipment existed. I wonder if it has to do with modern military development cycles being very different from those in the 30s and 40s.
When the AT gun knocks out a tank it is plain boring... this is the thing supposed to happen. When somehow the tank survive the hit and destroys the AT gun in retaliation it is also somewhat boring, that's the second most likely thing to happen. If the AT gun fires twentysomething rounds all bouncing off, yet the tank crew is not able to locate the gun, now that's a story to be told.
The German 37mm ATG was more than sufficient to take out the Soviet T-26/T-26S, and performed competently against the BT-5, BT-7/BT-7A, and light T-50 and T-60 series (prior to the T-70). When the T-34 began showing up, the 37mm guns were incapable of dealing with them beyond ludicrously short ranges (100m), allowing Soviet infantry operating closely with the tanks to locate the AT guns. The "door knocker" moniker had already been well established by then, due to poor performance against French tanks.
The Soviets had built a large quantity of T-26 tanks in the late '20s and early '30s, which was mediocre when new (but the 45mm gun was decent), and had fallen into complete obsolescence by the time of Barbarossa, but was still incurring steep maintenance and repair costs. The BT series (mostly with the same gun) was intended to replace it, but only did so partially, and was also becoming a bit "over the hill" but at least "serviceable". The T-34 (with a heavier 76mm gun) was not being produced in volume yet due to the high expenses of the existing armored force, and was only seen as an "interim" design, until the German invasion suddenly turned its production into a top priority. If Barbarossa had been delayed, or the Soviets had made a preemptive attack on Germany in '43 or so, the T-34 would possibly have already been sidelined after a short run, in favor some even newer design that would have been mass-produced.
[ At one of the annual "WWII Weekend" shows at Reading Airport, PA, there was a 75mm German AT gun on display. A corner of the forward plate of the gun shield had been broken off, driving the pieces through the more flexible rear plate, and a couple of deep grooves down the side of the breech block gave mute testimony to the fate of the crew when the shrapnel reached them. ]
The Soviets had built a large quantity of T-26 tanks in the late '20s and early '30s, which was mediocre when new (but the 45mm gun was decent), and had fallen into complete obsolescence by the time of Barbarossa, but was still incurring steep maintenance and repair costs. The BT series (mostly with the same gun) was intended to replace it, but only did so partially, and was also becoming a bit "over the hill" but at least "serviceable". The T-34 (with a heavier 76mm gun) was not being produced in volume yet due to the high expenses of the existing armored force, and was only seen as an "interim" design, until the German invasion suddenly turned its production into a top priority. If Barbarossa had been delayed, or the Soviets had made a preemptive attack on Germany in '43 or so, the T-34 would possibly have already been sidelined after a short run, in favor some even newer design that would have been mass-produced.
[ At one of the annual "WWII Weekend" shows at Reading Airport, PA, there was a 75mm German AT gun on display. A corner of the forward plate of the gun shield had been broken off, driving the pieces through the more flexible rear plate, and a couple of deep grooves down the side of the breech block gave mute testimony to the fate of the crew when the shrapnel reached them. ]
Last edited:
BTs weren't intended to replace T-26s. Both were produced simultaneously.
Their production runs overlapped by a substantial margin, but the earlier T-26 was discontinued, while the BT-7 and 7A continued in production for a few more years, replacing some of the T-26 tanks in service. I suppose it wasn't "intended" to replace it, but ended up doing so in practice.
...to be replaced by T-26 1939 with conical turret and a bit improved armor. Just like BT-7 was replaced by BT-7M, production of which was stopped in 1940. Some dozens of 26s were produced in 1941 by its chief producer in Leningrad with the start of war. There was indeed a tank to replace T-26 as an infantry support tank and it was T-50, but war ruined all plans.
until enough of the modern tanks were produced, it would be unwise to decommission all t-26s (even by Barbarossa much of Soviet tank force was t-26s)Can't have maintenance and repair costs if you don't maintain or repair the vehicles.
