Soviet OOB11 corrections and suggestions

[Pibwl]

T-26 family:

T-26 in all its mutations has too much frontal armour 3 - it was only 15 mm, close to vertical, the same for turret's front.
Only in model 1939 it was raised to 15-20mm, very slightly sloped, but, according to a Russian monograph, a protection remained roughly the same, because instead of cemented plates there were homogeneous plates used.
The same for other users, like Spain.

004 T-26 M1933s (variant with AAMG) - AAMG on standarized P-40 mounting was accepted in 1937 only (1/35).
"s" in M1933s is redundant - unless it's supposed to indicate AAMG. It could be marked with "P-40", or maybe "+"?.

A problem with AAMGs on T-26s and T-28s and some other tanks is, that only part of tanks were equipped with them, and in case of T-26 they are generally not seen on photos, apart from photos from tests... Pity, that there's no magic way of randomizing AAMG presence.


176 T-26TU M1931 - twin-turret tanks weren't armed with 12.7mm TMG (Russian sources don't mention such armament) - and DShK itself was developed in 1938 only. It could be changed to so-called T-26 M1932 with short-barrel PS-1 37mm (Hotchkiss-based) gun and MG.
I can't find gun specifications at the moment, but a good approximation should be French 37mm SA18, with penetration 3 and range 30 - only it should keep its penetration through all the range (it had longer barrel, and probably more modern rounds). Or is it weapon #12 37mm PP obr 15R, used on MS tank?
There were 222 rounds carried.
Correct picture is 19697.

It was available from spring 1932 - I believe they were extinct by some 1938 (there is however one photo from 1937)

Hull rear armour was the same 13 or 15 mm, as other sides (now 1)


There were also a handful of twin-turret tanks made (20-30?) with longer 37mm B-3 gun (weapon #14) - used in around 1932-1935.

Twin-turret gun tanks constituted only some 1/4 of twin-turret tanks, so maybe it's worth to create them as separate class and create mixed units with gun tank and twin-turret light tanks? (T-26 M1931 is the only class 12 Light Tank available in this period).


222 T-26 M1931 - hull rear armour on twin-turret tanks was the same 13 or 15 mm, as other sides (now 1)
Standard tanks without rear MG had 122 gun rounds (now 100)


224 T-26 M1933 - it was produced only from summer 33 - not earlier, than 9/33 (now 3/33 - a date of prototype tests)

337 T-26 M1937s - Kolomiets' book recognizes it as "model 1938".
Radio chance should be more - some 20 (now 10), since more tanks had radio by then, although M1938 itself was not numerous transitional model (code 1)

338 T-26 M1939 - gun ammo was even 186 (165 had tanks with radio).
They remained in use in small quantities on some theatres until the end of war, even against Japan - although there should be made another entry, so that it's not chosen by the AI instead of T-34.
Radio chance should be more - some 20.
In official documents they were known as T-26-1 - maybe call them T-26-1 M1939?

517 T-26 M1939+ - might be called T-26E (no official designation, but E was commonly used for Russian "ekranirovanny" or "s ekranami"). First were made and used in combat in 2/40 (now 4/41). There are knowns photos from combat in 2/44 (now ends at 12/42)
Hull sides and turret sides were also strengthened with some 20 mm plates (possibly even 30-40mm plates were sometimes used)

.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

004 T-26 M1933s (variant with AAMG) - AAMG on standarized P-40 mounting was accepted in 1937 only (1/35).
"s" in M1933s is redundant - unless it's supposed to indicate AAMG. It could be marked with "P-40", or maybe "+"?.

A problem with AAMGs on T-26s and T-28s and some other tanks is, that only part of tanks were equipped with them, and in case of T-26 they are generally not seen on photos, apart from photos from tests... Pity, that there's no magic way of randomizing AAMG presence.

All in all, I believe, that much more probable was encountering plain T-26, than T-26 with AAMG. I haven't seen any photo of abandoned or destroyed T-26 with AAMG fitted, and only some have AAMG mounting. Even if a peculiar tank had AAMG, not always would a commander stick out and fire it (in fact he would probably either aim a gun and CMG, or fire AAMG).

Therefore, IMO AAMG variants should have radio x1, and there should be created plain T-26 M1939 with radio x0 (M1938 was rare anyway, so AAMG model with x1 is enough).

Michal

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

T-26 family:


337 T-26 M1937s - Kolomiets' book recognizes it as "model 1938".
Radio chance should be more - some 20 (now 10), since more tanks had radio by then, although M1938 itself was not numerous transitional model (code 1)

338 T-26 M1939 - gun ammo was even 186 (165 had tanks with radio).
They remained in use in small quantities on some theatres until the end of war, even against Japan - although there should be made another entry, so that it's not chosen by the AI instead of T-34.
Radio chance should be more - some 20.
In official documents they were known as T-26-1 - maybe call them T-26-1 M1939?

517 T-26 M1939+ - might be called T-26E (no official designation, but E was commonly used for Russian "ekranirovanny" or "s ekranami"). First were made and used in combat in 2/40 (now 4/41). There are knowns photos from combat in 2/44 (now ends at 12/42)
Hull sides and turret sides were also strengthened with some 20 mm plates (possibly even 30-40mm plates were sometimes used)

.

About the radios: have you considered that the game engine always gives formation leaders radios? So for the radio chance to be say 20%, it would require that in real life one of every five non-command tanks had a radio. The availability of radios did increase towards the end on the 1930s, but if I remember correctly, it only meant that all platoon command tanks were equipped with a radio, whereas among early production T-26 M1933 only the company commander's tank had a radio (which can't be modeled in the game).

The front hull armor value for the T-26 is somewhat of a problem. Most of it is close to vertical with 15mm plate, but the middle part is 7mm at 80 degrees (40 mm penetration path) and the lowest part (impossible to hit with AT guns, but still possible with ATRs) is 15mm at 62 degrees (32mm penetration path). Whether these constitute enough of the frontal surface to increase it to Armor Value 3 in game terms is not clear.

The turret on the other hand is round, and so is the gun mantlet, or since M1938 most of the turret frontal area consists of the large rounded gun mantlet. It's probably the rounding that made the designers of the OOB to give it Armor Value 3. If that is really warranted or not is again not clear.

About the T-26E: there does not seem to have been a real standard for this upgrade. Finnish experience with them indicates that they were very under-powered and unreliable. Consequently the Finnish army never up-armored their T-26s in a similar manner (unlike the Finnish T-28s which were all upgraded to T-28E standard). There is no way to model mechanical unreliability in the game, but if armor is added from the current rather modest upgrade, the speed should be cut down even more.

Concerning AAMG: I agree that most of the time T-26s did not have the AAMG fitted. There is really no other way to do model that in the game than to make two different variants and give the AAMG variant radio code x1 so that the AI does not pick them very often. Human players can still do so if they wish to, and there's really nothing wrong with that. The AAMG seems to have been a little more common with the T-28 M1938 that with the T-26, but still not universally fitted.

[Pibwl]

As for the radios, they weren't reserved for commander's tanks. According to Bariatynski, there were made 4102 single-turret tanks without radio and 4034 with radio, and their output was roughly even from 1934. This indicates, that it could be even more, than radio=20.

BTW: in 1018 single-turret tanks without radio produced in 1940, 208 had AAMGs (there are specific data available for 1940 only).

As for armour - well, 7mm plate at 80 degrees may cause a bullet bounce, but it seems to me, it is not equal to 40mm... If we keep 3, than I want the same for 7TP and Vickers

As the T-26E: I agree, that a speed could be cut down even more (there is no precise data, but some 7-8 looks correct). And it rather should have no AAMG.