Talk:T-26

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

"The backbone of the Red Army"?

"The T-26 formed the backbone of the Red Army's tank force during the first months of the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the Second World War."

An interesting, and I think incorrect, claim.

That can be claimed only if one would simply count tanks.

However, real strength of Soviet armor in 1941 was in T-34 and KV-1. They had about 1800 of them, and they outclassed in armor and gun everything Germans had. T-26 was meant to play secondary roles in the war. No one in their right mind would think about using them for main attack or counterattack against enemy armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.40.79 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article review

I reviewed this from Wikipedia:Good article candidates, and it easily qualifies for Good Article status. It's well-written and comprehensive, has plenty of references, and gives a thorough background on the subject. In fact, I'll make it an A-class article as well. I can't think of anything that's missing or overlooked. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish T-26 tanks

The Finns had the following numbers of T-26 tanks:

Name	31 May 1941	1 Jul 1942	1 Jul 1943	1 Jun 1944	31 Dec 1944	31 Dec 1945	31 Dec 1949	31 Dec 1950	31 Dec 1951	31 Dec 1952	31 Dec 1954	31 Dec 1955	31 Dec 1956	31 Dec 1957	31 Dec 1958	31 Dec 1959
Vickers-Armstrongs 6 Ton Tank/T-26E	27	24	22	22	19	19	19	19	19	19	18	17	16	13	7	1
T-26 m 1931	10	12	8	2	1
OT-26	2	2	1	1	1
T-26 m 1933	20	53	58	63	47	42	41	41	35	28	24	22	17	15	13	2
OT-130	4	3
T-26 m 1937, 1939	4	29	32	36	31	31	29	29	25	23	19	19	19	18	18	15
OT-133		1
T-26 T		1	1	2	2	2	5	5	5	6	6	6	6	6	6	3
	67	125	122	126	101	94	94	94	84	76	67	64	58	52	44	21

Source: Esa Muikku and Jukka Purhonen: Suomalaiset Panssarivaunut 1918-1997 (The Finnish Armoured Vehicles 1918-1997), Apali, Jyväskylä 1998, ISBN: 952-5026-09-4

Unfortunately this book does not mention how many were captured during the winter war, but it should have been an considerable amount. Some were only used as spares or reserve tanks. --MoRsE 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable information! JonCatalan 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is also a video of one in action today. :) MoRsE 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Initially Finland had 32 Vickers-Armstrongs 6-ton tanks (the contract with Britich company was signed on 20 July, 1937; the tanks were delivered without armament, radio stations and optical devices); 16 tanks were armed with 37 mm Puteaux SA18 and 10 tanks were armed with 37 mm psvk 36 (Bofors). Later the remained Vickers were rearmed with Soviet 45 mm 20K (and renamed as T-26E) to simplify the ammunition supply because captured T-26 tanks became the main tanks in the Finnish Army. According to Maxim Kolomiets and archive data the Finns captured around 70 T-26 of different models during the Winter War and more than 100 T-26 of different models (including several with additional armour) during the combat operations in summer-autumn 1941. Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unclear meaning of sentence

What is meant by the phraze in the starting paragraph: "It would ultimately shape history by influencing some of the most important decisions made."? Is it referring to tank history, or something else? --MoRsE 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as explained by the article, the ultimate failures/successes of the T-26 during the Spanish Civil War would shape Soviet military doctrine and would ultimately set up the situation in which the Red Army was defeated in 1941. JonCatalan 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, "Change the history" is just, in my opinion, quite a strong statement when it is there independently. It needs to be explained a little in the beginning so the reader gets into the same line of reasoning that the author is. MoRsE 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It would ultimately play its part in shaping history, by influencing the Soviet doctrine of tank warfare in the late 1930's and thus largely contributing to the big defeats of the Red Army during the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. ...

... Despite the T-26's success in the Spanish Civil War, the fact that it performed badly within the context of tank operations, its days were numbered and it would fatally influence post-Spanish Civil War Soviet military thinking.

It's not clear how the T-26 shaped doctrine. The article does talk about the effects of purges, the lack of tank-infantry co-operation, the effect of conservative elements like Marshall Kulik, but how did the T-26 itself contribute?

On the other hand, the article mostly ignores that it was based on lessons from the Far East and Spanish Civil War that the KV-1 and T-34 were developed, directly based on the lessons of the T-26 and BT tanks. —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 22:40 Z

Unfortunately for the Soviets, it would make public gashing weaknesses in the Red Army. These weaknesses would not be corrected until after the catastrophic losses of 1941 against invading German armour.

"Gashing"? It's important to note that some were aware of these weaknesses, which led to the deployment of the T-34 and KV-1, although they were delayed by incompetence and political meddling. —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 22:40 Z

...nor were their tanks comparable to the newer generation of German armour, such as the Panzer III and Panzer IV.

Is that really true? I can't find the citation at the moment, but Zaloga does write that the older generation of tanks could have stood up well to the German armour, but tactics, training, maintenance, supply, etc. were so abysmal that they were almost never saw their potential. —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 22:40 Z

Although the offensive against Japanese forces infiltrating Mongolia proved to be a sudden success within the stream of Soviet military failures in Poland and Finland, it was obvious by then that the T-26 was obsolete against newer tanks.

Which newer tanks did they fight, when and where? —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 23:04 Z

Michael, it was because of the Spanish Civil War that T-34 production was canceled. T-34 and KV production was renewed only after the experiences of the German victories in Poland and France, and Soviet stumbling in Poland and Finland; the fact that only 1,700 of all models were built by the beginning of the war

"Only" 1700 T-34s + KV-1? what do you mean by "only"? It was 1700 more than Germans had, since they had no tanks in that class by June 1941. None. Zero. Neither Pz-IV nor the most widespread German antitank gun, 3.7cm PaK 36, could defeat T-34 or KV-1. IOW: soviets had ample advantage in armor. Their problems were elsewhere. 90.176.40.79 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

is testament to this. It was the fact that the T-26 performed to badly in Republican hands during the Spanish Civil War that gave Pavlov and other Soviet generals the impression that armour was incapable of working jointly with infantry. It should be considered that the Soviet Union's mechanized corps were dismantled soon thereafter, and only reformed in late 1940 and early 1941.

Concerning the T-26 against newer German AFVs, take into consideration that according to the Panzer III article it had 70 mm of steel armour, while the T-26 had at most 25 mm in newer models (T-26S). Many Panzer IIIs should have also been upgraded with the new 50mm high velocity guns, which were superior to the T-26's 45mm anti-tank gun which was found incapable of penetrating the front plate of the Panther III. The T-26B and C also suffered against Japanese light tanks, and David Miller goes as far as saying as they proved 'ineffective'.

I'll work on the article a bit more on Monday and Tuesday. I should be getting a new source through the mail by that time, and I'll add more substance to the sentences quoted to give them a bit more relevance and backing. JonCatalan 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Note that the Panzer III started with 15 mm armour, but were quickly upgraded. I'll do some reading in Zaloga (1984) and make some additions too, but it may be a few days. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-11-11 22:18 Z

The problem was that T-26 was a very good light tank for infantry support in the beginning-middle of 1930s, it had antibullet armour (which all world tanks of that period had) and armed with a 45 mm gun (which was much more powerful than machine guns and 20-37 mm guns of all foreign light tanks of the described period). But the situation completelly changed since 1935-1936 when Czech LT vz.34, Japanese Ha-Go, French R-35 & H-35, etc. appeared - they had similar or better armour protection than T-26, better maneuverability and more high-speed and similar armament. Antibullet armour of T-26 could be easily penetrated by light anti-tank guns as it was shown during the Spanish Civil War, Soviet-Japanese border conflicts and the Winter War; and it was impossible to increase the armour thickness because of low-powered T-26 engine (90-96 hp) and light chassis.

Many Soviet tank engineers (for example, S. Ginzburg) wrote that time already that T-26 became obsolete in 1936-1937 and had no reserve for further development; so a new model of a light infantry tank with better maneuverability and cannonproof armour must be developed immediately. But many high-rank Soviet army commanders didn't realize this. Nevertheless, the new prototypes (including modern T-50 light tank) had delays in the development and series production, so obsolete but cheap and quite reliable T-26 (improved to some degree, with forced engine and a new conical turret) were in production till 1941.

By the way, there was no any cancel of T-34 production because of the Spanish Civil War (!?) as its production started in 1940 only but there were some delays in the development of new tanks with cannonproof armour despite of experience gained during the Spanish Civil War (chief designer of Works No. 174 S. Ginzburg and some tank unit commanders [including General D. Pavlov by the way ] participated in the Spanish War mentioned that time that the Red Army needed in tanks with armour at least 30 mm thick to withstand light AT guns). And not mechanized corps were dismantled in 1940-beg.1941, but vice versa, their creation began in USSR after German successes in France from motorized divisions and tank brigades which the Red Army had before [and those well equipped and trained units were dismantled indeed]. As the creation of new mechanized and tank corps was far away from completion in June 1941, that caused such great troubles in Soviet tank use that time.

As for the use of Soviet T-26 light tanks in Spain - they proved to be invincible enemies for tankettes CV.33 and light tanks armed with MGs only such Pz.I (the case when two Republican T-26 destroyed 25 Italian tankettes is known, for example), but the armour of T-26 was easily penetrated by German and Italian AT guns. The same took place during Soviet-Japanese border conflicts (T-26 was a very dangerous enemy for Japanese tankettes and light tanks but losses from Japanese 37 mm guns was significant). T-26 performed better than BT tanks because T-26 had good cross-country ability and often didn't catch fire after shell hits even if armour was penetrated through.

As for the use of Soviet T-26 light tanks in Poland - I wouldn't say that it was any military failure (the resistance of Polish units was quite weak, only 15 T-26 were lost in those combats but technical reasons during long marches caused breakdowns of 302 T-26.). As for the Winter War - despite of high losses (especially in flame-throwing units), T-26 performed better than BT tanks which sometimes couldn't move in deep snow according to Soviet reports.

As for chances for Soviet T-26 in combats with German tanks in 1941 - it was mentioned that T-26 had worser speed and maneuverability [only 35(t) had the similar that time], thin armour (even Pz. I armed with MGs had more thick armour) but still quite powerful 45 mm tank gun [nevertheless, there was a serious shortage of armour-piercing rounds in summer 1941 as the additional result of pre-war disorder in organization and supply of Soviet tank and mechanized units]. T-26 with experienced crews were effective against German Pz. III and Pz. IV in 1941-1942 even, and some examples of successes in such duels are known from preserved documents (for example, a single T-26 of lieutenant Mereshko, the commander of 2^nd company of 126^th separate tank battalion, destroyed 4 German medium tanks during the combat on 20 August, 1942; North Caucasian Front, but that battalion had also very big losses during 4 days of combats, defending 20-km positions without infantry and artillery support). Notes about the armour: the late models of T-26 had only 15-20 mm front and turret armour, but a few had additionally installed 15-30 mm armour plates (such work was performed during the Winter War [89 tanks] and in 1941 [several tens]). T-26 tanks with additional armour were overweighted for 90 hp engine and suspension, but they didn't penetrated by Finnish AT guns and could withstand fire of 45 mm AT guns from 400-500 m distance. Note about the 45 mm gun of T-26: the gun could penetrate 28-35 mm armour from 1000 m and 43-51 mm armour from 100 m.

The main reason of disaster took place in summer 1941 was large reform of Soviet tank units in 1940-beg.1941 to create tank corps which was not finished (so many tank units which had combat experience in Spain and Finland were disbanded, experienced commanders and crews were rotated, many T-26 and BT tanks needed major or midlife repair but industry couldn't produce enough spare parts that time, a lot of conscripts had absolutely insufficient training to drive tanks, etc.). The large majority of Soviet tank losses in summer 1941 were because of German strong air and artillery attacks and technical reasons (tanks with even small technical problems were abandoned along the roads because there were no spare parts and prime movers for their evacuation), several tank corps lost all their tanks because of this during the first days of the war.

Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Soviet Performance in Poland and Finland

The fact that the Soviets ultimately won both wars doesn't necessarily mean that the Red Army performed well. I don't think we need to go over Finland (besides that, I don't have many sources that cover the Winter War - there is an interview of a soldier who fought in the campaign; I'll see if I can find it). Concerning Poland, despite the fact that Poland was eventually occupied, the defeat of the Polish Army lies almost solely on the shoulders of Germany. The Red Army performed clumsily, and found problems mobilizing in time, while some units found trouble defeating a Polish Army which had already been more or less destroyed by the German Army the weeks before. For more information concerning that, Stumbling Colossus by David M. Glantz is possibly the best source on the Red Army prior to the Second World War published in the West. JonCatalan 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise there were almost none polish military units which fought the soviets in 1939 as they were shifted to the western front, fighting with the soviets was left almost entirly to the Border Protection Corps. Mieciu K 20:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And we can only say tahat the Red Army performed far below expectations in Poland in 1939, not that the campaign was a failure, the Poles in the east were severly outnumbered and outgunned, had no ammunition supplies, or fortifications and were fighting in an area where they were an ethnic minority, the Red Army simply could not lose this campaign. Mieciu K 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the actions in Poland - that was short and easy campaign for the Red Army because Polish Army bled to death in combats with Wehrmacht, so it was hard to make any general conclusions about problems in organization of Soviet tank units based on info from September 1939. I would like to post short info about T-26: during Soviet invasion in Poland (or "liberation march" to West Byelorussia and Ukraine as it called officially in Russia) those tanks served in light tank brigades and separate tank battalions of infantry divisions. 878 T-26 of Byelorussian Front (4 tank brigades) and 797 T-26 of Ukrainian Front (3 tank brigades) crossed the Polish border on September 17, 1939. The combat losses were very insignificant (15 T-26), but 302 T-26 were broken because of technical reasons during march. Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a section

I added a section of the T-26s service during the Winter War. It would be interesting to get a little more on the use of the tank in the Soviet-Japanese and Chinese-Japanese wars too. Does any of your sources tell anything about that? --MoRsE 10:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all the information you've provided. I made some edits to change the prose, making the language more objective and making it sound less bias. I'm not accussing you of anything, but the language used seemed to imply pity on the FDF and on Wikipedia there is a policy of NPOV. Finally, I'd appreciate it if you added a source everywhere where I added a citation needed tag. Thanks! JonCatalan 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources have now been added. I double checked the information too from the Appel's book. I don't object to your changes, but I would like to change one thing back, and that is in the second sentence, where "T-26" was changed into "T-28". The thing is that T-26 tanks still were part of Soviet tank brigades and regiments, although in small numbers. And I wanted to emphazise that the type was generally used in all the bigger units of the Soviet army at the time. It was still was the most numerous Soviet tank of the time. A typical Soviet tank regiment of 1939 had 111 tanks, of whom 96 were T-28s and the rest either BT- or T-26 tanks. Kantakoskis' book is probably the most extensive book I have ever read about Soviet armour, and is a goldmine for articles like this. It is really a shame that it hasn't been translated into English at least. --MoRsE 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake concerning the T-28/T-26 mix-up. I thought you had called it a heavy tank, which the T-26 was not, and I thought you meant the T-28. JonCatalan 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have some detailed and reliable sources about the use of T-26 light tanks in the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts, so I will try to translate and add this info when I have more time.

As for the organization of Soviet tank units before and during the Winter War. Sorry, MoRse, but your information about 1939 is incorrect. T-26 light tanks were used mainly by light tank brigades (29th, 34th, 35th, 39th and 40th light tank brigades participated in the Winter War) and separate tank battalions of infantry divisions (each battalion should have 54 T-26 including 15 flame-throwing from January 1, 1940). Also the organization of seven tank regiments (164 T-26 tanks in each) began that time, but only two such regiments were formed. Light tank brigades had different models of T-26 (from 1931 to 1939 production years) whereas tank battalions of infantry divisions were equipped with old tanks (1931-1936 production years) mainly.

T-28 medium tanks were used by four heavy tank brigades only (one of them, 20th heavy tank brigade participated in the Winter War). For example, 20th heavy tank brigade had 105 T-28, 8 BT-5 and 21 BT-7 when the Winter War began. There were no tank regiments in tank brigades, but battalions - each had around 31 T-28 and 3 BT.

Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

KV in winter war

I corrected the error about KV in winter war. There were only 3 experimental KV in winter war, only one of them KV-1, and only took part in the attack on Khotinnen Fortified Region Source: M. Kolomiets, "Istoriya Tanka KV", Frontovaya Illyustratsia, Strategiya KM, Moscow, 2001 -- Serg3d2 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a testing ground for several types of tanks, e.g. the T-100, SMK, KV-1 and if I remember correctly also the KV-2. I also remember a passage in Kantakoski's book that there was pieces of a tank track from Suomussalmi/Raate at the Tank Museum in Parola, which did not match any of those types. It was much wider than any known type, and that it hadn't been properly identified up until this day. I can try to double check the info at home. --MoRsE 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW I've removed T35 too. They weren't used at Winter War at all -- Serg3d2 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

About last T-28 revision: "heavier tanks like T-28" - T-28 was the only Medium Tank in the Russian service in Winter War. BT tanks were hadrly "heavier" than T-26. Sorry for nitpicking. -- Serg3d2 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the T-35 was used in the Winter War. According to the book Tank Warfare, this image is that of a knocked out T-35 in the Winter War. The man inspecting it is Finnish. In regard to the weight between the T-26 and BT series, they were almost the same; however, the purpose of the BT series was similar to that of the medium tank. JonCatalan 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have checked again: according to Soviet sources T-35 didn't took part in the Winter War. BTW wikipedia T-35 article say the same. I've shown the photo on the russian military history forum. Their opinion is that the mam on the photo most probably Slovak. Serg3d2 09:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image of the T-35 identified: Lviv(Lvov) Ukrainia, tank destroyed by crew Serg3d2 11:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

With the "heavier" wording, I simply meant heavier than the BT-tanks and the T-26s. Perhaps I was a little too unclear. The T-28 was the most common medium tank of the war and according to the most recent records 92 were knocked out in the Winter War. Since the Finns had no heavy towing equipment, only two could be taken to own lines and subsequently into Finnish service. In 1941 they conquered about a dozen more and had 6 in own service by the end of the war. Two of those still exist today in Finland. A third T-28 is located at the Moscow tank museum. All the other 411 T-28s that existed in 1941 are believed to have been destroyed during that year. The T-35 were indeed used in the Winter War, but only in the Summa sector. My references only tell that 'several' were destroyed, e.g. one that was destroyed by a satchel charge after having driven into a crater by mistake. None were encountered in 1941. During the December 17 attack in 1939 (the first major attack at Summa) the SMK, T-100 and KV-1s were used for the first time of the war.

I also found the track reference, and I need to correct myself and my memory. The track was found at Summa and its width was 44 cm. The SMK and T-100 is said to have had 55 cm or 68.7 cm track widths in other sources. No series manufactured tank at the time are supposed to have had that 44 cm track width. The author (Kantakoski) says that it had to come from a SMK or a T-100 and that their track widths actually were 44 cm. During the fighting both types were immobilized and only 3 photos were taken by the Finns of the SMK tank. The SMK was later recovered by Soviet forces when the came in control of the area.

Two KV-1s are said to have participated in the Winter War, from the experience the KV-2 was quickly manufactured at the Kirov plant. Three KV-2s participated in the February 8 fightings at the Mannerheim line as bunker busters. The Finns scored 48 hits on one with 37 mm AT-guns, failing to take it out. Russian sources mention that one KV-2 was damaged during the fighting and had to be towed away. Other interesting tanks (or assault guns) that took part in the fighting there included the SU-100U (T-100 version) and the SU-14Br2.

KV-2 didn't took part in the combat. They only test fired on the already captured fortification. Serg3d2 09:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The SMK, T-100 and the KV-1 came directly from the Leningrad plant to be tested. They were included in the same unit (20th Heavy Tank Brigade). The experimental detachment was led by a captain I. Kolotushkin. During the assault the SMK drove onto a Finnish mine. The mine had previously been rigged with several extra kilograms of explosives by Finnish sappers as the regular Finnish AT-mines were to weak to take out heavier tanks. Subsequently the SMK was severely damaged. The Finnish 37 mm AT-guns failed to penetrate the armour of any of these tanks. However only the KV-1 impressed the high ranking Soviet observers. When retuning, one KV-1 towed a damaged T-28 back to its own lines. (Kantakoski: Punaiset panssarit, pp. 106-116, 140-141, 259-266) --MoRsE 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Surviving T-28s, I believe there is a fourth T-28 'survivior' although it is very badly damaged, found on a Russian range. I've seen photos of it in a Russian publication on the T-28. DMorpheus 13:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about T-28, T-35, SMK. KV is very off-topic here, as the article is about T-26 light tank. But anyway....

According to M. Kolomiets (who based his info on archive documents) four KV heavy tanks were used during the Winter War: tank No. U-0 (with 76 mm gun; in February 1940 it was repaced with 152 mm gun), tank No. U-1 (with 152 mm gun), tank No. U-2 (with 76 mm gun), tank No. U-3 (with 152 mm gun). U-0 participated in the attack against Hottinen fortified area on December 18, 1939 (in the beginning of January, 1940 the tank was returned back to manufacturer where it was rearmed with 152 mm gun, sent back to Karelian Isthmus on 17 February, 1940); U-1 was sent to Karelian Isthmus on 17 February, 1940 only; U-2 - on 22 February, 1940 only; U-3 - on 23 February, 1940 only. All of them participated in combats till the end of the war (in the separate company of heavy tanks under the command of captain I. Kolotushkin, the company supported 13th light tank and 20th heavy tank brigades). At first this company consisted of the following experimental heavy tanks: SMK (produced by Leningrad Kirov Works), T-100 (produced by Works No. 185 named for S. Kirov) and KV (vehicle U-0 produced by Leningrad Kirov Works). The company belonged to 91st tank battalion of 20th heavy tank brigade. But KV-2 tanks (U-0, U-1 and U-3) had no chance to test their 152 mm howitzers against Finnish pillboxes because the Finnish main fortification line was broken that time already; nevertheless, KV-2 tanks quite successfully participated in usual attacks against Finnish AT guns, infantry, etc. till the end of the war and all had combat damages from landmines and/or shell hits. Scored combat damages of KV during the Winter War: No. U-0 (9 37 mm shell hits after combat on 18 December, no penetrations; 14 shell hits till the end of the war, no penetrations; two road wheels and 8 tracks were destroyed by mines till the end of the war); No. U-1 (no direct shell hits but 11 tracks were destroyed by mines till the end of the war); No. U-2 (1 shell hit, no penetration; one road wheel and 3 tracks were destroyed by mines till the end of the war); No. U-3 (8 shell hits, no penetrations; one road wheel was destroyed by mine till the end of the war).

SMK drove onto a Finnish landmine during the attack on December 18, 1939 [the damages were the following: idler and track were damaged, some screw bolts of a transmission were broken, electric system was damaged and a bottom of a hull was bended] - Soviet tankmen from T-100 and KV tried to repair SMK during five hours under the enemy fire and Finnish attempts to reach the vehicle, but unsuccessfully. Later the group of lieutenant Toropov tried to evacuate damaged SMK using T-28 medium tank during several nights, but unsuccessfully also. T-100 was not immobilized by the Finns but during the combat on December 18 it had small problem with its engine (with control sleeve of one of two magnetic inductors), but driver solve the problem using the second magnetic inductor and T-100 continued the attack...SMK was evacuated by the Soviets with the help of six T-28 in the beginning of March, 1940 only.

The track width of SMK and T-100 was 700 mm, the track width of serial KV was 650 mm.

Heavy self-propelled gun T-100Y (based on T-100 chassis, armed with 130 mm B-13 naval gun) did not participate in the Winter War as it was planned, it was finished by manufacturer on March 14, 1940 only. Two heavy self-propelled guns SU-14 (armed with 152 mm guns U-30 and Br-2, correspondingly) were equipped with additional armour plates to be used against the Mannerheim Line, but the manufacturer finished this work on March 20, 1940 only - so both SU-14 did not participate in the Winter War also.

T-35 heavy tanks WERE NOT USED during the Winter War. The info in some foreign and Russian sources about their combat use in 1939-1940 is very incorrect. T-35 didn't participate in any combats before June 1941 and served only in 5th (14th since spring 1939) heavy tank brigade located in Ukraine besides several military educational institutions. The fate of all T-35s are known (2 prototypes and 61 tanks were produced), almost all of them were lost (mainly because of technical reasons, 6 were destroyed in combats) in the end of June, 1941 - 51 T-35 were in 34th tank division of Kiev Military District on 1 June, 1941. A few remaining tanks (8 vehicles) were in different military schools that time, two T-35s were planned to use during the defense of Moscow in October, 1941.

Losses of T-28 during the Winter War (172 T-28s participated in the war): 30 were destroyed and 2 were captured by the Finns. There were 482 cases of different damages of T-28 during the Winter War (including those 30 which were destroyed and couldn't be repaired and 2 captured by the Finns): 155 from artillery fire, 77 from mines, 21 sink cases in lakes/bogs, 197 from non-combat technical reasons - 386 cases (80%) were repaired during the war (so many T-28 were repaired twice, several T-28s were repaired 5 times and went to combats again) - source: M. Kolomiets. Medium tank T-28. EKSMO. Moscow. 2007. The Finns captured 2 T-28 during the Wnter War and 10 more in 1941 (from Soviet 107th tank battalion; 5 of those 10 tanks were repaired by the Finns). There were 481 (the number 411 is not very correct) T-28 medium tanks in the Red Army on June 1, 1941 (only 292 were in relatively good technical condition), the majority was lost till the end of 1941, but some Soviet tank units of Karelian Front used small amount of T-28 till July 1944. Four survived T-28 medium tanks are known - one in Moscow, Russia (in the Central Museum of Military Forces); two in the Parola Tank Museum, Finland (both with additional armour; one needed in restoration); and one in Mikkeli, Finland (territory of army unit, unarmed vehicle) 1. http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0071.jpg 2. http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0027.jpg 3. http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0025.jpg 4. http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0026.jpg Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet and German designations

The model naming used in the article could be confusing. I take it that T-26A, T-26B, T-26C, and T-26S are German designations for successive models, right? There is some conflict with the Soviet names, for example the T-26A artillery tank, the plural form T-26s, and the possible confusion because Latin T-26S = Cyrillic T-26С.

This should be made clear in the article.

Any reason not to mainly use the Soviet designations in the article, as we do in many others? —Michael Z. 2008-11-12 15:19 z

No, T-26A, B, C, et cetera are Soviet designations. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, confusing. Zaloga (1984) doesn't even mention these, except for the T-26A artillery tank. Do you have a specific reference? —Michael Z. 2008-11-12 15:43 z

I don't think T-26A, B etc are Soviet designations. At that time no other tank used letter designators of that type. Even the model/year type designation (e.g., "T-26 Model 1937") is of non-Soviet origin IIRC. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that designations like T-34 Model 1943 are following Russian-language sources, which typically say things like “T-34 of the year 1943”. I don't really know if these were “official” Red Army designations though (see T-34#Model designations, ¶3). In some cases I see authors mention that the Soviets referred to particular models with descriptive names like “Dreadnought” (KV-2, Zaloga), “hex nut-turret T-34” (Zaloga), and “T-80 with the diesel engine” (Baryatinsky).

Anyway, it would be nice to find a reference to cite specifically about the T-26's designations for this article. I'll try to have a look in the next day or so. —Michael Z. 2008-11-12 17:57 z

I'm not sure where the T-26A/B/etc. designations come from, but they aren't German. These designations are used mostly in Western sources (including Spanish sources). The only Russian source I have, Baryatinskiy's book (translated into English), only refers to a few model names, but it indicates how the Soviets named separate models. This includes the model 1931 T-26, which was the twin-turret version. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, the 'western sources' generally relied upon wartime and cold-war-era German documents, which was all that was available for many years. This is why the historiography of the eastern front was so skewed for so long. The A, B, C system follows the same German system used with the T-34, KV, etc. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think that the best way is to use the most common designations from modern Russian sources taking into consideration the corresponding designations in Western sources. Also I think that letter abbreviations should be always cleared up - for example, ST-26 means "Saperny Tank" on Russian ("Engineer Tank"). At the present time such designations as T-26 mod. 1933, T-26 mod. 1939, etc. are the most common and they are very correct. T-26A, T-26B, T-26C can be probably mentioned in the article to avoid confuses but this is only German designations (or for sure used by Germans during the WWII at least) and they were never used (and ever known) in USSR/Russia. Interesting, that there were no any designations for T-26 models in the original Soviet works and army documents from 1930s - those tanks had designations like "Twin-turret machine gun T-26, produced in 1932", "T-26 with a cylinder turret without a rear machine gun, produced in 1933-1934" or "T-26 with a conic turret, a radio station, a rear machine gun and a straight sides of underturret box, produced in 1938" to be distinguished. Well-known designations T-26 mod. 1931, T-26 mod. 1933 and T-26 mod. 1939 appeared later, in post-war literature. Also well-known designations of Soviet flame-throwing tanks (OT-26, OT-130, etc) which means "Ognemetny Tank" ("Flame-throwing Tank") is very common in modern Russian and foreign literature but original designations were KhT-26 and KhT-130 ("Khimichesky Tank", "Chemical Tank") because flame-throwing units were called as chemical units in USSR in 1930s. One of the best Russian tank historian M. Kolomiets prefers to use KhT designations as original and used that time (in 1930s) in such cases, in my opinion both designations (KhT and OT) should be given to avoid any confuse. T-26A for artillery tank is incorrect designation - there were AT-1, T-26-4 and T-26 with A-43 turret (all were armed with a 76 mm gun). Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The new images

The new images are great! However, one tiny issue: I sit in front of an 13" laptop, and the current layout (with images both to the left and right) makes it a little difficult to read. Could they be moved to one side or into an album instead? --MoRsE (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the image size to standard thumbnails for all but the lead image per MOS:IMAGES. In my opinion there are now far too many images cluttering this featured article. Hohum (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I think this is an optimal amount of images (all of them are important, for example photos from both sides during the Winter War and the Great Patriotic War to be impartial), also taking into consideration the addition of some new information in near future. I would like to find and attach the image of rear view of T-26 into design section. The picture of German 7.5 cm Pak 97/98(f) auf Pz.740(r) was deleted as I am not sure in its copyright. Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish civil war

Isn't there an awful lot of content about the spanish civil war here? I think it could be shortened considerably, concentrating on T-26 usage rather than the broad content we have now. Much of it isn't really about the T-26 at all. Perhaps there should be a separate article on "Lessons of the Spanish Civil War" or something like that. I agree it is a very important subject, but I don't think it all belongs in this article. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I completelly agree. The article has a lot of general military information (sections "Spanish Civil War", "Inter-war Period", "Winter War") which is important and interesting but such info is not about the T-26 light tank itself. Several large paragraphs in the article don't mention T-26 at all!

As for the Spanish civil war, the most important things are the following: delivery of relatively large numbers of Soviet T-26 tanks to Republican forces (281 were delivered from 296 intended for deliveries) and organization of Republican tank brigades/divisions, the first combat experience of T-26, the great superiority of T-26 over its enemies (much more lightly armed CV.33 and Pz.I), the first signal about obsolescence of T-26 and other light tanks with antibullet armour (anti-tank guns became widely used during the Spanish civil war). Regards, Vladimir_Historian

Agreed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is within the scope of the WikiProject Spain we should try to find more detailed info about the combat use of the T-26 in the Spanish Civil War, nevertheless. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article into two

It will be better to split the article into two: T-26 and T-26 variants. What is you opinions, guys? Regards, Vladimir Historian (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that has been done with other widely-produced vehicles such as the T55 and Sherman. DMorpheus (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The British origin

I believe that the short section "The British origin" should be created in the beginning of the article to describe shortly the following important points: a selection of Vickers 6-ton by Soviet buying commitee in Great Britain in spring 1930 as the predecessor of future T-26, purchase of 15 Vickers 6-ton (the article doesn't mention this at all!) for trials and as a model for series production in USSR, successful trials of one of those Vickers and the final decision (but there were disputes before) to produce it as the T-26 instead of its competitor - T-19.

There are several mistakes in the article - 1. Soviet T-18 (MS-1) wasn't the improved derivative of FT-17, T-18 based on Italian FIAT 3000 design (which, of course, had FT-17 as its predecessor). One Polish FIAT 3000 was captured by the Red Army in Grodno in July 1920, that tank was selected by the Soviet engineers as a design prototype of T-18 (MS-1).

2. T-19 and T-20 were not Soviet "pirated" prototypes of the Vickers 6-ton, they were native Soviet designs of almost completelly differ construction in comparison with British Vickers 6-ton. T-19 was developed in "Bolshevik" Factory by S. Ginzburg and was a competitor of Vickers 6-ton during decisions about series production of a new infantry tank. T-19 developed by S. Ginzburg had a lot of interesting and progressive design/construction elements (the only real big foreign inspiration was a suspension - development of suspension from Renault NC) including an equipment for swimming and a filter-ventilation unit, but it was extremelly complicated in production for Soviet factories of that time and also extremelly expensive. After trials of Vickers 6-ton near Moscow in January 1931, S. Ginzburg decided to develop an improved T-19 with the transmission and chassis design similar Vickers. But it was ordered to start the production of Vickers 6-ton (T-26) as soon as possible without additional design work and development of native constructions (because Soviet intelligence service reported that time that Poland [the main enemy according to the Soviet military doctrine of 1920s-1935] would like to produce this Vickers also).

3. The major difference between T-26 and Vickers 6-ton was (in addition to mentioned ports for DT tank machine guns) the construction of turrets (they were higher because the observation port was added). It should be also mentioned that first 10 T-26 were made from usual steel (unarmoured) and they were armed with a 37 mm PS-1 tank gun in the right turret. Also their quality (and the quality of following T-26s produced in 1931) was low (especially Soviet-produced engines) because the Soviet tank technology for large-scale production of new and quite complicated vehicle wasn't established still.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Both the T-18 and Fiat 3000 were warmed-over FT-17s. In the 1920s quite a few countries went to the effort of producing FT clones or modifications, usually concentratign on improving the suspension. There's no way you can claim the T-18 was not an FT derivative. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but as I mentioned above - it will be more correct to mention the Fiat 3000 as the direct predecessor of the MS-1 (T-18), and Fiat 3000 was an FT derivative. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

I'll prepare this week-end the text for the short (1-2 paragraphs) section - "The British Origin" for our article. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The FT was/is a very well-known tank. We know the RKKA had some, which presumably provided the inspiration for the T-18. At least that's how all my sources describe it. The Fiat 3000 is a far less-well-known tank, and unless we can prove the RKKA had some or that the path of development was indeed FT > Fiat 3000 > T-18, rather than FT > T-18, then the FT should be described as the predecessor. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the FT is more well-known than the FIAT 3000. I agree that despite the fact that the construction of MS-1 (T-18, by the way the designator MS-1 is more common in Russian sources than T-18, the original designator in 1927 was MS-1(T-18)) was inspired by the Fiat 3000, FT could be mentioned as general predecessor for all those models. As for FT-17 - the Red Army captured four from the French 3rd company of 303rd regiment of assault artillery near Odessa (Ukraine) in March 1919 during the Russian Civil War, six FT-17 were captured during the Soviet-Polish war in 1920 and ten FT-17 were captured by Amur partisans in far-east (that was US military assistance to Russian White Forces, but from those ten American FT-17 only one survived the Civil War in good condition, others needed in repair). FT-17 tanks had the designator "M" in the Red Army ("M" from "Maliy"="Small").

The first captured ex-French FT-17 was a real direct predecessor of the first Soviet-built tank "Russian Renault" (15 were produced by Sormovo Factory in 1920-1921), but "Russian Renaults" didn't participate in battles of the Civil War and were officially removed from service in armoured units (together with a remained 12 old FT-17) in 1930-1931.

As for the MS-1 (T-18) - there was a big conference of Soviet high-rank RKKA commanders and chief engineers of military industry in September 1926, new light infantry tank was discussed also. FT-17 had many disadvantages (weight > 6 t made its truck transportation quite hard or even impossible, speed was low and old 37-mm Hotchkiss/Puteaux gun couldn't provide accurate fire at >400 m distance), the quality of "Russian Renault" was low in addition to the same disadvantages (also that tank was very expensive). It was decided to use one captured ex-Polish Fiat 3000 [some old sources describe that this tank was presented to Felix Dzerzhinsky from Polish communists in 1925] as the design prototype for a new tank because FIAT was not so heavy and had more high speed in comparison with the FT, also Fiat had successful construction of a transmission and a speed gearbox. That broken during the war Fiat 3000 was carefully investigated by Soviet engineers from established "Tank Bureau" since the beginning of 1925 (which developed their own project of 5-t light infantry tank that time also). The new Soviet tank (T-16) had gun-machine gun armament and more powerful/better engine torque (in comparison with the Renault) 35 hp engine developed by Soviet engineer A. Mikulin. T-16 was much better than the "Russian Renault" (less weight and dimensions, more high speed) but had its own technical problems, which were partially solved (additional road wheel was added, engine and transmission were improved) - the improved version of experimental T-16 under the designator "Small tank of close support [=Maliy Soprovozhdeniya = MS] mod. 1927 MS-1(T-18)" went into series production....As our article is not about MS-1 (T-18) it is possible to omit here the information about Fiat 3000 and to mention only FT17 (something like "MS-1(T-18) represented the Soviet improvement of a famous FT17 design"). But despite obvious "FT inspiration", MS-1 (T-18) represented significantly differ model, nevertheless - especially concerning engine, suspension and armament; the dimensions, shape of the hull and turret were also differ.

Source: Svirin Mikhail. Bronya krepka. Istoriya Sovetskogo tanka 1919-1937 [The armour is strong. The history of Soviet tank 1919-1937]. Moscow: Yauza, EKSMO. 2007. 384 pages. ISBN 978-5-699-13809-8.

• Soviet-built "Russian Renault" (photo from 1922) - http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWI/reno/reno_60.jpg
• ex-Polish Fiat 3000 in RKKA (photo from 1925) - http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWI/reno/reno_35.jpg
• ex-British Mk.V, MS-1 (T-18) and ex-French FT17 during the RKKA military maneuvers (1931) - http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWI/reno/reno_25.jpg

Compare the images and note the significant differences:

• French FT-17 - http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWI/ft17/ft17_1x35.gif
• Fiat 3000 (Italian improvement of FT17 design) - http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWI/ft17/fiat_1x35.gif
• MS-1/T-18 - http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWI/1sov/t18e_p_.gif

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very good, interesting info. DMorpheus (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)