Talk:BT tank

Maybe this is a nit-pick, but: the P40 AA machinegun *mount* is distinct from the DT machinegun. The DT was mounted on the P40 mount; the mounting was standard on the T-28, T-35, some BTs, some T-26s, and the KV-1. DMorpheus 03:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Was documentation false ?

Is there any proof, that documentation was false ? I saw papers, claiming Rezun (aka Suvorov) a lyiar, showin contracts, that tanks were purchased as war tanks, not as "agricultural tractors". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.176.32.19 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Rezun hasn't got a clue. DMorpheus (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox creates false impression

Looking at the amounts built, BT-7 seems a representative version. The sum of all the other vehicles built is much much less than BT-7 alone. Is there a particular reason infobox provides stats for BT-5? This creates false impression, as plenty of readers just drop by to quickly check some stats and do not read the entire article to examine the amounts themselves. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-correction. Sources differ whether it was 5000 BT-5 tanks built and 2000 BT-7, or the other way around. Anyway BT-7 has its own article. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical Legacy

I made a small edit with regard to the technical legacy. The nose design influenced the British Matilda II. It's not obvious but the matilda II had a sharply pointed, wedge-shaped nose when viewed from above. The space between the narrow (front) end of the wedge and the tracks is taken by unarmored stowage lockers and is outside the main armor envelope. This needs to be sourced of course but I didn't want to leave the impression that this section was about the Matilda I. regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the A11 Matilda also has a pointed front, and the British bought one of Christies other designs, can you be sure that the BT influences either Matilda? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Granted I (or someone) needs to produce the source, but I am quite sure I've read it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Speed limits....

The Russia Wikipedia webpage of the BT tanks tells a totally different story about the top speed limits! Anyone has enough knowledge to tell the correct info?

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%A2-2

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%91%D0%A2

BT-2-IS

According to a few sites, there existed a BT-2-IS, similar to the BT-5-IS. Does anyone know of a source for that? Thanks, PrussianOwl (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect number of tanks in chinese service

Hello, I am not a Wikipedia editor so sorry for any mistakes I make in making this post, but the article says only four BT-5s were used by the Chinese. However, under "Operators" it lists 30 tanks used. Considering other Wikipedia articles (such as the one on Battle of Kunlun Pass) also lists the number as 30, shouldn't the 4 be changed to 30 to avoid confusion?

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bt2.jpg (discussion)
• Bt7 3.jpg (discussion)
• Bt7a 1.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a "light tank"

The Soviets had light tanks, the BT series didn't fall into that category. They are only "light" compared with later armored vehicles. They are most analogous with cruiser tanks, and closer to a medium tank in where they fit in the armor scheme and intended use. The T-34 was part of the series and that was classified as a medium tank. A light tank was small and cheap and generally armed with machine guns in the period when these were introduced. These were relatively large and expensive and powerfully armed front line combat machines, they just had more of an emphasis on speed and less on armor. I have never seen anyone classifying a Crusader as a "light tank" . Idumea47b (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Icebreaker nonsense snuck into article

"According to historical researches, this feature may have been required by Stalin for planned European warfare within a strategy similar to blitzkrieg. However, Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use; in a country with few paved roads, it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight. The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs."

This whole part is nonsense based on Icebreaker and should be removed. T34 for example started with a Christie suspension and "blitzkrieg" is not a formalized doctrine. 109.81.86.47 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)