Talk:T-26/Archive 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)

Main tanks of Soviet armoured forces in the beginning of the Great Patriotic war were BT-7 and T-26 light tanks. Yes, the T-26 was the most numerous tank of the Red Army in summer 1941 (10268 of all modifications on 1 June, 1941 - 39.5% of all Soviet tanks) but it was used also by tank battalions of infantry divisions in addition to tank and mechanized units (regiments and divisions). Many tank and mechanized units used T-26 tanks together with BT tanks often.

The T-34 and KV-1 were, of course, newest and powerful tanks with anti-projectile armour but their role in battles in summer 1941 wasn't very significant - tank units received these tanks recently (T-34 - since autumn 1940 but training began in spring 1941 only, on 1 June 1941 only 38(!!!) T-34 from 832 received by border military districts were operated by army units, others stayed in depots; army units used 75 KV-1 and 9 KV-2 only), there were no trained crews for them (only 150 crews were trained to use T-34 and also 150 crews for KV by 22 June 1941), first models of T-34 and KV suffered from unreliable transmission (and many tanks were just abandoned because of even small technical problems - there was a lack of spare parts and also great shortage of heavy tractors to evacuate them).

About the amount of T-34 and KV - on June 22, 1941 there were 967 T-34 and 545 KV in border military districts (that was a big power as Germans had 3899 tanks along the Soviet border including 1404 Pz. III and Pz. IV). On 1 June, 1941 the Soviet border military districts (19 mechanized corps, infantry units, cavalry units, separate small tank units) had 12,782 tanks (so the amount of T-34 was 7.56% only). Soviet border military districts had 3100-3200 T-26 in working order in June 1941 (4875 T-26 total, including tanks needed in major repair) - so ~40% from all tanks of border military districts. Also it should be noted that more than a half of all T-34s and KVs were in Kiev Special Military District, whereas the main German assault took place against the Western Special Military District; to say more, ~50%(!) of T-34s and KVs from 9th and 19th mechanized corps (Kiev Special Military District) didn't participate in tank battles/counterattacks because of technical problems on the march, combat losses from German bombers and also slow deployment of some tank units. The great problem was bad communication between units - for example, Soviet 19th mechanized corps and 8th mechanized corps very successfully counterattacked German 48th mechanized corps near Dubno on 26-27 June, 1941 - but they couldn't entrape the German corps because of bad radiocommunication between Soviet tank units.

So BTs and T-26s light tanks were the main and very often only tanks could be used in tank counterattacks in summer 1941 and many of their crews showed heroism attacking German superior forces with almost empty fuel tanks and with shortage of armour-piercing shells for their 45 mm guns. The T-26 was widely used on the battlefield till the end of 1941 (for example, in autumn 1941 62%(!) of tanks of the Western Front were T-26 light tanks). They were used at the front during the whole 1942 also but not so active as in 1941. In 1943 the T-26 was used in secondary roles and on indecisive directions.

The example of amount of tanks in 8th mechanized corps (one of the most powerful Soviet tank unit on 22 June, 1941) - 71 KV, 49 T-35, 100 T-34, 277 BT, 344 T-26, 17 T-27.

Of course, the obsolescent light T-26 with its low speed and bullet-proof armour had little chance to survive in intense battles of 1941-1942 but there were no another tanks often. It should be noted that the Germans used a large amount of half-tracks and obsolescent light tanks in 1941 also (Pz. 35(t), Pz. 38(t), Pz. II) for which powerful 45 mm gun of the T-26 was a dangerous enemy. The majority of T-26 losses in summer 1941 were from German aviation, artillery and because of technical reasons. There were known cases when crews of T-26 successfully repulsed attacks of Pz. III and Pz. IV tanks even (for example, combat between 18 Pz. IV Ausf. F1 supported by two infantry companies and 11 T-26 on 17 August, 1942, North Caucasian Front; in combat took place on 20 August, 1942 in the same place one T-26 destroyed four German Pz. IV!). Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:27, 7 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)

It must be also noted that many Finnish and other foreign sources are often incorrect when operate with data about Soviet lost and captured equipment. For example, it is mentioned in the Wikiarticle that "At the battles of Suomussalmi and Raate, the Soviet 163rd and 44th infantry divisions lost all of their armour consisting of 86 tanks. The Finns took more than 69 T-26 tanks and 10 armoured cars, a number equal to the entire pre-war Finnish armoured force. Far more important was the large number of 45 mm anti-tank guns captured during these battles, which enabled the Finns to defend against armoured vehicles more effectively." In reality the 163^rd rifle division didn't have T-26 tanks and its reconnaissance battalion had 12 T-37 and 2 T-38 tanks (almost all were lost during the first 15 days of combats because of land mines), the encircled 44^th division lost all armour of its 312^nd tank battalion indeed, but tank battalion had 15 T-26 tanks only, others were 22 T-38s (or 16 T-38 and 6 T-20 Komsomolets artillery tractors according to another archive documents of 9^th Army). The majority of 45mm guns captured by the Finns were removed from 117 tanks (almost all were BT-5s) of 34^th light tank brigade, these tanks were damaged and abandoned near Lemetti (another theatre of operation, 8^th Army). The capture of 45mm anti-tank guns by the Finns is not about the T-26 subject, such facts should be mentioned in "The Winter War" article (for example the fact, that 44^th rifle division lost its 25 45mm anti-tank guns).

Sources: 1. Kolomiets, Maxim (2001). Tanki v zimnei voine 1939-1940 (Tanks during the Winter War 1939-1940). Frontline Illustration No. 3. Moscow: Strategiya KM. pp. 82. ISBN 978-5-699-20928-6. 2. Tainy i uroki zimnei voiny 1939-1940, po dokumentam rassekrechennyh arkhivov (Secrets and Lessons of the Winter War. Documents from Declassified Archives). Saint-Petersburg. Polygon. 2000. pp.544. ISBN 5-89173-098-7. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 13:36, 26 September 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)

Soviet tank units received T-34 and KV tanks recently (T-34 - since autumn 1940 but training began in spring 1941 only, on 1 June 1941 only 38(!!!) T-34 from 832 received by border military districts were operated by army units, others stayed in depots; army units used 75 KV-1 and 9 KV-2 only), there were no trained crews for them (only 150 crews were trained to use T-34 and also 150 crews for KV by 22 June 1941), first models of T-34 and KV suffered from unreliable transmission (and many tanks were just abandoned because of even small technical problems - there was a lack of spare parts and also great shortage of heavy tractors to evacuate them). About the amount of T-34 and KV - on June 22, 1941 there were 967 T-34 and 545 KV in border military districts (that was a big power as Germans had 3899 tanks along the Soviet border including 1404 Pz. III and Pz. IV). Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:35, 8 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)

• http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0071.jpg
• http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0027.jpg
• http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/tank_pam/images/0025.jpg
• 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 opinion, 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)

"Series production" section

I think that an additional section "Series production" is very necessary in the article. This section will include both tables about production of the T-26 we already have in the article, and can describe the beginning of the T-26 series production by Factory No. 174 named for K.E. Voroshilov (including many organizational and technological problems associating with this), the attempts to organize the mass-production of the T-26 at Stalingrad Tractor Factory, modernization of the T-26 performed by several factories, production of the last T-26 tanks in 1941. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article has become rather long, and is continuing to expand. WP:SIZE gives a guideline readable size of 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. According to a readability check], this article has a readable text of 80 KB in 12,000 words.

In addition to this, the grammar and presentation needs a lot of work if it's going to stand a chance of staying as a Featured Article.

The combination of length and grammar issues will make this article very difficult for a typical wikipedia reader to get through, or gain from.

Instead of continuing to add to it, I think that far more effort needs to be put into reducing some of the verbiage, stating relevant facts concisely, cutting out "nut and bolts" details that shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia article, and improving the grammar.

Although it may be painful to cut out chunks, I believe it is necessary. Another alternative is to split the article, although I have no current suggestion on what criteria to split it on.

This is not a criticism of any editors who have added much sourced, detailed, and valid information - I welcome the work that is being put into the article. I just think it might be time to refocus efforts. Hohum (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hohum. Yes, of course, I noticed the length of the article also. I agree that the maximal convenient size should not exceed 100 KB. Nevertheless, the article is almost finished I think. But I will focus in text improvements (stating the relevant facts concisely) now. Thanks for some grammar corrections! As for the presentation - I think it is perfect, the same style (chapters) as shown in all books about the T-26. As for the splitting the article - one alternative will be to make the "Combat use of T-26" separate article. Respectfully yours, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave the article a once-over a little while back to try to fix the grammar and such, but given my extremely limited knowledge of the subject matter I did leave a lot of things less than clear for fear of introducing inaccuracies into the text.

I s'pose I could give it another shot with the gloves off. >.> J.M. Archer (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: went over the beginning of the article. Not sure I made anything substantially shorter because I think I made up for any deletions with additions intended to make the text clearer. Stopped at the section on Design. Will pick up there later on. J.M. Archer (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

lawl! Just noticed that my little watchlist thing will give me a count of how many characters were added or removed. Looks like I'm down by 248 so far. :p J.M. Archer (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as reducing article length is concerned: I don't believe it necessary, at this point, to cut details about the tank itself, and I don't think it wise to split articles into pieces simply because they're in-depth. However, there are perhaps some extraneous details about the factories that produced the tank, and perhaps we could do with fewer direct comparisons to the original British tank? It isn't as if the two ever met on the battlefield. Just thinking on (digital) paper. J.M. Archer (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bookmarker: Soviet-Japanese border wars >.> J.M. Archer (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I will remove some of my in-depth information or change it into more laconic one. As for the comparison of the Vickers 6-Ton and the T-26, only very short info is given in the section "British origin". It is possible to add a short description of combat took place during the Winter War (on 26 February, 1940) - when 6 Finnish Vickers 6-Ton tanks from the 4^th Tank Company met in the forest with Soviet infantry and 3 T-26s from the 35^th Light Tank Brigade, the result of unexpected for both sides combat was the following: all Finnish tanks were destroyed/damaged, Soviet tanks had no losses. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

I'm like half done and quitting for the night. The article is shorter than it was, but it does seem like I'm adding nearly as many raw characters as I'm taking away--though I think it should be much easier to read now (at least for the parts I've fiddled with).

I broke at least one image because my PC doesn't read Russian, but I think I managed to fix it.

J.M. Archer (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your work but you broke two images which I repaired three times. Also, please, don't change the correct info into incorrect one - 1. I wrote in the "Soviet invasion to Poland" subsection that "On 17 September 1939, 878 T-26 tanks of the Belorussian Front (the 22nd, the 25th, the 29th and the 32nd Tank Brigades) and 797 T-26 tanks of the Ukrainian Front (the 26th, the 36th and the 38th Tank Brigades) crossed the Polish border". But you deleted the second part of the sentence for unknown reason so only the number 878 remained, which is incorrect. 2. The same about the hatch in the "Modernization and repair" subsection: the correct info is "...the common hatch above the engine, oil tank, and fuel tank was installed." Installed=mounted=made=created=cut out (a hole for the common hatch). The common large hatch was installed instead of previous several small hatches, but you changed the info into incorrect one for some unknown reason - that the common hatch was removed - this is wrong!!! J.M. Archer, keep your eyes open, please!!! Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the original text of this article is ambiguous in a lot of places (even more so since my last edit, actually :( ). Sorry for introducing the errors you mentioned. Thank you for catching those. J.M. Archer (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Archer, and thank you for your large work! Nevertheless, I don't see any ambiguity in the text but only some long sentences, non-laconic citations and small grammar mistakes. I am working on this, be sure! Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as of right now I have gone over everything except the "Preserved T-26" section. If I have introduced any errors into the text, please let me know and I'll correct 'em. I don't think anything is really that much shorter now, though. :\

I should be able to hit the last section pretty soon.

You might check for long lines of ????? where there should be Cyrillic filenames for images. That seems to be the big problem I'm having there.

J.M. Archer (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these Cyrillic filenames for two modern photos of the T-26 from museums were introduced by some Russian guys, I guess. I will check this. I came into conclusion that it will be better to remove the "Preserved T-26" section (which I created several months ago) to make the article much shorter or to make the section very short as all these preserved tanks are described in corresponding references. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that tanks of this type have been preserved is significant, though perhaps a list of the 45 individual tanks is not appropriate. Perhaps the section could be reduced to: 1) a short paragraph noting that some examples have been maintained in museums and collections and 2) naming two or three especially notable (or well-preserved) examples?

I found it especially interesting that one of these old things is still drivable. I'm figured that was rare even for Western tanks--much more so for something built in the infancy of the Soviet Union.

As far as shortening the article overall, the main thing I would suggest at this point--in order to try to remove the least possible amount of material--would be to

1) simplify the figures on tank numbers--for instance, instead of listing total numbers of tanks and then the numbers of working tanks as a subset of that number, simply give the number of operational tanks (I may have already done this, or at least tried, in several instances); the same could go for places where other tank types are mentioned, perhaps.

2) remove some of the minutiae on the factories that built the tanks, particularly as I've noticed that these often seem to have their own dedicated articles.

3) remove or simplify some of the comparisons to the tank on which the T-26 is based (I may have already done a lot of that); the T-26 seems to be quite a significant vehicle in its own right.

As I've mentioned, I don't think material should be excised or moved to another article simply because the article has grown long. However, I do think that this article in particular may have covered some topics in such depth as to have lost focus on the subject of the article. In places I found myself comparing reading this piece to reading the lists of "and so-and-so begot so-and-so" in the Old Testament.

I wish these dumb numbered lists worked.

J.M. Archer (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have done a lot of work quickly!

Regarding the surviving tanks. Grouping them by museum and not going into much detail about each one beyond a brief phrase (Model, general condition) is probably more appropriate, unless a specific additional detail is important to the article. Hohum (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned in the "Survivors" section the most well-known examples of preserved T-26s. Of course, it is not necessary to mention all 45 preserved tanks as it makes the article too long and all these vehicles are described in corresponding references. Grouping them by museum is difficult because there are relatively many museums with only one T-26 in exhibition or individual tank monuments, so this will not short our article too much. J.M. Archer, there are two T-26 (mod. 1933 and mod. 1939) in drivable condition in Parola Tank Museum in Finland and also one (mod. 1939, but with new engine from modern reconnaissance scout vehicle because the original engine in bad condition and with lack of some parts was very hard to repair) - in Kubinka Tank Museum in Russia. Also one more is in Spain, in Zaragosa Military Academy (T-26 mod. 1933). I agree with you that it will be better to give only short information about the numbers of T-26s without in-depth clarifications. As for the factories which produced (there were two) and modernized T-26s - they must be mentioned in the article in the "Series production" section, of course; as for the manufacturers of tank guns and other equipment for T-26s (if necessary for the article) - the information should be very short and laconic.

P.S. T-26 in drivable condition from Parola Tank Museum (Finland), enjoy!

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS8RUNTT8pw
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsK-ZfXYbpY

T-26 in drivable condition from Kubinka Tank Museum (Russia), enjoy!

• http://rutube.ru/tracks/321758.html (with historical background about the armoured forces of the USSR at that time)

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tinkered with some recent changes to the section on service outside the Red Army. Specifically, I changed the plural "guns" back to the singular "gun" because in this case we're referring to the type of gun rather than a specific quantity of them (e.g. "Iowa-class ships were armed with the 16" 50 caliber gun" rather than "Iowa carried nine 16" 50 caliber guns."). I believe this to be more correct, but I suppose it's possible that Wikipedia simply does things differently on this.

This line bugs me a little:

Some minor details were replaced with Soviet ones too.

In itself, this is largely meaningless. If we were to mention what details were changed, I think it would have more value. As it stands, though, it doesn't seem to add much to the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the conceptual clarification of gun/guns. As for the minor details of Finnish Vickers 6-Ton which were replaced with Soviet ones - that were Soviet sights and some transmission new details. I removed this sentence as it seems not very important. The most important thing was the replacement of armament for ammunition standartization with captured T-26s. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

T-26 with additional armour

Guys, I would like to post some information (shortly:) about T-26s with additional armour. Such work was performed by the Factory No. 174 during the Winter War in order to increase the T-26's armour, which was easily penetrated by Finnish anti-tank guns. T-26s with additional armour could resist the fire from 45-mm anti-tank guns from 400-500 m. About 69 T-26s with additional armour were used during the Winter War. During the Great Patriotic War some factories in Leningrad, Moscow, Sevastopol and Odessa performed such work also, mounting additional 15-20 mm armoured plates on T-26 mod. 1933 and mod. 1938/1939. The question is where is the right place for such info - in "Variants" section (but T-26s with additional armour didn't have any special designator) or in "Series production" section as some part of T-26s modernization?

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest adding that information to the section on the Winter War, perhaps appended to the paragraph where this section concludes with a statement on the obsolescence of the T-26--perhaps as below:

In the end, the Winter War revealed the T-26 to be obsolete, and its design reserve was totally depleted. Finnish anti-tank guns easily penetrated T-26's thin armour, and its cross-country ability in the rough winter terrain was mediocre. During the war, Factory No. 174 produced a variant of the T-26 with improved armour, capable of resisting Finnish antitank guns at a range of 400 meters or more, and about 69 were used during the Winter War. However, by 1940 the T-26 was withdrawn from production and replaced with the new T-50 light tank.

I suggest this because, while it is significant that Soviet planners recognized the shortcomings of the light tank's weaker armor, I'm also afraid that this bit of information does not merit the addition of too much text to an article already under scrutiny for length.

Also, I think the note on armor would garner more attention in context, what with the sections on variants and mass production already being quite full.

J.M. Archer (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought to add the info about T-26s with additional armour to the "Winter War" section, but the problem is that several factories performed the work with mounting of additional armour on the T-26 during the Great Patriotic War also, in 1941-1942. Perhaps, it will be better to make a short sub-section "T-26 with applique armour" in the "Series production" section and mention this in 3-4 sentences.

P.S. Soviet planners and engineers (for example, chief engineer of the Factory No. 174 S. Ginzburg) mentioned thin armour of light tanks and obsolescence of them in 1937 already, basing on experience of the Spanish Civil War, but many army commanders did not share that opinion as well as military economists responsible for tank mass-production. It was planned to withdraw the T-26 from production in 1940, but it was produced till February 1941 in reality and the production of new T-50 didn't start in June 1941 even because of production problems and difficulties. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Finally, I decided to create a new article T-26: combat history. I believe that three articles (T-26, T-26 variants and T-26: combat history) represent the most optimal and convenient way to present the material about the T-26.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You may already intend to do this, but I think you need to leave a paragraph or two in the main article as a summary of the combat history. Hohum (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Hohum. I will write 1-2 paragraphs about the combat history for the main article tomorrow. Please, check the grammar :) Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

   *   Introduction - completed
   * 1 British origin - completed
   * 2 Design
   * 3 Series production
         o 3.1 The beginning - completed
         o 3.2 Production in Stalingrad - completed
         o 3.3 Modernization and repair - completed
         o 3.4 Production in 1941 - completed
   * 4 Combat history - completed
   * 5 Variants
         o 5.1 Twin-turreted tanks
         o 5.2 Single-turreted tanks
               + 5.2.1 Artillery tanks
         o 5.3 Armoured combat vehicles - completed
   * 6 Survivors - completed
   * 7 Notes
   * 8 References
         o 8.1 Published sources
         o 8.2 Websites
         o 8.3 Video

Design section

Do we need to make small sub-sections for "Design" such as "Engine", "Transmission", "Hull and turret", "Armour" and "Armament" for easy reading? Or just leave the section as the whole undivided text?

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

45 mm 20K mod. 1932/34

Have anyone armor penetration for different ranges for this gun ? it will be very interesing to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.84.189 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

45-mm tank guns mod. 1932 and mod. 1934 with the use of standard BR-240SP armour-piercing shell had the following armour penetration according to range field tests - at 90 degree angle of impact: 51-59 mm from 100 m, 43-55 mm from 300 m, 38-51 mm from 500 m and 35-40 mm from 1000 m depending on armour quality. So the gun of T-26 light tank was still powerful for 1941 year to be used against German tanks.

--Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Kilomiets vs Kolomiets

Noticed these two names in references section. Two different persons or the same person with his name written wrong in one case? Kyng (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a misprint. Of course, the person is the same - Russian tank historian Maxim Kolomiets. I've corrected this in the main text already Vladimir Historian (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FAR needed

This article has large swaths of uncited text (to name only one of the problems) and needs to be submitted to WP:FAR (allowing the necessary number of days after TFA). Most of the uncited text was not present in the promoted version, so a good deal of the content in this article now was not vetted at WP:FAC. It is unlikely this amount of new material can be brought to standard easily, so I will initiate a FAR next week unless there are some dramatic changes in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm actually surprised that it was able to make TFA with so many obvious issues. Better sourced and written articles have been demoted on lesser concerns, yet this somehow made the main page. TFA needs to evaluate this case to prevent it from repeating itself. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)