Talk:T-26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star T-26 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Russia Portal
T-26 is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
JonCatalan (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)