In the RU forums Q&A thread, SerB gave an example of a hull upgrade for the T-54: 120 mm of front armour, or 100 mm, with higher top speed in return. I will take a look at what other upgrades potentially exist for Soviet tanks in-game. Since there is a great deal of them, the article will be split into parts. This part will discuss light tanks.

Let’s start from the top, the venerable MS-1. The tank was in service with the Red Army until the start of WWII, and was modernized several times. However, it did not undergo very notable hull changes, aside from a change between welded and bolted armour in 1930. Despite being a significant change in real life, it would only be cosmetic in game. Other visually interesting changes result from the MS-1a hull (T-26 suspension, simplified rear section of the hull) and T-18M (elements of the T-38′s suspension).

MS-1a: MS-1 with elements of the T-26 suspension.

T-18M: MS-1 with T-38 suspension elements and simplified rear hull.

Continue reading →

Send me questions to tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will answer them! Previous set of answers is here.

Q: What Soviet 152 mm gun tank destroyers were there that aren’t in World of Tanks?

A: The SU-D15 (SU-85 with 152 mm D-15 howitzer) and ZIK-20 (KV-1 chassis with a 152 mm howitzer, later the 152 mm Br-2 gun). Of course, there may be many more lurking in the archives.

Continue reading →

As with the German tanks that came before it, the Soviets gave the Panther an index derived from the German index, but with the awkward PzKpfw. V (try writing that on a Cyrillic typewriter) replaced with a much more easily palatable T-5. As with the other tanks, the index was sometimes written Type 5, T-V (or T-У, when the V character wasn’t available). The tank was also commonly known by the Russian word for Panther: Pantera (Пантера).

Following the revelation of the T-5 premium tank, this article is going to take a look at the Panther as viewed and used by the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army during WWII.

Continue reading →

You know how this works, send questions to tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will answer them! The previous edition is available here.

Q: Was the S-54 ever used on the T-34? Could it be mounted in the T-34 model 1942 turret?

A: Yes and yes. The model 1931 76.2 mm AA gun (ZK) from which the S-54 borrows its ballistics was recommended for installation in a tank since 1940, but the performance of the F-34 put those plans on the backburner. When the threat of the Tigers, Panthers, and Ferdinands loomed in 1943, many pre-war improved ballistics projects resurfaced, including the AA gun. As the T-34-85 was already in development, the S-54 was seen as a temporary measure. After trials, it was recommended as an upgrade to all T-34s currently in the field, but shortages of ammunition cut those plans short. In any case, the trials ended on October 19th, and the T-34-85 would be available only a few months later.

The gun was installed in the mass produced T-34 model 1942 turret, with some changes. Due to the longer shell, the position of the loader had to be altered. The tank could also carry less ammunition: 52 shells in the hull, 7 in the turret bay, and 9 on the sides of the turret (5 on one side and 4 on the other).

Continue reading →

Disclaimer: the contents of these articles merely illustrate the resources available for a historically accurate buff. This article does not imply that these changes should happen or will happen, either in combination or individually. Please pay attention to this disclaimer before being butthurt in the comments, thanks in advance. 

Earlier this week, I did an article on the KV-1 tank. I was going to do the Kirov trinity in one go, but the KV-1 had enough material to stand on its own. The KV-1S and IS are too intertwined, however, so they will have to share an article.

Continue reading →

Disclaimer: the contents of these articles merely illustrate the resources available for a historically accurate buff. This article does not imply that these changes should happen or will happen, either in combination or individually.

Old-timers remember a different KV tank. Its 152 mm gun was a menace to tier 5 tanks. For a long time, it was the only tier 5 heavy that could see tier 9 tanks in battle, and the old HE mechanics made it no slouch against those either. Today, it is a shadow of that former glory. Let’s see if we can do anything about that.

Continue reading →

Salfetkoruzhie is a portmanteau of Russian words “salfetka” (napkin) and “oruzhiye” (weapon), the equivalent of German “napkinwaffe”.  

If you read a list of GABTU’s desires in 1940, you will encounter a mention of a 180 mm SPG on the SMK chassis. The tank proposal, and indeed, any 180 mm SPG was scratched out. Such a huge gun would be entirely impractical.

However, this is World of Tanks! Phrases like “impractical”, “overcomplicated”, “it would never happen”, and “oh god what are you doing” have no meaning here! Let’s grab a napkin and begin designing!

Continue reading →

Welcome to the 14th Q&A! A reminder as to how this works: send me questions about Soviet tanks and related topics, and I will answer them here (unless I forget, in which case you’re welcome to send them again).

Previous Q&A

Q: Were there any prototype or experimental tanks with double barreled guns?

A: Of course! A favourite of mine is the ST-II, with two 122 or 100 mm guns in one turret. Sadly, it was never built. Its half-assed implementation is currently present in the game. The extra loader is there, but the second gun is not, and the ROF has been drastically reduced. There was also the SU-2-122, which was a SU-122 with two guns instead of one, KV-7 (one version had 2 76 mm guns), and many double barreled SPG prototypes, currently terminating with the double barreled Russian Koalitsiya 152 mm SPG.

That’s just for tanks with two cannons of equal calibers. A great deal of tanks were equipped with dual machine guns, and with a smaller caliber gun or autocannon instead of a coaxial machinegun.

Continue reading →

Welcome to the 13th edition of Ensign’s Q&A. You know the drill: email me questions at tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will answer them. The previous Q&A can be found here.

Q: Were all KV transmissions as bad as the Aberdeen one?

A: No, the one Aberdeen received was “gently” used. KV transmissions were typically much more reliable.

Q: How much did the various KV designs have in common?

A: I don’t know exactly, but there are requirements for parts commonality in some project specs (usually SPGs based on an existing vehicle). I’d have to read the specs to see exactly how much, but parts commonality with existing vehicles can be a great bonus to getting your design chosen among competing ones.

Continue reading →