Just working on a few things for 1941 Eastern Front battle. Wondering how much of a difference is there between the Russian BT-5, BT-7 and BT-8 tanks?
From my understanding, the BT-8 was just a name for the upgraded BT-7.
But still want to know the difference between the BT-5 and BT-7 for sure in terms of visual appearance.
BT 5, BT 7 and BT 8 tanks...
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
dougeagle
- E5
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:07 am
- Location: Northern Alberta
BT 5, BT 7 and BT 8 tanks...
Doug
A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.
Bruce Lee
A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.
Bruce Lee
-
Extra Crispy
- E5
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Edgewater, NJ
- Contact:
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Well I surely do not relish contradicting JB, but ...
I believe that the BT lineage is better described thus:
BT-5: New wheels that saved some weight, and more importantly a 45mm gun, which was a big advance over BT-2. Had a gasoline engine.
BT-7: Welded hull, with a slightly higher armor basis for little or no incremental weight. Cost less to product, and was more effectively bullet-proof, but certainly not shell proof. Still had a gasoline engine.
BT-7M: Originally described as BT-8, but reverted to BT-7M label when accepted for production. V-2 diesel engine was the primary new characteristic.
Early in the life of the BT-7 development, a conical-shaped turret (with sloped sides), with an MG mount in the back, was developed. But an "official" opinion was offered that turret-back MGs were not useful in tanks with only a 3-man crew, so it was only present in a minority of conical turrets, and the conical turrets in both forms were only ever used in a minority of production. The same turret as the BT-5 was more commonly used.
This issue of turrets is key to understanding Soviet tank production and visual identifiers, and was present even before the wartime crush to produce anything. Quite simply, tank hulls and turrets were often mixed-and-matched. Expecting that all BT-7 turrets looked this way, as a way of distinguishing between BT-5s or BT-7Ms, is tilting with windmills. You can find pics of BT-7s with square-edged hatches, or rounded-edged hatches. Conical turrets or cylindrical turrets. Conical turrets with rear MGs, or without. You can't use the turret as a reliable visual identifier, as turret production was done at multiple factories, each with their own engineering team adjusting the sub-standards to meet their own production schedules. A final assembly factory might also build their own turrets, but would at the same time take whatever turrets they could get that met the basic specs, to meet their production schedule.
Starting with the BT-7 there was also a direct-fire artillery support turret available, with the KT 76.2mm howitzer. Tanks mounting these were referred to as the BT-7A. Some hundreds were built, so while not a major portion of BT-7 and BT-7M production, they were certainly something that might appear on a battlefield.
At least that's how I understand it.
I believe that the BT lineage is better described thus:
BT-5: New wheels that saved some weight, and more importantly a 45mm gun, which was a big advance over BT-2. Had a gasoline engine.
BT-7: Welded hull, with a slightly higher armor basis for little or no incremental weight. Cost less to product, and was more effectively bullet-proof, but certainly not shell proof. Still had a gasoline engine.
BT-7M: Originally described as BT-8, but reverted to BT-7M label when accepted for production. V-2 diesel engine was the primary new characteristic.
Early in the life of the BT-7 development, a conical-shaped turret (with sloped sides), with an MG mount in the back, was developed. But an "official" opinion was offered that turret-back MGs were not useful in tanks with only a 3-man crew, so it was only present in a minority of conical turrets, and the conical turrets in both forms were only ever used in a minority of production. The same turret as the BT-5 was more commonly used.
This issue of turrets is key to understanding Soviet tank production and visual identifiers, and was present even before the wartime crush to produce anything. Quite simply, tank hulls and turrets were often mixed-and-matched. Expecting that all BT-7 turrets looked this way, as a way of distinguishing between BT-5s or BT-7Ms, is tilting with windmills. You can find pics of BT-7s with square-edged hatches, or rounded-edged hatches. Conical turrets or cylindrical turrets. Conical turrets with rear MGs, or without. You can't use the turret as a reliable visual identifier, as turret production was done at multiple factories, each with their own engineering team adjusting the sub-standards to meet their own production schedules. A final assembly factory might also build their own turrets, but would at the same time take whatever turrets they could get that met the basic specs, to meet their production schedule.
Starting with the BT-7 there was also a direct-fire artillery support turret available, with the KT 76.2mm howitzer. Tanks mounting these were referred to as the BT-7A. Some hundreds were built, so while not a major portion of BT-7 and BT-7M production, they were certainly something that might appear on a battlefield.
At least that's how I understand it.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD