[REL] T26sM39 / T26E ... data XML

[Mraah]

Mobius was kind enough to create some new XML data files for the T26S Model 39 and the T26E.

These were uploaded to Mad Russian's HSG Bussard thread but I wanted to seperate them from his thread to ensure everyone could find them and to post your comments/suggestions about the new unit data.

Attached to this post is a JSGE compatible zip containing the following :

1. T26S Model 39 ... This has the corrected Location #4, front track data ... value 1.5
2. T26E

Credits to Mobius.

V1.0

[Mraah]

Mobius,

Some questions for you about the data ....

Location # 6 ... Front Hull :
T26M39 = 1.5
T26sM39 = 3
T26E = 4u/3+2

Location # 5 ... Front Hull :
T26M39 = 1.5/4u
T26sM39 = 3/4u
T26E = 3+2

Ok ... I'm confused ... Was the T26E an upgrade from the T26 or the T26s ? Or, are the values for the T26s/T26E only chosen to reflect the outcome you might expect.

For example ...
Location #2 ... Front Hull :
T26M39 = 1.5
T26sM39 = 3
T26E = 5u

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I don't. That would be a rather heavy piece. If it was 25mm thick it is at 62° so would be equivalent to 5 cm any ways.

Should the T26M39 and T26sM39 be changed to read 1.5u and 3u respectively?

I'm just curious ... It doesn't matter to me what the value's are ... I'll play with whatever works.

Thanks for you work !

Rob

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Some questions for you about the data ....

Location # 6 ... Front Hull :
T26M39 = 1.5
T26sM39 = 3
T26E = 4u/3+2

Location # 5 ... Front Hull :
T26M39 = 1.5/4u
T26sM39 = 3/4u
T26E = 3+2

Ok ... I'm confused ... Was the T26E an upgrade from the T26 or the T26s ? Or, are the values for the T26s/T26E only chosen to reflect the outcome you might expect.

From my two books and some sites the T26E was an upgrade of the T26S (M1939). Which itself was an upgrade of the T26.
The basic armor of the T26 armor was 15mm. In the T26S it reached 25mm. Then the T26E had 25mm rivited on to this.
I only have an armored diagram of the T26. I don't have an armored diagram of the T26S with 25mm nor the T26E. So I don't know if the lower hull at 62 degrees was upgraded fom 15mm to 25mm.

[Mraah]

Nice books ... you're library must be huge.

By the way, CC only has two hull locations (upper/lower) ... Pck has five hull locations (# 2,3,5,6,7) ... A much more detailed layout. Obviuosly, the names can be changed but for the most part the total locations (excluding top armor) can be eight.

From your diagram it seems that three hull locations meets the model ... of course, five is better!

Rob

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Nice books ... you're library must be huge.

I got this off the internet. Originally from the Russian Battlefield site.
This one from armchairgeneral.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries.htm

From your diagram it seems that three hull locations meets the model ... of course, five is better!
Rob

I see 4 unique hull locations. They represent 5 of 10 possible hit locations. The lower-lower hull. The lower front hull, The very sloped glacis and then the upper hull.
Hits can be 1 of 10 locations. So I try to divide the areas up to represent the chance of being hit. Using the '/' a location can be divided in half to be even more detailed.

I didn't make the original PW data this finely detailed as trying to read busy tables is very tiring. As I go along and work on models I upgrade the PCK vehicle data with more detail. For PW I think I left off the lower-lower hull as it isn't included in any tabular data. Just when you see the blueprints do you see that it should be a location.

One thing that caused me to not included the lower-lower hull data is the front view showing a small area there. The view on the right side is actually a rear view not front view. Didn't realize this.

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I got this off the internet. Originally from the Russian Battlefield site.
This one from armchairgeneral.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries.htm

Very nice link .... It appears from some of the variant photo's that they bolted the sides too !

Interesting.

[Mad Russian]

Here are 2 more links for the T-26.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... ank.html#2


http://www.wargaming.net/tanks/MODELS/t26.htm

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Here are 2 more links for the T-26.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... ank.html#2


http://www.wargaming.net/tanks/MODELS/t26.htm

Good Hunting.

MR

It does make me wonder now that maybe the base armor didn't change from the T-26 to T-26S to the T-26E and that they just increased the addon plates from 10mm to 25mm.
That would only make the full thickness 15mm+25mm=40mm instead of 50mm.

[Edit] rereading Zaloga Soviet Tanks he does state that the T-26S was upgraded to 50mm max armor. But the configuration of the added ammor is not detailed. I'll have to look at the various photos some more.

[Mad Russian]

I'll keep looking to see what I can find out about it as well if you're still trying to track down the solid information  you need.

This shows what is labeled as a Finnish T-26E. You can clearly see the bolted on armour from other angles other than just the front.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/finnish_forces/T-26E.html

The Finnish T-26E is a different AFV than a Soviet T-26E.

Captured Soviet armour was used to equip Finnish Tank Battalion for Continuation War (June 1941 - September 1944). Finns managed to introduce 167 of the captured armour vehicles to their own use. Weaponry captured from Soviet tanks was used to arm all remaining Vickers 6 ton tanks - to reflect this change they were renamed as T-26E (E = English). When Continuation War started the main Finnish armour unit was Tank Battalion formed and equipped during Interim Peace (March 1939 - June 1941).
Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

Yeah, was there one T-26E or several varieties? From the pictures it looks like they uparmored both the straight sided T-26 and the angle sided T-26S. And now throw the Finns in this and whose T-26 is that?.

[Mobius]

This is from the Russian Battlefield site.

[Mad Russian]

Do you have this book?

"Light Tanks BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, T-26, T-40, T-50, T-60, T-70" by Mikhail Baryatinskiy?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url ... &x=11&y=18

I don't but it may hold the answer to our dilemma.

The data that I have shows that both the T-26 and the T-26S had the same armour protection. Now that's a bit misleading since the slope of the armour was changed which would increase protection.

The T-26E seems to have doubled the amount of armour plating with the appliques. One of the main questions though is where was it applied?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

I just ordered it. I hope there is additional info in the book.

All that extra armor has to weigh a lot. From my naval research 1" x 12" x 12" weighs about 40lbs.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I just ordered it. I hope there is additional info in the book.

All that extra armor has to weigh a lot. From my naval research 1" x 12" x 12" weighs about 40lbs.

I was thinking the same thing. This extra weight has to slow the tank down and also put alot of strain on the transmission. It would probably wear the tracks out quicker as well.

One of the things I'd like to see PC3 have is a vehicle reliability factor. Something that would allow vehicles to have their mechanical reliability factored into the game. That could mean that a particular unit is low on fuel or that the vehicles themselves were prone to mechanical failure.

Good Hunting.

MR

[spellir74]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I just ordered it. I hope there is additional info in the book.

All that extra armor has to weigh a lot. From my naval research 1" x 12" x 12" weighs about 40lbs.

I was thinking the same thing. This extra weight has to slow the tank down and also put alot of strain on the transmission. It would probably wear the tracks out quicker as well.

One of the things I'd like to see PC3 have is a vehicle reliability factor. Something that would allow vehicles to have their mechanical reliability factored into the game. That could mean that a particular unit is low on fuel or that the vehicles themselves were prone to mechanical failure.

Good Hunting.

MR

The PzC early Panther does have an 'unreliable' attribute name along with Med Tank. I guess like many of the PzC attributes available this one has no effect.

[Mad Russian]

When I'm talking about a mechanical reliability factor I mean both generally and specifically.

As an example...

The Sherman could have a reliability factor of 9. 90% of the time it is going to operate as intended and as we are used to. 10% of the time it would suffer mechanical breakdown.

The Panther could have a reliability factor of 7. 70% of the time it is going to operate as intended and as we are used to.  30% of the time it would suffer mechanical breakdown.

But then in the editor I could adjust that for each unit. So that if the Americans were short on fuel in a battle and several of the tanks ran out of fuel in the engagement I could have the Sherman reliability factor for that fight be a 6.

Then all those engagements where fuel was in issue could be an issue in the game as well. There are far more engagements where fuel played a part than you might realize.

But the general reliability of the vehicles also played a part. The Sherman was just easier to maintain and keep running than the Panther was.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: spellir74
The PzC early Panther does have an 'unreliable' attribute name along with Med Tank. I guess like many of the PzC attributes available this one has no effect.

Yes, some attributes are for future use rather than current effect. I expect we'll expand on these further in the next release. I would like to see a chance of on-map during-battle breakdowns or mobility issues.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: spellir74
The PzC early Panther does have an 'unreliable' attribute name along with Med Tank. I guess like many of the PzC attributes available this one has no effect.

Yes, some attributes are for future use rather than current effect. I expect we'll expand on these further in the next release. I would like to see a chance of on-map during-battle breakdowns or mobility issues.

Maybe even gun jams.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Maybe even gun jams.

Yes, perhaps even that. [8D]

How frequent were these though? I don't have any good statistical info on which to judge how often a gun (like a main gun) actually failed. Info on machine guns and rifles I've got, but that's taken care of by the variability in the firepower system for those types of weapons.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Do you have this book?

"Light Tanks BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, T-26, T-40, T-50, T-60, T-70" by Mikhail Baryatinskiy?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url ... &x=11&y=18

I now have this book but it doesn't have the depth of data I wanted. It did add a little more info as it claimed late T-26 tanks were upgraded to 20mm side armor.
I went over the data for the 75mm/L24 again and that would have been a real challenge for a StuGB to take out a T34 from the side or rear let alone front. So I am convinced that Wittmann and his unit of StuGs were not fighting 12 or 18 T34/76s at this point in the war.