Constructive Feedback
For in-progress or completed build photos. Give and get contructive feedback!
Hobby Boss T-26
panzerbob01
Visit this Community
Louisiana, United States
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 08:09 AM UTC
@Kimmo;

Given the large number of T-26 built and their relatively long total in-service period, I suppose that there could have been an "all-steel wheel" version - but these would clearly have been very rare, given the number of photos available of the type. IF the Russians went to an all-steel wheel for the T-26, it seems to me that this would only have occurred in the 1942 period when they also built those all-steel wheels for T-34 - to conserve rubber, of course. So these would likely have been repair/replacement parts, and the T-26 series was pretty much running out of service (and maintenance) by 1942. By me, the by-far most common T-26 wheel type was that "smaller rubber tire - bolted rim" later type shown on the box art and appearing in many many photos.

Just a thought!

@Paul: Yeah. You are probably right - and I'll almost certainly actually fall over and get one, as I have a wist for a nice T-26 kit, and specially so for a 2-turret version. And now I've vented and all over the wheel deal, I feel better about the whole thing!

Bob
Thudius
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 08:17 AM UTC

Quoted Text

@Kimmo;

Given the large number of T-26 built and their relatively long total in-service period, I suppose that there could have been an "all-steel wheel" version - but these would clearly have been very rare, given the number of photos available of the type. IF the Russians went to an all-steel wheel for the T-26, it seems to me that this would only have occurred in the 1942 period when they also built those all-steel wheels for T-34 - to conserve rubber, of course. So these would likely have been repair/replacement parts, and the T-26 series was pretty much running out of service (and maintenance) by 1942. By me, the by-far most common T-26 wheel type was that "smaller rubber tire - bolted rim" later type shown on the box art and appearing in many many photos.



This may also be something that was more prevalent on the Finnish front or quite possibly a Finnish thing only. There were so many sub-types in use by the Finns that keeping track of what tank was originally what type and equipped with what parts at what point in time is rather tricky. Just a heads up for those wanting to do a Finnish version from any of the Hobby Boss offerings.

Kimmo
Minsk94
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 09:22 AM UTC
Soviets did not use all-metal wheels on T-26. They had no need for it. It is possible that Finns did it out of necessity and lack of genuine spare parts.
There was only two types of wheels for T-26. The early ones had permanent rubber tires that were molded into a metal rim. The later ones had removable tires that were attached by bolts. You can see photos of twin-turreted T-26 with either kind of wheels.


If you need any help with a historical accuracy I do have some info, but since you already ignored my comment on the engine, maybe it is not too important. HB is still a good enough kit that can allow you to build a nice model. Otherwise there is no perfect kit. They all need some hand work involved - some more, some less. Especially if one wants to create a historically accurate model.


To Scott:

Quoted Text

From what I understand, the Soviets had lots of tanks in the 1930's but really didn't develop a logistical tail to support them properly...seems like they basically used them up and then rebuilt them, instead of maintaining them. They had huge numbers of stuff, but where lucky to have half of it fully operational.


Sorry, but this is a total "bull". As far as lack of the maintenance, even the manual on T-26 (dated 1940) has almost 30 pages on tools, servicing and maintenance of the vehicle.
panzerbob01
Visit this Community
Louisiana, United States
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 02:00 PM UTC
@Alex;

Thanks for the dope on those wheels. Pretty much as I thought - did not seem likely that the Russians would have done the all-steelies for these older turkeys.

I would urge perhaps great caution regarding assertions about effectiveness and quality of Russian military maintenance - or not - specially back in WWII. ALL vehicle-makers produced huge amounts of documentation and manuals about their products. Maintenance is performed by people, not manuals. We all know that the Germans trained their crews to the final gasp in all phases of maintaining their sometimes overly-complex steeds. This may not have been as much the case for the Russians... The Russian leaders were plenty smart and knew that they worked with a poorly-educated population who lacked substantial pre-service experience with things like motor vehicles. They stuck pretty fast to the KISS principle wherever possible and built stuff tough and simple. I have heard and read loads of stuff suggesting that lots of Russian equipment was run until it really broke, and then recovered to a central maintenance and rebuilding facility for major face-lift.

Other's mileage on this may of course differ!

Bob
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 02:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text




To Scott:

Quoted Text

From what I understand, the Soviets had lots of tanks in the 1930's but really didn't develop a logistical tail to support them properly...seems like they basically used them up and then rebuilt them, instead of maintaining them. They had huge numbers of stuff, but where lucky to have half of it fully operational.


Sorry, but this is a total "bull". As far as lack of the maintenance, even the manual on T-26 (dated 1940) has almost 30 pages on tools, servicing and maintenance of the vehicle.



You can write all the manuals you want, but if you can't prove spare parts or POL for them, your SOL or left stripping vehicles for parts.

So what is exactly your background? I spent 8 years between active duty in the US Army and National Guard as a mechanic and worked 2 years at a Project Manager level supporting a Radar system that had weekly meetings about its "up" level (operational) and on average with good support, you where lucky to keep that above 90% in an operational environment like Afghanistan or Iraq.

I did 10 months in Bosnia and it took a good 3 months or so for us to get all of our Bradley's up and running on a day to day basis without problems, because they sat in the motorpool for 10-11 months out of the year without being used.

Its been published several times that the Soviet Union had many tanks, but significant amount of them where down for maintenance, minor or major and it played a role in how badly they where hurting at the start of the invasion. The Soviet Army wasn't healthy at the start of the war for SEVERAL reasons.

If you want to refute what I said, please provide information contrary to the otherwise.
Minsk94
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Friday, November 01, 2013 - 01:17 AM UTC
Scott, if you were trying to impress me with your background it didn't work. If you were trying to to show me how up-keeping Bradley vehicles in 21st century makes you an expert in WWII period Soviet tanks maintenance, it made no sense.
Yes, I also have some background in keeping equipment operational in Afghanistan, but it has nothing to do with the subject of the conversation, and as far as the rest of my background, it should not be your concern.
I have been researching topic of WWII Soviet armor for quite some time now. The advantage I have over you is that I am fluent in Russian as it is my native language. Such fluency in the language allows me to read original sources of information instead of translated and retold stories by western authors. It also allowed me to read and listen stories told by the actual witnesses - WWII vets without any translation, including my late grandfather who went through the entire war and served in one of the tank corps (finished the war as a major).

>>>> "If you want to refute what I said..."
As a matter of fact I don't, even though I have scans of original reports of that period as well as witness' accounts of how training and maintenance were performed. I am simply not interested to continue this conversation. You can believe whatever you want to believe; and I will know whatever I know.
Sorry for disturbing this conversation. Enjoy your day, gents!
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Friday, November 01, 2013 - 01:26 AM UTC

Quoted Text

It also allowed me to read and listen stories told by the actual witnesses - WWII vets without any translation, including my late grandfather who went through the entire war and served in one of the tank corps (finished the war as a major).



So those same actual witnesses wrote "Death Traps" for the US Army, which was riddled with personal experiences and lacked the overall picture of what was going on.

You still having provided any "proof" that refutes the Soviet Army wasn't in poor shape for the German invasion. Your equally as guilty as me as trying to prove your point.
Minsk94
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Friday, November 01, 2013 - 10:37 AM UTC
Provide the proof "the Soviet Army wasn't in poor shape for the German invasion"? Where did this came from? We were talking about the maintenance, now you are talking about an entire Army's "poor shape"? How can I continue this conversation, if you cannot even form your question?
Poor shape? You mean not ready for the German invasion?
Or do you mean their armor wasn't as good as German?
Or you are talking about not maintaining their vehicles?
Or what are you talking about?

It was an interesting topic in the beginning, but now I am not interested to continue this conversation any more. Well, at least with you. Not only because, as I have noticed already, you have a very small knowledge of the subject. It doesn't bother me. But mainly because you are more concerned with proving me wrong instead of trying to find out what was really going on.
I will repeat again: I am not interested. If you want to think you are the expert - fine, I don't care. No need to reply, don't waste your time, I am not coming back to this pissing contest.

P.S. By the way, there was no "Soviet Army" back then. I thought you would know that.
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Friday, November 01, 2013 - 12:18 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Provide the proof "the Soviet Army wasn't in poor shape for the German invasion"? Where did this came from? We were talking about the maintenance, now you are talking about an entire Army's "poor shape"? How can I continue this conversation, if you cannot even form your question?
Poor shape? You mean not ready for the German invasion?
Or do you mean their armor wasn't as good as German?
Or you are talking about not maintaining their vehicles?
Or what are you talking about?

It was an interesting topic in the beginning, but now I am not interested to continue this conversation any more. Well, at least with you. Not only because, as I have noticed already, you have a very small knowledge of the subject. It doesn't bother me. But mainly because you are more concerned with proving me wrong instead of trying to find out what was really going on.
I will repeat again: I am not interested. If you want to think you are the expert - fine, I don't care. No need to reply, don't waste your time, I am not coming back to this pissing contest.

P.S. By the way, there was no "Soviet Army" back then. I thought you would know that.




Ok since you aren't coming back to answer this, then why aren't you trying to improve the conversation by providing FACTS to add to it instead of just saying oh no it wasn't this way...

To clarify my statement about the "Red Army" or RKKA, they where dealing with several problems at the start of the war:

Stalin's purges against the officer corps

Poor training and yes maintenance on their vehicles

There where technical design issues with vehicles also, for example, to keep this on topic, the T-26 started off with a 6 ton design that by the time 1940 rolled around was pushing around 10 tons of weight without improvements to its powertrain and suspension..which lead to overheating engines and yep roadwheel failure that stemmed to the redesign posted above.

dsfraser
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: October 01, 2007
KitMaker: 172 posts
Armorama: 168 posts
Posted: Monday, November 25, 2013 - 11:21 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Actually the roadwheels you are using are nearly all rubber, which is why they replaced them...they chunked up really easily and generally didn't hold up that well.




Were there actually 3 types as per http://www.andreaslarka.net/T-26_details/T-26_details.html (scroll down) or do those all metal ones just have the rubber worn off or removed?

Kimmo



At first glance I thought these were T-28 wheels. They are about the right size and look very similar, but they are from Vickers. They are visible on the rear station of a few other Vickers tanks exported to Poland early on.

Both Finland and the USSR were Vickers customers. The Finns, as you know, used both Vickers and captured T-26 tanks at the same time. Finland often resorted to cannibalizing vehicles to keep them operational and that generally, many parts were interchangeable. I note, too, that other parts on the tank at Parola are not original, like many other captured tanks there.

As for the T-26, the original Vickers rubber wheels were replaced in production, at some factories, in 1935. They are appropriate for the first tanks used in Spain. For anything manufactured much later than 1936, they are not correct. That said, there were already quite a few T-26 in the Red Army tank park by 1936, in many versions, so there were still many around when the Germans invaded. Work from photos.

Correct wheels are now available from Комплект ЗИП (Komplekt ZIP). The set also includes replacement suspension and idler wheels to update the kit. Surprisingly, HB do include the late wheels as spares in the kit. They are wrong for the earlier versions, but right for the later ones. Go figger.

There was a recent book by Maksim Kolomiets on the T-26, published by Eksmo. It is essentially a reprint of the Frontovaya Illustratsiya monograph, which has also been printed in Polish. A few years ago Ian Allen published four small books in English on Soviet tanks by Mikhail Baryatinsky, another noted Russian author on Soviet bronetekhinka. The volume light tanks includes a brief history of the T-26.

Frankly, read Russian authors if you want to know about Soviet tanks. 90% of what is out there in English is out of date. Most of that is basically rehashed German gossip.

As for the history, in English I suggest David Glantz. Stumbling Colossus is a rebuttal of the Suvorov debate, and provides an excellent report of the status of the RKKA on the eve of Barbarossa. It is a history book, dull and dry, and there are no pictures.

Regards
Scott Fraser
Thudius
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 06:13 AM UTC
Good stuff, thanks. Just out of curiosity, how good is the Tank Power (351) T-26 book?

Kimmo
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 06:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Good stuff, thanks. Just out of curiosity, how good is the Tank Power (351) T-26 book?



Its nice, but given Wyanicano's problems with their scale drawings they give you and the lack of english translation (unless you know Polish) the price vs value argument might not win out. They have nice photos in them and its cheaper/more up to date vs their earlier books.
Thudius
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 07:21 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Good stuff, thanks. Just out of curiosity, how good is the Tank Power (351) T-26 book?



Its nice, but given Wyanicano's problems with their scale drawings they give you and the lack of english translation (unless you know Polish) the price vs value argument might not win out. They have nice photos in them and its cheaper/more up to date vs their earlier books.



What sort of problems with the scale drawings? Over simplified or just wrong? Even bad information is good if you know what's bad with it.

Kimmo
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 07:42 AM UTC

Quoted Text


What sort of problems with the scale drawings? Over simplified or just wrong? Even bad information is good if you know what's bad with it.

Kimmo



I haven't checked the drawings in the T-26 books personally, yet, but I know for a fact that the BT book they have out are wrong...the roadwheel spacing is completely wrong vs the Tamiya kit and I don't think Tamiya would goof that up so bad and no one notice it on the kit. Other books have had complaints about incorrect scale drawings also.

dsfraser
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: October 01, 2007
KitMaker: 172 posts
Armorama: 168 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 04:47 PM UTC
I have two books from Wydawnictwo Militaria on the T-26, #193 and #197. Both are Polish copies of the Frontovaya Illyustratsia monographs from 2003. The drawings are by Viktor Malginov, who is about as good as it gets for drawings of Soviet vehicles. I do not have #351 to be able to offer an opinion.

The book from Eksmo (they are all called simply "T-26") is more recent and is also illustrated with his drawings. I haven't compared to see if there have been any detail changes made to the original drawings. There are numerous variations on the theme illustrated.

As always with Red Army tanks, it is far better to start from clear photos and use them as a basis for a model.

Regards
Scott Fraser
Thudius
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 09:17 PM UTC
Thanks, I picked up the book because it was reasonably priced and seemed to have lots of good photos. Got to start somewhere and didn't feel like spending 60+ bucks on refs for two kits

Kimmo
Drone04
Visit this Community
Sofiya, Bulgaria
Joined: July 03, 2010
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 48 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:43 PM UTC
Please excuse me if I am sidetracking the topic and discussion, but I have a small question:

Can you please point me in the direction of a source (or sources) where I can see the layout and a few details of a T-26 fighting compartment interior? I'm planning at some point to put together a T-26 hull with the 75-mm PaK 97/38 -- a few conversions were made and used at the East Front. The fighting compartment is exposed after the removal of the turret at top hull metal sheet, but the existing pictures of the vehicle are not good enough for scratchbuilding the interior.

Thanks a lot in advance -- and apologies again for the sidetracking!
dsfraser
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: October 01, 2007
KitMaker: 172 posts
Armorama: 168 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 11:27 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Can you please point me in the direction of a source (or sources) where I can see the layout and a few details of a T-26 fighting compartment interior? I'm planning at some point to put together a T-26 hull with the 75-mm PaK 97/38 -- a few conversions were made and used at the East Front. The fighting compartment is exposed after the removal of the turret at top hull metal sheet, but the existing pictures of the vehicle are not good enough for scratchbuilding the interior.



The Wydawnictwo Militaria monograph #197 "T-26, Vol.II" contains many sketches of the interior of different T-26 variants taken from the Rukovodstvo. It can be downloaded from various Russian websites. It contains everything you need to fill out the interior.

Regards
Scott Fraser
Calahan
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 89 posts
Armorama: 85 posts
Posted: Monday, December 09, 2013 - 11:34 AM UTC
After about a month of work I'm happy to update the progress of this T-26. Seen below are pictures of my scratchbuilt skirts. Work on this has been off and on primarily because of the difficulties and tedious nature of the pieces. The images don't quite capture the battle damage- but its there. I only focused on the more likely kind of damage- which would be dents and bends in the metal. I carefully used a variety of tools to push and bend the plastic to represent this. Subtle bends will be more apparent after I take pictures of the completed model in a photo booth.

Overall these skirts are pretty accurate. The 'rivets' that run the length are out-of-scale and the bolts under the skirt supports are equally over pronounced. However, I like what I see. After all, painting and weathering usually hides these nagging things.








Thudius
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts
Posted: Monday, December 09, 2013 - 11:47 AM UTC
Coming along nicely.

Kimmo
PeteHamann
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: December 15, 2013
KitMaker: 1 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 14, 2013 - 12:41 PM UTC
Glad to see you didn't let the wheel thing stop you! It's looking great so far.
I am building one as a Spanish tank and needed the other wheels too. I modelled them up in CAD

And had them printed but the detail was just too fine. Then I found out that MR Modellbau offers them in resin. They are a bit pricey, but still cheaper than printing them.
Keep going!
Pete
Calahan
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 89 posts
Armorama: 85 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 - 08:09 AM UTC
Pete,
That's a pretty solid CAD rendering there. Being a graphic designer I can appreciate the work that went into that. Glad you're building a T-26. This has been a fun project.

Funny, I think I might be building a Spanish tank as well... In my all-Russian book there's a drawing in color. Its in a tri-color camo pattern. Airbrushing this particular scheme would be real difficult. So that's when I decided to hand paint this with Vellejo acrylics. I'll take a picture soon of the camo pattern I'm interested in.

Paul
Calahan
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 89 posts
Armorama: 85 posts
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2013 - 10:54 AM UTC
This post update includes a picture of the Fruilmodel T-26 tracks. Working with these has been easy; considering this is my first try at using metal tracks. I Really enjoy the weight; representing track sag is effortless.



The photo below is from the book pictured at the beginning of this blog. Unfortunately a side view is only illustrated. I plan to paint this camo pattern using Vellejo paint on top of an airbrushed primer coat. It will be alot of work but I think brush painting done effectively can bring a model to life.



I have no idea what country used this tank. If anybody knows please inform me... I may be able to find additional photos of this camo pattern
Thudius
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2013 - 11:39 AM UTC
That's going to be an eye catcher for sure. No clue on who used it though.

Kimmo
Minsk94
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2013 - 12:38 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I have no idea what country used this tank. If anybody knows please inform me... I may be able to find additional photos of this camo pattern


No country did. In August 1939 Soviets run tests on different camo patterns usage on tracked and wheeled vehicles. They combined all military districts into four main groups. Each group would have a different pattern and colors. Groups No. 1 and 4 had 5 colors each; group 2- 4 colors, and group 3 had only 2.
The color picture from the book represents one of the vehicles used. It was never used en-masse, only for testing. The colors, obviously were slightly different too.