BT-7

[neffer38]

Been think about this all day.

Maybe  BT-5/7 kit and later a BT-42 upgrade kit?

I have 17 BT-7s in 15mm love getting them all out for a Barbarossa game. Fast lil guys. The finnish BT-42 makes me chuckle

Cheers

[ripley]

Sounds good to me , but only after I get my T-70 tanks

[Tracks]

Yes, a BT-7 would be very nice. In fact, Rubicon Models would do well if they made...
BT-7
T-70 and SU-76
Soviet ZIS-3 AT-Gun
BA-64 – one of the most produced Soviet armored cars.

Instead, we got an M-26 Pershing. Not that I'm complaining because the M-26 will be a much deserved warm welcome from  those gaming the Korean War. However, just like the King Tiger (Tiger II), not sure if I will get one, but given a choice, I would be more interested in the M26 than the King Tiger. Mostly because the M26 is more useful - not just used in late war WW2.

However, the SU-76 was also used in the Korean War, and I know many (including myself) that would buy that plastic model kit in a heart beat if Rubicon Models produced one.

[neffer38]

I have a king tiger (resin), and i need 3 for a battlegroup sized platoon. Noticed Rubicon were doing a King tiger kit, the the rescent Warlord sale came up and my head went blank hammering the buy button and ordered two italeri plastic king tigers totally for getting the Rubicon anouncment  ....I'll still buy one though, if only to paint and do an interior.

 Ive added a Pershing to my basket and removed so many times! The resin kit was 33% off and it got added and removed in favour of the Jackson M36-B1 which i wasn't aware of. I do want a Pershing, I imagine it will happen at next years Telfords model show when I walk past the Rubicon store  .

Hmm id have to say BT over T-70....mostly cause i can only really afford to field one horde for that era at 28mm  , Even having to get my attik converted to store every thing

[ultravanillasmurf]

Why a resin M36 (B1 or otherwise) as our gracious Hosts have suitable kits (with an M10 thrown in if the B1 is a Sherman [hull]).

[ripley]

IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull

[elias.tibbs]

IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull

Indeed it was. Too many turrets and not enough hulls. Still not the tank that tank destroyer branch wanted though.

[neffer38]

You know what, I hadn't realized Rubicon did a M36. Some thing to add to the long list.

I would have still picked up the B1 However. I hadn't realized until recently it existed and it makes for a nice piece (and it was in the 33% sale).

I was under the impression that the B1 existed due to high demand for the 90mm gun. Whilst they were producing the M36 in the factories they sent out engineers into the field to retrofit the 90mm turret on the the M4A3 hulls because the demand was that great.

[elias.tibbs]

The 90mm wasn’t really wanted, hence why the M18 Hellcat was only equipped with a 76mm which was good enough to deal with most issues. 

[ultravanillasmurf]

IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull

Thanks, that is what I thought.

[neffer38]

Yes I was under the impression the 90mm really wasn't that great or much better than the 76mm. Much like when they tried to replace the 57mm with the 3inch (76.2) and the effectiveness was hardly noticable yet heavyier .

[ultravanillasmurf]

Calibre is not always helpful - the  best Allied anti-tank gun was 76.2mm.

The six pounder with cutting edge rounds was better than its drilled out equivalent, but did not have the HE weight.

I do not have access to my books, but I remember reading in one of the Osprey books that M10s were dug in on a slope for use as artillery once their tank hunting capacity was exhausted.

For one of the best examples of calibre (not calibres) not being a good measure, the Soviet 122mm gun on the IS series. It did not give a greater penetration advantage than the 85 mm on the T34, but would likely shatter the target - and make a bigger hole in the landscape.

Of course this is rather off topic of Soviet light tanks.

[elias.tibbs]

The old 3inch AT gun (also 76mm) was king early war...

But then they had a choice between the M3 76mm that was half the weight or the 90mm that was the same weight..

Tankers wanted the 90mm but couldn’t get it on a Sherman (although there was one test M4A3 with a Pershing turret..)and tank destroyers wanted the 76mm but ended up with the design compromise of the Jackson.

But in the end, the 90mm ended up on the Pershing and the 76mm ended up on the hellcat and everyone lived happily ever after.

We could talk about the 17pdr (also a 76mm gun), but it was awful and I always end up upsetting a 17pdr fanboy who like some to post armour penetration tables

But as far as M10s being tank hunters? Bit of a myth. As with all US tank destroyers. They spent most of their time providing indirect artillery support and their role as tank destroyers was defensive and not offensive.

[ripley]

Wasn't a lot of the problem ammunition ? IRC the 90mm started out as a AA gun and although fitting it into an open top turret was easy , designing the AP ammo took time .

[elias.tibbs]

I’ve not heard about s shortage or time to develop an AP round being an issue. More that they believed it just wasn’t needed.

The M26 almost didn’t happen, because why bother? The war is almost over. The US encountered almost no tigers and the 76mm could deal with panthers. Oh wait, look at the soviets, what if they don’t stop, yeah let’s start that M26 programme up again...

Same way the 76mm was good and they thought that it was all that was needed. Then they realised it wasn’t and brought in the HVAP round for it. They had the plans for it, they knew how to make it, they just couldn’t make enough of them.