BT Tanks

T34

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
204
Location
Nans Sous Sainte Anne, Doubs
First name
Tim
Country
llFrance
In the early 1930's, the US was in the throes of the Great Depression. Military spending was a bare minimum. Many in Congress and a majority in the US State Department felt that the arms trade had dragged the US into the Great War. They were determined to prevent this from happening again.


However, the visionary (or eccentric, depending on your outlook) tank designer by the name of Walter Christie needed support to continue development of his design work for the US Army. Christie's designs found little reception in the US, but the overall arc of armor design and doctrine work in the US Army was dependent on a stable of new ideas--and Christie was definitely part of that picture.

Christie is most known for his suspension, which involved spring coils which act as shock absorbers for independent (or sometimes tandem) road wheels. These coils needed protection, not only from battle damage but from mud and dirt. In practice, most designs involved keeping the steel coils on the inside of the vehicle for added protection. This, however, took up crew space. It also allowed for unparalleled cross country speeds. The Christie suspension became an important part of tank design in the 1930's.

The Christie suspension applied on the T-34.

Early on, Christie recognized that a major problem with tanks was Operational Mobility. Tanks generally had a road range of about 200 miles before requiring major maintenance. A lot of this maintenance had to do with the drive train. In order to take stress off of the drive train, Christie developed a plan whereby the tracks were removed and the tank could travel on its rubberized road wheels. This allowed even faster road travel.

The Soviet Union found out about Christie's work through the US press. The Soviet Union did not, at this time, have diplomatic relations with the US, but the Amtorg office in New York represented its commercial interests. After Poland visited Christie's design headquarters, the Soviets were concerned and also arranged a visit. While not interested in the technology itself, the US was loathe to allow it to be transferred to the Soviets and, even as US arms sales began to loosen up, the deal was never done.

However, by 1930, Christie had worked out a deal with Amtorg for $60,000 for two tanks and $100,000 for the license to produce the Christie tank in the Soviet Union. There was a bit of shenanigans that went on, as Christie stressed to the State Department that the units were for agriculture. Indeed, the Christie M1928's were shipped to the Soviet Union without turrets, a fact which caused some severe problems with the buyers and eventually led to a $25,000 rebate.

Additionally, the Soviets had dozens of engineers touring and working in the Christie plant in order to learn what would be needed to set up the plants in the Soviet Union. There is little doubt that the Soviet Union got a tremendous boost in tank technology from Christie and this small contract. This led to the BT-5. BT-7, the A-32 and later the T-34.

The State Department was livid with the deal and tried to have the deal cancelled, but it was after the prototypes had shipped (without the turrets) and the deal went through as signed.

Far from being a product of a spy-ring, however, the Christie deal had been spurred on by the US Army tank development office, which saw a chance to keep US tank developers in business through the depression without actually spending US funds. While Christie's designs were perhaps a bit over the top--the Soviet Union also purchased plans for Christie's models which used the tank engine to drive a propeller for a tank-plane and a pontoon system which allowed it to float over rivers and water obstacles--his suspension and armor slope ideas were not only avant-garde but quite revolutionary in tank design. Keeping him open was important for the US military.


It's quite interesting to look back on the days when military spending was so spare that we relied on other countries' militaries for research and development. It's also interesting to think that a US engineer could have played such an important role in Soviet tank development.

Even though the BT-series tanks do not have a very good ASL reputation, there were a large number of innovations that they contained. They were fast, included a two-man turret and a rather decent 45mm anti-tank gun. While it didn't have a turret basket, it did have seats that were attached to the turret that allowed the crew to pivot with the turret and not have to stumble around. It had a remarkable HP to weight ratio--even though its engines were considered very bad.

However, it does make sense to remember that most of the BT's that faced the Germans during Barbarossa were worn out and/or needed refurbishment or spare parts. Some were around 10 years old (ancient for tanks) and overall, they either lacked radios, had radios in command tanks that were easily identifiable from outside and that the tank radios of the Soviet Union built during this time were very, very fragile. If your tank took a hit, if you were lucky enough to survive, it was likely that your radio was out of action after the jolt.

Mainly, however, BTs were the victim of poor tactics and poor doctrine in ways that are not easily simulated in ASL.

So we should provide a round of applause for the Soviet tank that kept American tank development flourishing, rather than going under in the weight of the great depression: Walter Christie's BT series....


I'm going to be working on a series of BT tank scenarios, going from their first use in the Spanish Civil War all the way to actions in Manchuria in 1945!



The first scenario is Estoy Atascado! or, "I'm STUCK!" When the BT-5 first arrived in Spain, the Republicans were bogged down in a long stalemate on the Ebro river. After failing to break through, they were excited to try the new, fast BT-5. Despite being manned by experienced tankers of the Red Army, the volunteers of the International Tank Brigade suffered from misuse, being ordered into action without reconnaissance and loaded down with infantry riders. As a result, they were soon bogged down in the mud and the infantry was wiped off the tanks with machine gun fire. They lost 19 tanks.

The second scenario is Remizov's Hill, which takes place at Khalkin Gol or Nomohan, depending on your proclivities, as the Red Army tries to wipe out the 64th Rifle Regiment.

If you play this (or would like to) send me your comments to make this better. I want to introduce the BT series as a prize pack for tournaments.
 
Last edited:

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Probably just a typo, but in the 11th paragraph the main gun of the majority of the BT tanks should be a 45mm instead of a 40mm. I like the idea of the BT-themed scenarios. Best of luck with this.
 
Reactions: T34

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I've put off my usual historical commentary for as long as I can manage. ?

T-34 has set out the historical chain of events and in that I can add little to that tale except to say that Christie was a very awkward cuss to deal with and was often his own worst enemy. He rubbed many in the US Army up the wrong way. The fact that many of the features like high speed were both an advantage but also a disadvantage in that the '20s and '30s thinking did not see tanks as race cars.

When we look at the BT series we view them through WW2 eyes. In 1931 the BT-2 started production and was armoured at least as well as the majority of rival tanks, had a tank gun better or equal in penetration to foreign equivalents. 2 years later the re-turreted version, the BT-5, came out with fractionally better AP performance but a with very useful HE round. It took until 1938 before the Germans (Pz IIIE) and British (A9, A10) produced an equivalent with decent performance in anything other than trial numbers. The French were mainly concentrating on the infantry support role though the did produce the excellent S-35 in, you guessed it, '35. The Japanese went more like the French but with lighter, more nimble tanks. The US and Italy were stuck with MG armed vehicles prior to '39. The Czechs did better than most with the LT-35 (Pz 35(t) in German service), but like the S-35, 4 years after the BT-2.

While with the BT-2/5 and T-26 the Soviets were 5 to 10 years ahead, it also meant that their development cycle was about 5+ years out of sync with the rest of the world. So when the rest of the world caught up they briefly overtook the Soviets, that is until the T-34 and KV series. The Italian and Soviet air forces had a similar problem in being ahead in the '30s and falling behind by '40. Sometimes being years ahead has its own problems further down the road.
 

T34

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
204
Location
Nans Sous Sainte Anne, Doubs
First name
Tim
Country
llFrance
While with the BT-2/5 and T-26 the Soviets were 5 to 10 years ahead, it also meant that their development cycle was about 5+ years out of sync with the rest of the world. So when the rest of the world caught up they briefly overtook the Soviets, that is until the T-34 and KV series. The Italian and Soviet air forces had a similar problem in being ahead in the '30s and falling behind by '40. Sometimes being years ahead has its own problems further down the road.
I'd agree with all of this (especially the part about Christie being an odd bird) I would only add that in addition to being out of sych developmentally, the BT's were especially hard to maintain and especially nearing the end of their active service as they were in 1941. The Red Army drew from a pool of labor that was not necessarily technically unsophisticated, but certainly where the pool of technically sophisticated workers was not deep. Further, construction of BT's went on right through 1941, but spare parts were very hard to come by and for older vehicles having been in service in such varied arenas as Manchuria, Poland, Besarabia and Finland, there were far too many maintenance backlogs in the Summer of 1941 to make good on. In addition to being old, most of these were worn out. When you read about the huge formations of Soviet armor in June 1941, it has to be remembered that all tanks were counted, regardless of battle readiness.

Also, ASL'ers tend to think of the BT as underarmored, but the Soviets considered mobility a form of armor. In reality, a target moving at 45kph should be harder to hit than a vehicle moving at 10--but in ASL it is not.

From my understanding, what Red Army tanks really hated about them was their tendency to catch fire when hit--even with an ATR. There were several fixes (including a cowling on the air intake above the engine, but eventually the Soviets settled on diesels mainly for this reason.

Thanks for your input, Paul.
 

T34

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
204
Location
Nans Sous Sainte Anne, Doubs
First name
Tim
Country
llFrance
Something about Open Net Goal... It's a tough, tough thing digging history out for this one. The Soviets weren't really proud of the whole Winter War thing and the Finns weren't proud of the Viipuri (Vyborg) battle, as it comes at the end of a string of discouraging losses (hence the name.) There are simply snatches of accounts and a really interesting newspaper account from the newspaper in Perth Australia.

Viipuri was a the main prize that the Soviets were asking the Finns to give up in the diplomatic run up to the Winter War. In reality, it was not really considered part of Finland until after the Russian Revolution and the success of the White Armies fighting in the Northwest. It was also the scene of a horrible massacre of Russians following the Revolution and in the early stages of Finnish independence.

Hakke Palle is quite Finnish-centric and I can't imagine why they didn't include sled towing by tanks in the Ahkio rules other than they just weren't going to do anything nice/interesting for the Soviets. It clearly happened a lot and if you are writing the rules, there is no reason not to include them. SSR 3 is just my take on how it could be done with an SSR. I know people won't be happy with it, but what the hell? Some of these tank-towed sleds had gun shields, but I didn't want to get too crazy.

I haven't had a chance to playtest it (would be glad to if someone is interested) but I think this will be a last man standing kind of scenario with a big luck factor. Can the BT's make it across the ice? Do you take it slow with the infantry leading the way? Should I have given the Finns a leader so they could burn shit down? This one is wide open.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
<snip>
Further, construction of BT's went on right through 1941, but spare parts were very hard to come by and for older vehicles having been in service in such varied arenas as Manchuria, Poland, Besarabia and Finland, there were far too many maintenance backlogs in the Summer of 1941 to make good on.
<snip>
Also, ASL'ers tend to think of the BT as underarmored, but the Soviets considered mobility a form of armor. In reality, a target moving at 45kph should be harder to hit than a vehicle moving at 10--but in ASL it is not.
<snip>
One of the problems Soviet industry had was the Boss's production numbers fetish, spares really didn't register with him. In addition there was still vigourous infighting at the highest level over what direction should tank design go. There were some who favoured a fast, lightly armed tank as a BT successor, the A-20 (45mm) vs the A/T-32 (76mm) debate. Eventually the T-32 won and with up armouring became the T-34.

As for "speed as armour", I would refer you to Cruisers, Battle, Jutland, Battle of!
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
One of the problems Soviet industry had was the Boss's production numbers fetish, spares really didn't register with him. In addition there was still vigourous infighting at the highest level over what direction should tank design go. There were some who favoured a fast, lightly armed tank as a BT successor, the A-20 (45mm) vs the A/T-32 (76mm) debate. Eventually the T-32 won and with up armouring became the T-34.

As for "speed as armour", I would refer you to Cruisers, Battle, Jutland, Battle of!
Paul brings up excellent points with regards to Soviet tank development. I've just begun to read 'T-34 Mythical Weapon', and the accounts of the infighting, lack of consensus, and pure ignorance on the part of some of those involved are quite stunning. I'm amazed that the T-34 was actually produced.
 

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
1,593
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
Something about Open Net Goal... It's a tough, tough thing digging history out for this one. The Soviets weren't really proud of the whole Winter War thing and the Finns weren't proud of the Viipuri (Vyborg) battle, as it comes at the end of a string of discouraging losses (hence the name.) There are simply snatches of accounts and a really interesting newspaper account from the newspaper in Perth Australia.

Viipuri was a the main prize that the Soviets were asking the Finns to give up in the diplomatic run up to the Winter War. In reality, it was not really considered part of Finland until after the Russian Revolution and the success of the White Armies fighting in the Northwest. It was also the scene of a horrible massacre of Russians following the Revolution and in the early stages of Finnish independence.

Hakke Palle is quite Finnish-centric and I can't imagine why they didn't include sled towing by tanks in the Ahkio rules other than they just weren't going to do anything nice/interesting for the Soviets.
You might want to check out all the new AFVs we added for Russians. Or if you really read the rules carefully you might find out that Ahkio and Prepared fire zone are written in a way which is general to all nationalities. Also light woods has a general use as well and it ended up being used in Korean war rules. And there are the Aerosans- which according to my knowledge are only used by Russians.

So this claim is not true, we added things for the Russians and general ASL use as well.

We looked at these towed sledges as well - but it was scrapped at some point we decided not to do them, along with AT rock rules as a new fortification for Finns.

The sledges were used for February / March offensive in 1940 and at least to my knowledge did not see any further utilization by Russians or any other combatants. So we drew the line somewhere and they were out.
 

T34

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
204
Location
Nans Sous Sainte Anne, Doubs
First name
Tim
Country
llFrance
So this claim is not true, we added things for the Russians and general ASL use as well.
Sorry, I should have written "I think that Hakke Palle is Finnish-centric. My fifth grade English teacher always told me to leave off the "I think" because it is apparent if you are writing it that it is what you think.

All the added things for the Soviets (your bias shows when you say Russians because about 55% of the Red Army was made up of other nationalities) suck.

I appreciate your hard work on Hakke Palle, I just think it was a little biased against the Glorious Red Army.
 

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
1,593
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
Sorry, I should have written "I think that Hakke Palle is Finnish-centric. My fifth grade English teacher always told me to leave off the "I think" because it is apparent if you are writing it that it is what you think.

All the added things for the Soviets (your bias shows when you say Russians because about 55% of the Red Army was made up of other nationalities) suck.

I appreciate your hard work on Hakke Palle, I just think it was a little biased against the Glorious Red Army.
Well, Russian is the general term used in ASLRB, after all we are discussing ASL here last I checked. As a Finn I am naturally fully aware the ethnic composition of Soviet Union in 1939.

I think the bias in this discussion is now fully transparent- I do not see any reason to continue this discussion on my part.

I wish you all the luck in the world with your scenario.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Sorry, I should have written "I think that Hakke Palle is Finnish-centric. My fifth grade English teacher always told me to leave off the "I think" because it is apparent if you are writing it that it is what you think.
That may have been one teacher's view. I use "I think" when either some facts are unclear or I am expressing my personal opinion on something where others might legitimately disagree.

This site hosts both historical facts and game mechanic and component facts/rules. It also has a lot of subjective opinions. I tend to be very fussy about distinguishing between solid figures/facts, uncertain ones, simple opinions and estimates like new vehicle ASL values. That makes my postings often dry and pedantic, but I want to pass on what I have learnt and almost just as importantly the limits of such knowledge.
All the added things for the Soviets (your bias shows when you say Russians because about 55% of the Red Army was made up of other nationalities) suck.

I appreciate your hard work on Hakke Palle, I just think it was a little biased against the Glorious Red Army.
I too get a bit annoyed over the usage of Russian over the historically correct Soviet, but that came from the usage in all the game rules and scenarios since the original Squad Leader and is now long (40+ years) gone beyond correction in ASLese. It is so ubiquitous that its usage has long lost any hint of (cold war) bias. As for Finnish centric, that's the whole purpose of the module, expanding and correcting ASL's earlier treatment of the Finns.

While I regard the Red Army as by far the main destructor of Nazi Germany, it's overall performance against the Finns was less than stellar. Indeed it's Winter War performance was quite disastrous. The saving grace was that it shocked the Red Army into a long overdue review which eventually bore fruit in subsequent years. In the Continuation War it was a secondary front with all that implies in terms of resources, etc. If the Finns got grudging respect from Stalin then don't expect the Finns to be treated like Axis Minors in ASL.

Having said all that I am a fan of the Red Army's role in WW2 and welcome any expansion of ASL's Soviet universe.
 
Last edited:
Top