BG29: T-80, T-26E & T-46, & OT-34 M43 & OT-34/85:

[Vinnie]

5a T-80:
The T-80 light tank was a version of the T-70 (Russian Vehicle Note 5 with a two-man turret—it was produced only in very small numbers when light tank production was abandoned.
Developed in the summer and fall of 1942 at the Construction Bureau of the Gorky Automobile Plant under the supervision of N. A. Astrov and built at the Kirov factory starting from March 1942, the T-80 replaced the old 1-man turret with a larger 2-man turret to improve combat effectiveness. The T-70 and T-80 replaced the T-60, which was originally intended as a replacement for the aging PT-38 amphibious scout tank and the sophisticated but expensive and complex T-50. The T-70 and T-80 addressed the main issue of the T-60 which had poor cross-country mobility and a weak 20mm main gun. All light tank production was stopped in October 1943 after only 180 T-80s being built, since the Red Army tactics no longer included the use of light tanks.
See also Russian Vehicle Note C.

 

[Vinnie]

6a T-26E & T-46:
A T-26 tank with additional armour plating (appliqué armour). was sometimes referred to as T-26E (E stands for ekranirovanny or "screened"). The Factory No. 174 developed the design of 30–40 mm appliqué armour for all types of single-turreted T-26s during the Winter War. On 30 December 1939, factory tests proved that the T-26 with appliqué armour successfully resisted fire from a 45 mm anti-tank gun at a range from 400–500 m. Side and front armoured plates were mounted with the use of blunt bolts and electric welding. Toward the middle of February 1940, the RKKA received 27 screened T-26 mod. 1939 tanks (Russian Vehicle Note 6) and 27 KhT-133 (Russian Vehicle Note 7) flame-throwing tanks; an additional 15 T-26 mod. 1939 tanks were armoured by workshops of the 8th Army in Suoyarvi in the beginning of March 1940. All in all, 69 T-26s with appliqué armour were used during the Winter War and 20 more were delivered to tank units after the end of the war. Combat use proved that Finnish light anti-tank guns could not penetrate the armour of these tanks.
The T-26 mod. 1939 with appliqué armour weighed 12 tonnes (13 short tons), which caused an overload of the chassis, transmission, and engine of the light tank. Drivers were advised to use low gears only.
During the Great Patriotic War, a mounting of 15–40 mm appliqué armour on about a hundred different T-26s was performed by local factories in Leningrad in 1941–1942, during the Siege of Odessa (1941), the Battle for Moscow and the Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942). A cutting of armoured plates was more rough than developed during the Winter War; the majority of these modified tanks did not have a moving armoured gun mask as seen in Factory No. 174's original design, and some tanks had front appliqué armour only.
The Soviet T-46, began as an improvement to the T-26. The T46 served the same purpose as the T26, but it was quite different. It was a fast and lightly armoured tank. It could reach speeds of up to 50 km/h with relative ease. The T-26 suspension consisted of eight small road wheels carried in pairs on small bogies. The bogies were supported in pairs by leaf springs. This was a much less effective system than the Christie suspension, which had a more advanced, yet more expensive system to maintain and produce. This is the reason why the OKMO team at Zavod No.185 was ordered by the Government of Soviet Union to produce an improved version of the fast light-tank, T-26. Yet the design of the T-46 has proved being too expensive, compared to the final performance of the vehicle to mass-produce. The thin armour, small main armament and the bulky, big design of tank, made the government of Soviet Union cancel the project, and rather create the T-26S and later T-46S, as the improved, mass-production capable tanks.
Yet some legacy left over by the T-46S, a later improved version of the T-46 lived on to see the battles in Finland.
See also Russian Vehicle Notes Note M, Note P.

 

[Vinnie]

15a OT-34 M43 & OT-34/85:
Various models of the T-34 were fitted with flamethrowers, not just the T-34 M41 (Russian Vehicle Note Note 15) version. These counters represent such vehicles.
After trials in May 1941 Factory No.174’s design was judged to be the winner and was given the designation ATO-41. This had the required range of 90 metres, using compressed air to propel the flame. On the T-34 it was used with a 105 litre fuel tank, which allowed it to fire ten bursts. The design was improved in 1942-43 to produce the ATO-42, which had a range of 130 metres, a larger fuel tank and carried more compressed air. This was then replaced by the ATO-43, which used fumes from the engine to direct the flame, reducing the need for compressed air cylinders. These weapons weighed between 130 and 150 kg. The flamethrower replaced the bow machine gun in the T-34, leaving the turret and main gun intact. It also used up the space allocated to the radio in the standard T-34, so from 1943 the radio in the OT-34 was moved to the turret which left it more cramped than the standard layout making use of the main gun much harder.

 

[Mister T]

As a general remark, i question a ammo depletion number of "2"written on the counter for APCR/APDS/HEAT because if you roll "2" on the TH, you probably needn't them.

 

[Eagle4ty]

View attachment 8880View attachment 8881View attachment 8882View attachment 8883
15a OT-34 M43 & OT-34/85:
Various models of the T-34 were fitted with flamethrowers, not just the T-34 M41 (Russian Vehicle Note Note 15) version. These counters represent such vehicles.
After trials in May 1941 Factory No.174’s design was judged to be the winner and was given the designation ATO-41. This had the required range of 90 metres, using compressed air to propel the flame. On the T-34 it was used with a 105 litre fuel tank, which allowed it to fire ten bursts. The design was improved in 1942-43 to produce the ATO-42, which had a range of 130 metres, a larger fuel tank and carried more compressed air. This was then replaced by the ATO-43, which used fumes from the engine to direct the flame, reducing the need for compressed air cylinders. These weapons weighed between 130 and 150 kg. The flamethrower replaced the bow machine gun in the T-34, leaving the turret and main gun intact. It also used up the space allocated to the radio in the standard T-34, so from 1943 onward the radio in the OT-34 was moved to the turret which left it more cramped than the standard layout making use of the main gun much harder.

Note I have added a simple word (noted in red) to increase the clarity of a sentence that I would recommend. Also, with the addition of the radio in the turret, I would question the ROF of 1 (I realize this is not your domain but perhaps confer with Footsteps & Paul for a better feel in this area as well as the APCR issue Mr. T has noted).