I was at the Minsk Stalin line last year as a tourist. It feels like a militarist Disney-land. You'll find basically everything the Soviets build from 1939-1970 there. Their collection includes an IS-2, a T-54, a Mi-24, a Mig-25, Su-22, SCUD-B, ISU-152 and a BM-13 to name a few.
Amazing 1930's footage of BT-5/7 in training, here on youtube. Everyone should watch this amazing video, it shows the insane mobility of this tank, and the video itself is really well edited and has a very modern and fresh way of filming for the 1930's! Soviet Tank BT-7 (Red Army)
I've never really been a fan of the BT series, but this is pretty neat. Also, digging the new intro. Short, sweet, and to the point. The background music got to be a bit grating after a while, though.
Just mentioning this because The Chieftain mentioned it in a later comment: the logo was there for an event they did 2 days before filming, and it just wasn't removed yet. So no need to get the pitchfork out. I think of all possible people and organizations the wargaming guys know that they should preserve the tanks they make money with ^^
So interesting to see all the features they retained from the track on the T-34, even though they ditched the wheeled mode. The rolling-pin drive sprocket for example.
I really like these videos, they are very good informations. But the logo of that game has no place on the tanks. Games are not history, putting this logo on that vehicle is a disrespect to those who fought with it.
You miss the T-34. Its BT lineage is quite clear when you put an early model in a lineup with some BTs. Not a direct relationship, but the resemblance is clear.
Strange track design for a high-speed tank. But then I guess they were still planning on doing all the cruising on the wheels at this time, so it didn't matter. It just occurred to me that the best way to explain it to people who sneer at pre-war/early-war tanks for not having 4 inch armor and 75mm+ guns, is that until 1940 or so, a "tank" was basically an armored car put onto tracks to give better mobility, and sometimes a gun for dealing with other tracked armored cars. They didnt expect tanks to suddenly move to many times their size and weight, that doesn't make them bad designs.
Good job again! I know so little regarding Russian tanks so old or new it is always welcome especially when it is full of information such as its Christies suspension and drive system! I do suspect that it was a rather delicate system and not easy to maintain! Regarding the WOT logo I couldn't care less insofar you keep up your standard and makes everybody involved happy! I wouldn't mind to see a nice bunny logo but I will get a bit worried if I start seeing ketchup logos plastered around!
What a good surprise! I have always dreamed to visit a BT-7 in details, good choice. Too bad it isn't the "real" serial production BT-7, but rather a late BT-5. Has it a M-17 or converted to diesel V2 engine? I now understand clearly how works the tank without tracks! simple steering links on first weels, and power transfered to last wheels... When reading it, I couldn't figure it out easily. A very bad concept, and made the tank more expensive than it should... Hopefully this part was deleted during the conception of the T-34 through A-20 prototype. About the caterpilars and drive wheel system, you say "can't work well with heavier tanks"... basically, the T-34 goes from 26 to 32 tonnes (from T-34 1940 to T-34-85), and still uses the same system, without troubles...? The drive wheel is certainly stronger and the tracks are different for sure... but?
Indeed it is. I was briefly thinking it was a StuG IV, they look almost the same. Basically the StuG IV is a StuG III superstructure on a Pz IV hull, made by Krupp to compensate for a drop in StuG III production due to allied bombing. If youre ever in doubt which is a StuG III and which is a StuG IV, count the roadwheels per side , divide by 2, there you have it. The StuG III has a 6 wheel per side torsion bar suspension, the StuG IV 8 wheels on leaf springs.
builder396 I thought the same at first, but the Panzer IV chassis (AFAIK) dose not have shock absorbers, the Panzer III chassis did have shock absorbers on the first and last road wheels, of which you can see the rear one at 4:28 (under the ladder), though the number of road wheels is a dead give way but thats not always evident due to the angles involved. Also the the road wheel mountings and the number of bump stops are wrong to be a IV as well. So yes this is a StuG III
Funny that nearly all Soviet tanks evolved from that American Christie M1931 that was sent to the Soviet Union and adapted as the BT-1, later modified into the BT-2, and so on.
"nearly all" ??? Except the BT and T-34 tanks, no... T-26 (which was the most numerous and important soviet tank before ww2) is adapted from the british vickers 6 ton. Other tanks of WW2, like the T-40/60/70/80, T-50, KV/IS, were indigenous designs. Hell, T-34 has nothing to do with the Christie tank, except that it uses similar suspension. T-44 and any later medium tank or "mbt" has no link whatsoever with the christie tank. BT-7 was the end of the line.
PATRONSKiii I disagree. You are correct at least about the likes of the T-26, T-40, and KV tanks being more indigenous or based off of the Vickers, but the BT line and its successors the A-20, A-32, and the T-34 and up are all of direct lineage to the original Christie M1931. The M1931 led to the BT-2, which led to the BT-7, to the A-20, to the A-32, to the T-34, to the T-44, to the T-54, and from there to nearly all postwar Soviet MBT's that weren't descended from the IS line.
BDNeon Not really. The only thing the BT and T-34 had in common was the suspension. The T-44 and all the more modern Soviet tanks had nothing to do with the T-34, let alone the BT tanks, so no, not really all evolved from the M1931 at all
BDNeon You are wrong. As was said above, the only thing Christie tank and T-34 shares in common is suspension. Moreover, the further development into T-44, T-54 etc tanks used torsion bar suspension. So we can confidently say, that postwar Soviet MBT's have nothing common with Christie!
Well, it's in Minsk, which is where the World of Tanks developers work. I assume they use the BT-7 to promote their game. In general Wargaming has donated a lot of money to some tank museums while also greatly increasing their popularity.
in the early 30's BT-5 and 7 were simply the best tanks in the world, if you exclude the T-28 (which is a bad tank, but unique and powerful for early 30's). I really can't think of anything better: vikers 6ton and derivates? forget it... Renault FT and derivates? No way... Panzer 1 or 2? LMAO. Early crappy medium tanks like the vickers serie? hell no.
PATRONSKiii Well, the T-28 was more of a heavy tank when it was made lol and since it's my favorite tank, I wish to see it in this series one day :) If I was rich, I would order a T-28 replica since there's like... 3 left... And in awful conditions lol
