BT-2, a balanced reserve tank

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Caid’s suggestion # 92

i would like to suggest what could be a reasonable replacement for the BT-5 as a reserve, the BT-2

The BT-2 was the first Russian tank produced in the Bystrokhodnyy tank Family. this was a nearly perfect copy of the M1931 which one model was smuggled to Russia and named BT-1 but with a Russian-made turret and featured some smaller Russian adaptations on the assembly. the BT-1 was sold to the Russians by J. Walter Christie who had done it without the agreement of the US government, making it a scandal and also a massive success for J. Walter Christie as a tank engineer.

the BT-2 was produced in Russia in 1932. it was subject to a relatively small production of 60 BT-2 with a single 37mm gun and 148 BT-2 with a 37mm gun and DT machine-guns placed at the right side of the turret. the tank was relatively successful. as it was capable of outstanding speed for this time. it was even said that if they could push the speed a bit more and attach wings, the tank could fly (and J. Walter Christie indeed wanted to try it). the concept of a fast tank was completely new, at least on this scale. the tank was fast and easy to produce which was perfect for the Russian massive territory. the tank was also convertible from track to wheels if needed allowing it to move much faster on the road when it was available, and could still be highly mobile off-road when needed. a total of 620 BT-2 was confirmed to had been put into service in the Russian army in 1932-1933, there were many of those tanks built and some were still in service in 1941 when Russia and Germany went to war against each other. ordered in November 1931, the first 100 BT-2 was ready in February 1932 which shows how simple and easy this tank was to produce. the BT-2 was replaced in the assembly line by the BT-5 who was showing about the same performance but carried a T-26 turret with a stronger 45mm gun. this made the BT-2 seem less capable of fighting another tank but remained a pretty capable tank.

3 versions of the BT-2 were built which were different in their turret


1 - single 37mm gun
2- 37mm plue DT machine-gun
3 - twin DT plus additional DT on the side because reloading is too long

as I do not think all 3 versions would be needed, even more so since the one with only LGM would be useless, I would suggest having the one with the 37mm and the DT only (the turret in the middle) because the DT machine-gun could work, it was capable to aim forward. the ball mount was capable to give a independent aiming from the gun and will allow the machine-gun to track fast targets more easily

Despite being a poorer version of the BT-5, the BT-2 remains a pretty decent tank. The BT-5 is a bit too good for reserve, you can realize it when comparing the BT-5 with the BT-7 and BT-7M which aren’t much different but are at a completely other BR. The BT-2 is offering a more competitive performance over the vehicles of other nations which would make it a better choice as a reserve. the weaker armament would be more forgiving for the enemy tank while remaining capable of dealing a lot of damage. the mobility would remain pretty good which is what makes the BT-5 so appreciated. For those reasons, I would like to see the BT-2 become reserve tanks.


the main armament was the 37mm B-3 (5-k), which was the tank version of the 37mm 1930 (1-K). despite being a smaller caliber, this gun remains a pretty decent tank gun for the low rank. capable of good velocity, the penetration would be just a bit closer to the average reserve gun in the game. the gun is stabilized by the shoulder to allow an easier aim. The penetration damage would also be reduced. but the fire rate remains the same. the tank would be capable of getting 50-35mm of penetration with APHE at combat distance. which means there is the little tank that this gun amount of every vehicle could not penetrate from rank 1 in every tree. the turret was also armed with a 7.62mm DT machine gun placed on the right side in a ball mount that is capable of aiming at least parallel to the 37mm gun.

the mobility of this tank was the main feature and his main purpose. but the tank is not as fast as people might expect. the top speed on the track reached 72 km/h due to the limitation of the transmission. on wheels, it could reach 100 km/h. the tank however is powered by a 350 hp M-5 engine which is a copy of the Liberty L-12 engine. weighting 11 tonnes, it would make the tank have an outstanding 31.82 hp/t which would make the acceleration quite fast. the gearbox giving 4 forward speeds and 1 backward speed would make this tank have mobility at the same level as the BT-5. this would make this tank pretty much a speedy one despite the top speed being nothing outstanding.

the tank protection is nothing exceptional. The hull is identical to the BT-5, only the turret change. this makes the tank comparable to the BT-5 in suitability. most of the anti-tank weapons, even the weaker ones will penetrate the armor. the nose remains fairly hard to penetrate due to the sloped armor and the thick joint plate. but this protection remains minimal. the crew of 3 men is rather small and pretty close to each other. this tank would often die as soon it got it.



BT-2 can replace BT5 as a more BALANCED reserve tank. BT-5 is one of the best reserves.


Also I would rather have the no MG turret, the off-setted mg will not be useful and it is triggering me, I do NOT like the manner it is placed.

BT-5 is at 1.0
the BT-7 has slightly worse mobility and is at 1.3
the BT-7M is having a bit better mobility and is a 2.0

all 3 tanks share the same ammo and almost the same armor. the difference in BR is mostly explained by the difference in skill of used when they get them
the BT-5 is a starting vehicle and a good share of the players who play it have no skill at all
the BT-7 is still early but the players have started to have a bit of skill
the BT-7M is still early but you probably already got familiar with the BT-5 and BT-7 by the time you get it

but they are essentially all alike in all aspects
no wonder you still see some BT-7 at rank 4 battles once in a while. those tanks are still capable of doing a frag once in a while and they are capable of outspending some MBT in certain occasions.

The BT-2 keeps the same protection and mobility but gives away the firepower to retain something that would just be capable of doing a minimum of acceptable damage. the gun remains better than the 37mm SA38 to me which is the first potent gun France has.


yeah, it looks annoying, but the LMG can eat some hits. I would keep it even if it can’t be used

I need to check but I believe it is mounted in a ball mount who can also turn left and right. maybe it can turn enough to be parallel to the 37mm

In that case, mg would be useful.

Higher top speed of 72 km/h would be welcome for higher tier battles.

1 Like

OR you can come to the conclusion that BT-7s are too high with the BR especially since the only difference is a slightly better mobility…
I mean comparing BT-5 with m8 LAC - LAC is pretty much better, comparing with Cruiser - practically the same tech, comparing with Stuarts - maybe a bit better but does not have stabs… Its pretty balanced at that point.

should i remind that 37mm at Stuarts does ~80mm of penetration with AP shots? As british 40mils?

This and a pre-war Pz II would make a good 1.0 team.

Pz II C and F moved from 1.0 to 1.3 and 1.7 and a lot of 1.0 tanks are just similiar effective and shouldn’t be 1.0.

Would be nice, if the US and GB also had some worse 1.0 vehicles because theirs are one of the best.


i would if it was not for the BT-5 faring well at the 2.0

the M8 LAC is another unbalanced vehicle. it’s not really the best reference

1 Like

I mean… 2.0 is pretty unbalanced to its guts. The Pz38T stands 2.0 without any proper reason, the M3 Lee is just one step further. Ect ect. I’ll just point out that 2.0 is M3A3 Stuart which is 100% better than BT-5 and/or BT-7, its the Crusader which is also much better, ect ect.
The BT is obviously better than H35 or the T-26, byt i doubt it is good enough to be higher than Cruisers and M13s.

If half of vehicles are unbalanced…

Some examples of unfairness:


The 38T has less penetration, worse mobility, than:
the Stuart also has better armor (it may be a little less thicc but whistands more, plus totally better armored turret)
and then there is that guy:
with anormously good cannon for its rank
and that guy:
with good armor, cannon and decent mobility

I mean, its not that BT-5s much better than reserve m2 stuarts, the A13s, the M8, the Strv31s, tho its better than Pz35s, H35s (id prefer using the BT over something armoured Hotchkiss), the L3/33s, the Ha-Go`s (tho they are pretty decent i think). Id prefer that those got a decent tanks than cutting good tanks into less playable ones.


What are these little things in front of them? It also looks like it has tracks

looks like czhech TKSes:


1 Like

BT-5 and 7 are indeed much better than any other tanks on their BR. This would certainly be an improvement. Some very also captured by Finnish, but they weren’t used.

+1. It would make reserve tier more enjoyable for players of other nations.


apparently the BT-5 also had the ability to use wheels instead of tracks would like to see it as a modification or a setting in the pre game menu

thos are T-27 tankette

1 Like

They’re still AP shells with no explosive filler, meaning much less damage than the soviet 45 mm.


So then, if you look at the 37mm BT-2 cannon, there is said that the AP shots there pen 40 and 45mm. For example, APHEs for the QF-2pdr - the Cruiser tank canon - do 50+mm of penetration, and the APs there do 80. Meaning that this cannon is obiously MUCH LESS powerful.

Compared to the A13 Cruiser, the Bt-2 features a much higher top speed (72 km/h vs 48 km/h), and higher hp/t (31,82 vs 24,6), meaning it’s significantly more mobile.
Other than that, it’s also smaller, making it a harder target to hit.
The 37 mm of the Bt-2 is enough to pen almost all 1.0-1.3 tanks with no problem.
The only exception are some of the french tanks, like the H.39, R.35, D.2 and S.35. Still, the AP shell would be able to pen them.