Could’ve been to time consuming to try and cut armor to fit the mantlet while making room for thr sight to see out of? Most Finnish engineer record essentially cover a lot of topics like this with some “add on” armor just being BT chassis’ they destroyed and cut apart since the Fins hated the BT series.
Yeah, I heard the M17 consumes too much fuel for it to be viable for the Finns, theyd rather use the T-26
Yeah, its honestly pretty interesting to see the reasons behund small choices like this to me. Helps me see a better view of practically for these types of things
1 Like
Because it sounds like a good idea to me personally
Yes because Russia needs vehicles they never used nor need what a great idea. For future reference unless you have proof the soviets actually used the vehicle lets keep your fantasy wants out of discussion thank you.
I think I phrased myself wrong, what I meant to say was that the Soviet tech tree doesn’t get a new vehicle, instead the already existing t-50 is given a researchable upgrade for add-on armour, the Finnish tech tree however gets the armour pre-installed and counts as a seperate vehicle.
Again, there has never been evidence to suggest the Soviets had uparmored T-50’s so regardless of your phrasing, the fact that you suggest a fictional tank for Russia is insulting.
1 Like
isn’t it exaclty the armor the soviet t50 boasted before it’s nerf?
I dont remember its original armor, i don’t think it had that much armor but i could be wrong. Id need to dig though changlog stuff about it which would take a while.
4 years ago
my bad i was talking about the 126 with 55mm plates. The t–50 got nerfed from 40mm to 37mm.
its adorable and i want it please gib +1
Oh then i have no idea
Why do you still keep insisting that I’m talking about an entirely new vehicle? It’s literally the same vehicle with only a minor difference
Just an FYI - the Soviets did plan to increase armour to 55mm on the front, and had decided to do so before the 2nd group were made…
1 Like
I think you are mixing two different plans.
27.6.1941 “Red Army deemed it necessary to increase the armour”:
-50 mm front
-50 mm turret
-30 mm roof
“14.5 tons weight” - No mention if this is calculated or rough estimate.
30mm roof is heavy tank levels. It might not have been that big weight increase, if it only included fighting compartment roof.
15.9.1941 “GABTU KA requests that 5000 T-50 tanks be produced in 1942, with increased 55 mm front, rear, and side armour, and a planetary transmission.”"
The second one must have been multiple tons weighs increase, despite the vehicle’s small size. Even with new advanced gearbox and 350hp engine mentioned in other request, it would have likely been less mobile. Ground pressure and steering remained the same. The suspension, tracks and engine cooling had only reached satisfactory levels by mid 1941. This was during the time when KV-1 was getting unnecessarily heavy armor additions and different up-armoring plans for T-34 were also tested.
1 Like
Because the Soviets didn’t make the Niki nor did they have it. They had basic T50’s. Your suggestion is to give Russia a vehicle they have no ties to. It makes no sense and that fact you dont understand that baffles me. I’m just going to block you because you’re not smart enough to figure out why you’re ideas wont work nor why anyone is agreeing with you.
3 Likes
Stop the personal insults and stay on topic.
5 Likes
Thank you for your cleanup :)
Btw figured id ask some people here, anyone have some images of the different camos that the Niki was shown in? I keep finding multiple versions of winter esq camos and and slowly putting together a suggestion for Finnish winter camos so that we don’t have to use only the Swedish ones on our Finnish tanks.
The main camo I’ve seen for the Niki is a solid soviet green with white paint over the top, figured some camos were rushed if the vehicle needed to be pushed into combat as some photos have large sections missing paint.
3 Likes
I hope this makes up for our argument.
Though I don’t think it will be very helpful since you’ve probably already seen it before, in which case I’m sorry for not being helpful as well.