# KV?



## Lucky13 (Oct 20, 2013)

How good, or bad, was those KV tanks?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2013)

The KV series were actually formidable tanks that the early Panzer types had great difficulty in stopping. Unless the Germans could get a point-blank shot or land a hit to the rear, they were difficult to kill. The "88" was effective against it, however.

The T-34 pretty much stopped mass production of the KV series because it was comparible in performance, but cost less to produce.


----------



## silence (Oct 20, 2013)

He's right on. Here's a bit more detail, just for fun.

Think of them to T-34s kinda of as the Tiger was to the Panther (in terms of relative roles in the field), only with a lot more range and a much simpler build. There were three types: KV-1 with a 76.2mm gun, KV-2 with a 152mm howitzer (and a turret the size of a small cottage), and the KV-85 with a 85mm gun used as a stop-gap until the IS-II entered service.

They were tough nuts to crack for the Panzers; until the PzIVF2 and the Tiger and long-barrel 50mm and 75mm AT guns, arrived on the scene about all the Wehrmacht had that could efficiently knock them out were the 88, Stukas and Hs 129s, and - under the right conditions - tank-hunting infantry. The long barrel 50mm was also somewhat effective if it got flank or rear shots. Basically they were SOBs during Barbarossa and the first half of '42. Once the Wehrmacht had a decent number of long-barrel PzIVs into the field, the KV was pretty well done for.

Even with all its deficiencies, for some reason I've always kinda liked them.


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2013)

KV series heavy tanks were produced in Leningrad. German Army cut the rail lines to Leningrad during September 1941. Industry in that city ground to a halt as soon as stockpiled parts were used up.

KV production was reestablished at a new factory in Tankograd during 1942. However the heavy German Tiger tank showed up about that time and proved far superior to it's Soviet counterpart. Hence KV production continued but at a relatively low priority until finally replaced by Stalin series heavy tank during 1944.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 20, 2013)

Those KV-2's had such a high profile,... What a target!


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2013)

Poor mechanical reliability didn't help matters any. 

An immobile heavy tank was a magnet for every piece of heavy artillery within range. That applied to German Tiger tank as well as Soviet KV series.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2013)

davebender said:


> KV series heavy tanks were produced in Leningrad. German Army cut the rail lines to Leningrad during September 1941. Industry in that city ground to a halt as soon as stockpiled parts were used up.
> 
> KV production was reestablished at a new factory in Tankograd during 1942. However the heavy German Tiger tank showed up about that time and proved far superior to it's Soviet counterpart. Hence KV production continued but at a relatively low priority until finally replaced by Stalin series heavy tank during 1944.


The reality is, as the T-34's numbers increased on the battlefield AND as the newer German armor was arriving on the battlefield circa 1942, the importance of the KV series started fading.

The PzKfw II, III simply didn't have the range or barrel displacement to safely engage. The later, larger Panzers turned the tables on the KVs...the KV's armor wasn't as effective as the T-34's and had poor mobility. By 9142, they were already up-armoring the KV to try and protect it from the heavier German calibers that were being deployed.

In an attempt to match the T-34's performance, they released the KV-1S which had lighter armor and a smaller turret with expanded vision for the tank's commander.

And for the record, the KV tanks were produced at the Kirov plant in Lennongrad along with the T-34 and at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, located in Chelyabinsk which is located near the Ural mountains. The Chelyabinsk factory produced the T-34, T-34/85, KV, KV-85, JS and the SU-85


----------



## Mobius (Oct 21, 2013)

The T-34 didn't have as effective turret armor as the KV and could be taken out by hits there by most guns. Though it was a smaller target.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2013)

Mobius said:


> The T-34 didn't have as effective turret armor as the KV and could be taken out by hits there by most guns. Though it was a smaller target.


Not sure where that info comes from...it was considered one of the best armored tanks in the world unless you're referring to the earlier cast turret.

As the war progressed, the Germans made great efforts to counter the T-34 with larger weapons and heavier tanks.

But the T-34 was a medium battle tank, the KV was a heavy. This would be like comparing the Sherman to a Patton or a PzKfw IV to a Tiger


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 21, 2013)

Surprised that they didn't produced more KV-85's, 255? Was that due to the arrival of the IS?


----------



## Mobius (Oct 21, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure where that info comes from...it was considered one of the best armored tanks in the world unless you're referring to the earlier cast turret.


It comes from analyzing the turret armor either rolled or cast. If was considered that because of the front hull comparison to other tanks. The best is a myth.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

The KV actually had a lot of similarities to the Tiger. 

Once one the battlefield it's thick armor mad it difficult to destroy and in the early years it's gun was one of the more powerful on the battlefield. 

But like the Tiger in had mobility problems, both in reaching the battlefield and once on the battlefield. It's weight meant it could not use bridges the T-34 could and it had no snorkel system. It used the same engine as the T-34 so mobility was lower even if it's transmission worked correctly, which it often did not. KV drivers were also issued mallets for shifting. Shifting was so difficult that drivers often used only only a few gears out of the 5 available further limiting performance. Blowing a shift could mean bringing the vehicle to a halt and starting from zero speed again, not good under fire. The steering system was of the "clutch and brake" type and while suitable for light tanks it left a lot to be desired on 45-56 ton tanks. 

Just like the Tiger, more were lost trying to retreat than in actual combat.

examples from the Battlefield.ru website. 

the 10th Tank Division, 15th Mechanised Corps, lost 56 of the 63 KV tanks it had on hand. Of these, 11 had been lost in combat, 11 went missing and 34 were abandoned by their crews due to mechanical breakdowns. 
In the 8th Tank Division, 43 out of 50 KVs were lost – 13 were knocked out, 2 became stuck in a swamp, and 28 were abandoned or destroyed by their crews due to mechanical failure.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 21, 2013)

In the early years, the KV-1 had the same gun as the T-34 > 76.2mm F-34.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

In 1941 nobody had a more powerful gun in any numbers (over 5-6?) IN a tank.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2013)

Milosh said:


> In *the early years*, the KV-1 had the same gun as the T-34 > 76.2mm F-34.


And the Germans didn't...


----------



## silence (Oct 21, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> Surprised that they didn't produced more KV-85's, 255? Was that due to the arrival of the IS?



Yep.; The KV-85 was a stop-gap while the IS-II production was getting going.

I actually like the KV-85 better: I don't like that the IS-II only carries 22-28 rounds and this ammo was two-piece. Compare this to the Tiger, which as-manufactured carried 92 and with in-field clips added could actually carry like 120. I also don't like the small, cramped interior that seems to have become vogue - at least for a few years - for Russian tanks. IIRC the T-54/55 crew height limits was a max of 5'6".


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

silence said:


> I also don't like the small, cramped interior that seems to have become vogue - at least for a few years - for Russian tanks.



More like decades. 

While the 122mm had armor penetration it wasn't much, if any, better in point blank range, than the 85mm. It had a lower rate of fire and the low ammo storage already mentioned. 

It also hits up against designing to averages. Somebody will point out that the '_average_' tank only fired XX rounds before being knocked out while forgetting that for each knocked out after firing 1 or 2 shots (or none) another tank had fire just about 2 times XX to get the average up.


----------



## Juha (Oct 21, 2013)

Now the main use of JS tanks was to blow up machine gun nets and open way to the infantry and in that 122mm gun was better than 85mm, 88mm or 75mm. Soviets had considered also 100mm cannon for JS series but because of possible lack of tubes and/or ammo decided fror 122mm gun because there were plenty of 122mm tube and ammo production and significant amounts in stocks.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

Russian tanks usually carried a high proportion of HE shells which makes the small ammo capacity a much bigger concern in tank duels. However tank duels were not actually that common. 
The problem from the tankers view point is that while performing infantry support (or attack on infantry positions) running out of HE usually doesn't mean destruction of the tank. Running out of AP ammo in a tank duel really means it is time to find reverse in the transmission. 

From the commanding Generals view point he wants more HE so the tanks can act like force multipliers and shoot the infantry onto their objectives which AP ammo isn't very good at.


----------



## davebender (Oct 22, 2013)

That's to be expected. Allied propaganda aside, WWII German did not have many tanks to shoot at.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> Allied propaganda aside, WWII German did not have many tanks to shoot at.


Really?

BT-2: 650
BT-5: 1,884
BT-7: 5,556
IS-2: 3,854
IS-3: 350
IS-4: 250
ISU-122/152: 4,075
KV-1: 3,015
KV-1S: 1,232
KV-2: 334
KV-8: 137
KV-13: 3
KV-85: 130
SU-76: 12,045
SU-76i: 201
SU-85: 2,050
SU-100: 1,675
SU-122: 1,148
SU-152: 704
T-26: 1,717
T-28: 12
T-34: 34,780
T-34/85: 22,559
T-40: 709
T-44: 200
T-50: 63
T-60: 5,920
T-70: 8,231
ZiS-30: 101

And so you figure the Germans had difficulty in finding roughly 113,585 Soviet tanks?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> That's to be expected. Allied propaganda aside, WWII German did not have many tanks to shoot at.



When Germany invaded the USSR, the Soviets had ~28,000 AFVs. In Dec this was down to just under 5000 but rose every year from then on when in jan 1945 the Soviets had 16-17,000 AFVs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> And so you figure the Germans had difficulty in finding roughly 113,585 Soviet tanks?



Most of them broke down/ran out of fuel? 

By mid-war the German tanks were becoming more of an anti-tank force, fire brigades to be rushed in to stop Allied advances, usually supported by,_surprise_, allied tanks.


----------



## pattle (Oct 22, 2013)

The KV-1 tank on display at Bovington tank museum has always been one of my favourites as I have always thought the KV-1 was a design that needed to exist before anything better could be achieved. While not being right in many ways the KV-1 was a step forward that needed to be taken to find the answer to the question of what a modern tank should be like. From what I can remember reading of the Bovington KV-1's history it was brought to Britain to be evaluated and it is a shame the British did not learn a lot more from it like they should have done.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Most of them broke down/ran out of fuel?


There's a rumor out there that a fair number of those Soviet tanks developed holes in them...

Tanks are no good with holes in them


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

It was sent to England in 1943. 
Design work started on the Centurion in 1943, it started on the Comet even earlier.

What should the British have learned from the KV in 1943?


----------



## Mobius (Oct 22, 2013)

November 1943.


----------



## pattle (Oct 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It was sent to England in 1943.
> Design work started on the Centurion in 1943, it started on the Comet even earlier.
> 
> What should the British have learned from the KV in 1943?



I was only talking from memory and for some reason I assumed the British received this KV-1 before the end of 1943, I probably made this assumption as November 1943 was really to late to learn a lot from it, which probably explains why the Russians agreed to send the thing over.
You have to remember that lack of a decent tank in World War Two is a major source of regret and annoyance to us British. Just look at what the Russians and Germans were building by the time the Cromwell came out, yes the Cromwell had it's good points but it was not in the same league as the Panther or T34. The best tank the British had up until the Comet was the Sherman, and the Sherman was neither British nor a match for the German tanks, and this put the British tanks in a poor fourth place behind the Russian, German and American tanks. The Centurion was a world beater but not until after the early marks had been replaced.


----------



## Mobius (Oct 23, 2013)

I believe a T-34 and KV were sent to the US for examination at the end of 1942. I guess the Brits got theirs late.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2013)

Development was fast during WW II and what was state of the art in 1940 was well behind in 1943. 
There is a lot more to tanks than just the guns and armor thickness/slope. 
There Sherman was as good as any tank in the world when it _first_ came out but then the running gear ( engine, transmission, suspension/tracks) date back to the T5/M2 series of 1938 so most of the bugs were already worked out. The M3 was supposed to be a stop gap while they figured out the 75mm gun turret. 
The Sherman's gun got trumped by the long 75 in the MK IV but the MK IVs armor wasn't good enough to give it much immunity to the Sherman's gun at most practical ranges. 
The British had a decent start but then floundered for a while. The A13 C Cruiser MK IV was as good as anything in it's time but for some reason the program got derailed with the Covenanter then it was a mad scramble to keep up. Running dual programs (cruiser and Infantry) didn't help. 

The KV wasn't really 'progressive', it was BIG but it was crude, It may have been what the Russians could produce but it's 'systems' (transmission, steering, vision, communications, etc) were no better and in some cases worse than others.


----------



## pattle (Oct 23, 2013)

As a side note, the first Tiger tank captured by the Western Allies was captured in April 1943 after being damaged by a Churchill tank in North Africa. So thinking back on it I don't think there was anything much to be learnt from a KV-1 that couldn't be learnt from the Tiger. 
This very same Tiger tank is now on display at Bovington Tank Museum and is the only one in the world that is in running order, videos are on youtube if anyone is interested. It may well be the case that the collections KV-1 is also in running order as a surprisingly large number of the tanks at Bovington are.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2013)

Anglo-Americans were in position to learn something from KV maybe 18-20 months before the Tiger was captured. Applying any lesson from the Tiger would be too late for the ww2 to matter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Applying any lesson from the Tiger would be too late for the ww2 to matter.


Perhaps too late to apply technology but never too late to learn how to defeat it.


----------



## Mobius (Oct 23, 2013)

They probably could learn that tanks need not be over-engineered to be effective.


----------



## pattle (Oct 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Anglo-Americans were in position to learn something from KV maybe 18-20 months before the Tiger was captured. Applying any lesson from the Tiger would be too late for the ww2 to matter.


The Tiger was already a little old fashioned in not having sloping armour and it would take longer than a year to put a design based on the Tiger into production but there were still lessons to be learnt from this powerful machine, which is why it's capture was considered to be of such great importance in 1943.


----------



## Juha (Oct 23, 2013)

IMHO Cromwell wasn't a bad tank and the original idea was even better. It was originally thought that it could be armed with Vickers 75mm HV gun, which had adequate armour piercing capacity and some 3 - 4 guns were made but then it was found that the new gun didn't after all fit into Cromwell's turret, so they had to rely on 6pdr rebored to 75mm and using the US 75mm ammo.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2013)

They had to rely on the US ammo for HE requirements. The 6pdr was better at punching holes in armor. 
The Cromwell also used a transmission and steering gear related to the one used in the Churchill tank which gave a different turning radius for each gear in the gear box. It also allowed pivot turns.


----------



## Juha (Oct 24, 2013)

The beauty of Vickers 75mm HV L/50 would have been that it would have used US 75mm shells with more powerful catridge. So it would have the HE power of US 75mm gun but armour penetration that of US 76mm, i.e. a bit better than 6pdr. But as said the gun didn't fit and as the normandy experience showed, tje penetration power of US 76mm wasn't so special against Panthers and Tigers, so there was need for 17pdr tank gun or at least the developement of 75mm HV namely 77mm gun later used in Comet.

Juha


----------



## pattle (Oct 24, 2013)

That's right the Cromwell was not a bad tank as such, it had a decent gun and was fast but the armour was light and not angled. The Cromwell was a match for the PZIV but no match for the Panther or Tiger and was vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, to put it politely the Cromwell was not what it's crews were hoping for. I remember watching a video of the post war Berlin victory parade and have read that the Western Allies were most unnerved when they saw their own tanks next to the Russian monsters, the KV-1 taught the Russians a lot and was a step that needed to be taken to show them the road ahead.


----------



## vinnye (Oct 24, 2013)

I like the Cromwell, but it could and should have been better.
If the Russians had been a bit more forthcoming with their T34 development - maybe Cromwell could have had sloped armour?
The Russians had began experimenting with sloped armour just before the onset of WW2.
However, it is probably the case the the Russians were not sure who was likely to be its probable enemy in the future - so maybe kept its cards close to its chest?

I liked the KV - it had its limitations - in speed and mobility, but was a step that enables later Russian tanks to improve.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2013)

The KV was a step forward from the T-28 and T-35 multi-turret tanks and the SMK and T-100. But there was little that really revolutionary about it. It was _practical_ in the sense that it met the requirements ( carry 76mm cannon with "shell proof" armor) without excess gadgetry, like multiple turrets, and could be made in numbers. In that sense it was one of the first practical heavy tanks even if not very good compared to tanks just a few years newer.


----------



## Juha (Oct 24, 2013)

The sloped armour in itself wasn't new idea, look e.g. the nose of the BT series tanks, especially that of BT-7, or even turret sides of A13 Mk II (Cruiser Mk IV) but the fact that it was utilised around the tank.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Perhaps too late to apply technology but never too late to learn how to defeat it.



The British were start producing the 17pdr AT gun before Tiger was encountered, but Tiger probably encouraged the British to persist with development introduction of the APDS for 6pdr and 17pdr?



Mobius said:


> They probably could learn that tanks need not be over-engineered to be effective.



British designed Tortoise, USA went for T-28 never the less.



pattle said:


> The Tiger was already a little old fashioned in not having sloping armour and it would take longer than a year to put a design based on the Tiger into production but there were still lessons to be learnt from this powerful machine, which is why it's capture was considered to be of such great importance in 1943.



Not sure what there is from Tiger to learn in 1943? As you said, it was little old fashioned, the drive train was opposite from British practice (both current an future), US were developing the Pershing that was ofering the same capabilities at 3/4s of weight and bulk, the suspension was never used in anything (bar prototypes) in the West. Even the Germans themselves tailored the Tiger II to look as Big Panther.


----------



## vinnye (Oct 24, 2013)

The Tiger II, was a step too far - its engine and transmission were far too stressed by the enormous weight of the tank.
I like the look of it - a big Panther indeed!
But it was still over engineered and too complicated to be easily mass produced.
But if you were very unlucky and came across one in the field, you would probably need a change of underpants!
I have been to Bovington museum and stood near to the Tiger I, JagdTiger, and Tiger II which were all absolutely awesome!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mobius (Oct 25, 2013)

Armor scheme of KV-1 Model 1941.


----------



## vinnye (Oct 27, 2013)

Some photos for you all to enjoy ; Tiger and variants
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET075.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET076.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET073.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET063.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET059.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET044.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Bovington German/DORSET039.jpg


----------



## vinnye (Oct 27, 2013)

Some Russian stuff ;
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Tanks/DORSET038.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Tanks/DORSET074.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/Tanks/DORSET089.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/IWMLondon/DSCF0020.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z85/vinenglish/IWMLondon/DSCF0032.jpg


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 25, 2016)

Never passed the prototype stage....











..and....


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 28, 2016)




----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 28, 2016)

Very cool!


----------



## Wurger (Sep 28, 2016)




----------



## fubar57 (Sep 28, 2016)

You like......................?


----------

