Jump to content


Know Your Steel: KV-1


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

Mantelman #21 Posted 06 November 2013 - 06:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostGremlin182, on 06 November 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

The 88 mm Flak gun was widely used in the AT role throughout the war and most AA units would have had a certain number of AP shells just in case.

In much the same way the British 25 pounder field gun carries Ap rounds and was also used in emergencies in the AT role.

In the case of the 88 mm flak gun it was determined quite early in its development that the  things that made it an excellent AA gun also made it a great AT gun ie high muzzel velocity.
You need it to hit a high flying fast moving aircraft and to penetrate armour.

That said The soviets had 3000 T34s and 1500 KV1s in 1941 against that the Germans had 2600 PZII PZIV and StugIIIs
The other tanks PZIIs and so on would have had zero chance against a KV, at least a 37mm 50mm or short 75mm had some chance.
Bad tactics bad command structure and the at the time excellent Luftwaffe beat the Soviet army in 1941..

But in the inital part of Barbarossa the german armored colums cut fast and deep, that was only possible because they let theire supporting units far behind, so the mighty 8.8cm gun coulnd´t support the armored troops in AT-roles.
The Panzerkampfwagen 35 and 38(t), Pzkw III (with 3,7cm and short 5cm), IV (only with short 7,5cm) and the StugIII (7,5cm) couldn´t penetrate a KV-1. The 5cm Pak38 were rare at this time and the 7,5cm Pak40 appeared at the end of 1941.

And the MOST AA-Units stood in the Reich and didn´t have AP-Ammo.

EGF_Classic #22 Posted 06 November 2013 - 06:32 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 9997 battles
  • 96
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
A worthy +1 from me to the OP

Nice little read, not too demanding for a short break at work with a cup of tea and not bogged down with stats

Gremlin182 #23 Posted 06 November 2013 - 07:17 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 58681 battles
  • 9,627
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

View PostMantelman, on 06 November 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

But in the inital part of Barbarossa the german armored colums cut fast and deep, that was only possible because they let theire supporting units far behind, so the mighty 8.8cm gun coulnd´t support the armored troops in AT-roles.
The Panzerkampfwagen 35 and 38(t), Pzkw III (with 3,7cm and short 5cm), IV (only with short 7,5cm) and the StugIII (7,5cm) couldn´t penetrate a KV-1. The 5cm Pak38 were rare at this time and the 7,5cm Pak40 appeared at the end of 1941.

And the MOST AA-Units stood in the Reich and didn´t have AP-Ammo.

Agree wholeheartedly

piritskenyer #24 Posted 06 November 2013 - 08:25 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 10964 battles
  • 1,383
  • [SCRUB] SCRUB
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View PostSteffenximus, on 06 November 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Oh really ? Have you heard of something called 8.8cm FlaK guns ? Or the 5cm L60 gun ? I won't even mention the mighty L43 and L48 guns. You don't really believe that germans had problems killing this thing IRL, do you ? KV-1 was an inferior tank to T-34, in all regards, just like IS-2 was inferior to T-34/85.
I smell propaganda all over this post.

View PostAngryBanana, on 06 November 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

So? I was aware of that but it still doesnt make it an AT gun.
The 8.8cm FlaK 36 debuted in the AT role as early as 1940, in France, where the B1 (yes, the B1) and the Matilda proved inpenetrable by German mounted tank weaponry and by dedicated AT guns such as the 37mm PaK36 and KwK36 (note: not to be confused with the 88mm KwK36), the 50mm PaK38 and KwK39 (L/60) (although these two could penetrate the Tilly and the B1 at close range with APCR), and the 75mm KwK37, which had a barrel length of 24 calibres (L/24) and was primarily an infantry support weapon. At the time of the invasion of France the only organised armoured counterattacks were stoped only because of the presence of the AA detachments firing at the tanks.
Now imagine if those two tanks (B1 and Tilly) were able to defeat the armour-piercing capabilities of the guns listed above, what was the KV-1 able to withstand?
One more note Steffenximus: Comparing the KV-1 and the T-34 then the IS-2 and the T-34/85 and saying that one is superior to the other is just stupid. It's like comparing a Spitfire and a B-17 and saying a Spitfire is better. Sure, the Spitfire is a nicer plane to fly and is more maneuvrable than a B-17, but if we are down on sheer numbers, a B-17 is for example much more heavily armed. Also, it was designed for an entirely different purpose: one is a fighter/interceptor the other one is a Strategic bomber.
Likewise: a T-34 is more maneuvrable and faster than a KV-1, but a KV-1 is better armoured and will withstand a lot more fire than a T-34. An IS-2 isn't any worse than a T-34/85, it is just different. Different tanks for different tasks: one is a medium tank that is supposed to exploit breakthroughs by getting in fast and wreaking havoc wherever it goes, the other one is designed to break through the lines and to withstand everything but the heaviest AT fire rained upon it.
Also your timeframe is off, so you mixing in the L/43 and L/48 KwK40 is like saying the Centurion was better than the Tiger because the Cent had a 20 pounder, so the impenetrable Tiger tank is just a legend. Check your facts and timeframes next time you post.

Edited by piritskenyer, 06 November 2013 - 08:26 PM.


GoldMountain #25 Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:19 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 20209 battles
  • 2,337
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
What the the devil is an "S-2"

TheKroo #26 Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:40 PM

    Product Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 10293 battles
  • 5,657
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    08-24-2010

View PostCelestia, on 06 November 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

What the the devil is an "S-2"
Czech Š-II vehicles.
Soviets intended to try them out and "borrow" some of the good ideas and solutions on them.
-fixed the article line to be more accurate.

Marlekin #27 Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 33483 battles
  • 4,123
  • Member since:
    11-10-2010
Thanks WG staff,
This was a nice read. Too bad more of KV tank exploits arent that much documented. Most webbies quickly move over to the KV being too slow for quick manouvering warfare, and being replaced by the IS tank.

View Postpiritskenyer, on 06 November 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

One more note Steffenximus:

I wouldnt bother too much with Steffen, he is one of those posters who solely aims at grabbing as much negreps as possible at most posts he makes. Too bad he will probably not be taken seriously when he is trying to make a point, however.

TheKroo #28 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:00 PM

    Product Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 10293 battles
  • 5,657
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    08-24-2010

View PostMantelman, on 06 November 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

But in the inital part of Barbarossa the german armored colums cut fast and deep, that was only possible because they let theire supporting units far behind, so the mighty 8.8cm gun coulnd´t support the armored troops in AT-roles.
The Panzerkampfwagen 35 and 38(t), Pzkw III (with 3,7cm and short 5cm), IV (only with short 7,5cm) and the StugIII (7,5cm) couldn´t penetrate a KV-1. The 5cm Pak38 were rare at this time and the 7,5cm Pak40 appeared at the end of 1941.

And the MOST AA-Units stood in the Reich and didn´t have AP-Ammo.

It is nice to see so many nicely argumented posts here :)

Steffenximus #29 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:13 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 10920 battles
  • 2,134
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostHunter1911, on 06 November 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

KV was produced from 1939–43. Please do note that 8.8cm gun was first used on a tank after 1942, i.e. after the appearance of Tiger series.
And please note that I said 8.8cm FlaK gun, not 8.8cm KwK, meaning the anti-aircraft guns which turned out to be extremely effective against tanks. You didn't say anything about the 5cm L60, did you ? That gun was effective against KV-1, but it had problems against T-34, so as I said, KV-1 was inferior to T-34. And I know better than you when each gun was introduced into the war.

JoonKaboon #30 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12298 battles
  • 152
  • Member since:
    12-21-2011

View Postpiritskenyer, on 06 November 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

One more note Steffenximus: Comparing the KV-1 and the T-34 then the IS-2 and the T-34/85 and saying that one is superior to the other is just stupid. It's like comparing a Spitfire and a B-17 and saying a Spitfire is better. Sure, the Spitfire is a nicer plane to fly and is more maneuvrable than a B-17, but if we are down on sheer numbers, a B-17 is for example much more heavily armed. Also, it was designed for an entirely different purpose: one is a fighter/interceptor the other one is a Strategic bomber.
Likewise: a T-34 is more maneuvrable and faster than a KV-1, but a KV-1 is better armoured and will withstand a lot more fire than a T-34. An IS-2 isn't any worse than a T-34/85, it is just different. Different tanks for different tasks: one is a medium tank that is supposed to exploit breakthroughs by getting in fast and wreaking havoc wherever it goes, the other one is designed to break through the lines and to withstand everything but the heaviest AT fire rained upon it.
Also your timeframe is off, so you mixing in the L/43 and L/48 KwK40 is like saying the Centurion was better than the Tiger because the Cent had a 20 pounder, so the impenetrable Tiger tank is just a legend. Check your facts and timeframes next time you post.

Although the tanks were designed differently, they can be compared in combat effectiveness. In WWII it was determined that heavy tanks arent actually that usefull, due to their lack of mobility. Allthough their armour is good, it can always be defeated by numbers, since less heavy/complex tanks are easier and faster too build + relocate.
Also, the JS-2 was actually designed as a bunker buster (therefore the 122 mm gun was installed; bigger HE explosion).

Steffenximus #31 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:16 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 10920 battles
  • 2,134
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostMarlekin, on 06 November 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

I wouldnt bother too much with Steffen, he is one of those posters who solely aims at grabbing as much negreps as possible at most posts he makes. Too bad he will probably not be taken seriously when he is trying to make a point, however.
If you took your time, let me clue you onto things. The fact is most people are of less than average intelligence and since I'm smart I'm mostly misunderstood - take a look at all my posts, you'll notice that everything I say is 100% accurate and even though it might hurt you it is the truth and if you can't handle the truth then go ahead neg rep I don't care.

Mantelman #32 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:23 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostHunter1911, on 06 November 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

It is nice to see so many nicely argumented posts here :)
I wrote my B.A.-Paper about the literature about the tiger-tank, some things I remember...

Edited by Mantelman, 06 November 2013 - 10:41 PM.


piritskenyer #33 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 10964 battles
  • 1,383
  • [SCRUB] SCRUB
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View PostSteffenximus, on 06 November 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

And please note that I said 8.8cm FlaK gun, not 8.8cm KwK, meaning the anti-aircraft guns which turned out to be extremely effective against tanks. You didn't say anything about the 5cm L60, did you ? That gun was effective against KV-1, but it had problems against T-34, so as I said, KV-1 was inferior to T-34. And I know better than you when each gun was introduced into the war.

Oh look, the know-it-all fights back... :sceptic:
Would you be so kind and point at evidence showing that the 5cm KwK39 L/60 was effective against KV-1's other than the lower side and rear armour (where they could penetrate a T-34 just as well)? Of course, frontally it had problems penetrating the T-34, but on a sidenote, it had problems penetrating the KV-1 frontally too...
Just FYI, he could have said 8.8cm KwK36, as the two had the same AP capabilites. No one ever questioned the effectiveness of that weapon system (FlaK36) against the KV-1, but as someone pointed out, at the time the 88mm guns were not vehicle-borne, and armoured coloumns often penetrated far beyond the reach of the AAA units, so in fact said AA guns were unable to help the units in combat.
Also, I'd like you to not make wild assumptions like the last sentence, as you don't know the man, and I don't know you, but what I DO know is that you sound like an angry, know-it-all child who should be put to bed urgently.

View PostJoonKaboon, on 06 November 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

Although the tanks were designed differently, they can be compared in combat effectiveness. In WWII it was determined that heavy tanks arent actually that usefull, due to their lack of mobility. Allthough their armour is good, it can always be defeated by numbers, since less heavy/complex tanks are easier and faster too build + relocate.
Also, the JS-2 was actually designed as a bunker buster (therefore the 122 mm gun was installed; bigger HE explosion).

Your point is true and valid, and I acknowledge that. But still try to picture a T-34/85 trying to blast holes into heavy defenses. Later of course the problems were resolved by the use of more powerful tank main guns and ammunition, but at the time you could either have a fast and in comparison lighter machine or a heavily armed, armoured but slower one.
(Yes, I do know about the reason for the 122mm gun's selection  :smile: )

JoonKaboon #34 Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:55 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12298 battles
  • 152
  • Member since:
    12-21-2011

View Postpiritskenyer, on 06 November 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Your point is true and valid, and I acknowledge that. But still try to picture a T-34/85 trying to blast holes into heavy defenses. Later of course the problems were resolved by the use of more powerful tank main guns and ammunition, but at the time you could either have a fast and in comparison lighter machine or a heavily armed, armoured but slower one.
(Yes, I do know about the reason for the 122mm gun's selection  :smile: )

Yes, heavy tanks definitely were better at blasting holes in heavy defenses xD
I guess in that time heavy tanks were still usefull. Note however that the T-34 had the exact same gun as the KV-1, which also explains why the T-34 outclassed the KV-1 so much.

Fuks36 #35 Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:29 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18086 battles
  • 21
  • [TOLLS] TOLLS
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011
I didnt have the time to read the whole post!
I just reaf the neg poast,KV 1s ren with  T34s and thouse thants were the battlefront line!
Everything reagarthing WoT is not important and those thanks,because THIS is a GAME!
AND WE DONT LIVE IN THE PAST!

piritskenyer #36 Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 10964 battles
  • 1,383
  • [SCRUB] SCRUB
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View PostJoonKaboon, on 06 November 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

Yes, heavy tanks definitely were better at blasting holes in heavy defenses xD
I guess in that time heavy tanks were still usefull. Note however that the T-34 had the exact same gun as the KV-1, which also explains why the T-34 outclassed the KV-1 so much.
I still don't think it outclassed it SO much. Sure, it was a very versatile machine, certainly up to par if not better at killing tanks, but I can hardly imagine a T-34 pulling off a stunt like what is described in the opening post...

View PostFuks36, on 06 November 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

I didnt have the time to read the whole post!
I just reaf the neg poast,KV 1s ren with  T34s and thouse thants were the battlefront line!
Everything reagarthing WoT is not important and those thanks,because THIS is a GAME!
AND WE DONT LIVE IN THE PAST!
I don't even...

Edited by piritskenyer, 06 November 2013 - 11:31 PM.


FadetoB1ack #37 Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24129 battles
  • 708
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011
Good read and overall a nice article!

AceFocus #38 Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:16 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17376 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012
Nice job tnx for this  :playing:

Rage_Oddball #39 Posted 07 November 2013 - 10:45 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 30892 battles
  • 241
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostSteffenximus, on 06 November 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Oh really ? Have you heard of something called 8.8cm FlaK guns ? Or the 5cm L60 gun ? I won't even mention the mighty L43 and L48 guns. You don't really believe that germans had problems killing this thing IRL, do you ? KV-1 was an inferior tank to T-34, in all regards, just like IS-2 was inferior to T-34/85.
I smell propaganda all over this post.

stupid much are we?

hamstor #40 Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15097 battles
  • 678
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012

View PostHunter1911, on 06 November 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

until it had depleted his double battle compliment of APCR shells (total of 220)

So... Kolobanov was one of those "gold ammo noobs"?  :tongue:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users