Jump to content


Know Your Steel: KV-1


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

TheKroo #41 Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:44 AM

    Product Manager

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

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.

I no way have I disputed the effectiveness of the 8.8cm FlaK gun versus certain tank vehicles.
I was referring to the fact that no vehicle mounted German guns of the initial war period were able to reliably penetrate the KV-1 series.
88mm was vehicle born only after the appearance of 88mm KwK gun.

I would not say that the 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 was able to reliably penetrate a KV.
5 cm Pak 38 (L/60) is another story. But even it had some issues with KV-1. While it was rather OK versus T-34.


View PostSteffenximus, on 06 November 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

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.

We are all gentlemen, let us keep the discussion at level :)

View PostMantelman, on 06 November 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

I wrote my B.A.-Paper about the literature about the tiger-tank, some things I remember...

If the paper is in English and you are willing to show it I would very much like to see it.

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!

Past should not limit us. But we should learn from history.
Especially interesting informations like those about tank.

The historical background of things is very important for us to make our tanks as accurate as possible and to transfer you the maximum experience.

View Posthamstor, on 07 November 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

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

haxor!

:P

pilotknox12 #42 Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5878 battles
  • 508
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012
did the forum freeze up again :unsure:

TheKroo #43 Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:28 PM

    Product Manager

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

View Postpilotknox12, on 07 November 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

did the forum freeze up again :unsure:

Seems to work for me.
What is the issue?

piritskenyer #44 Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

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

View PostSteffenximus, on 06 November 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

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.

Did you really just write that? I mean really?
"The fact is most people are of less than average intelligence and since I'm smart"
Let me make one broad generalisation now myself: most people who say things like this are the guys with below average intelligence... But then again, this is the interwebz, you say whatever you want...

Tuccy #45 Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:36 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Regarding 8.8cm FlaK, I am afraid it is surrounded by a lot of myths. It was not the all-killing, all-penetrating machine of death that is often presented in popular literature and in the "KV and T-34 crisis" of 1941, it often stole thunder from more mundane 10.5cm light howitzers firing AP and HEAT, or even 10.5cm field guns. Similar to Tiger/Panther, it acquired an iconic status and subsequently any "big" AT gun would be referred to as 88 in after action reports. After all it is even easier to blame failure to advance on enemy "superweapon"...

For antitak role, 8.8cm FlaK had a great advantage of being an accurate gun with pretty high muzzle velocity and heavy shell, that would overmatch thin armor (like T-34 glacis) and thus suffer less from slope effects. However it came with several drawbacks that proved themselves both in Russia and in Africa:
1. Ammunition. FlaK units (and army AT units hastily equipped with 88mm guns) did not use the APCBCHE PzGr.39 Tiger did (for most of its career), but originally naval APCBCHE PzGr. This shell contained more HE than PzGr. 39 - so it had significantly bigger post-penetration effect, however it was fragile, tended to deform and shatter. Great for bunker-busting, not so much for anti-tank combat. Even without this, it had less penetration than PzGr.39, roughly on par with 7.5cm PaK. Throughout the war, FlaK units used this shell, PzGr.39 was reserved for units that really needed it (heavy tanks, anti-tank specialist units). This shell was used even by high velocity 88mm guns for some time in 1943. Versus KV with ratehr thick (compared to caliber) and hard armor this shell often had issues.
2. Size. 88mm gun was huge, tall and hard to camouflage. Despite all the hype, this was reason why often in Africa significantly weaker 5cm PaK was preferred, as it can hide in the mirage )effectively masking at range anything lower than 1m over terrain), where 88mm stood like a sore thumb. Same way on the Eastern front, 5cm PaK or 10.5cm leFH can hide much easier and prepare ambush for the heavy tanks.

Both these factors limited the usefulness of 88mm guns in "KV busting". With 5cm and 10.5cm weapons the issue was, of course, penetration and effective range. This does not mean KV's were immune to them ("immunity" is rather shaky concept) - but it means they were very tough target and a fearsome beast on 1941 battlefield indeed, especially in uparmored versions of production model 1941 (both welded and cast turrets). And that 88mm gun was not a panacea.

(one funny fact: KV armor protection was based generally on the same demands as Tiger I protection)

piritskenyer #46 Posted 07 November 2013 - 01:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

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

View PostTuccy, on 07 November 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Regarding 8.8cm FlaK, I am afraid it is surrounded by a lot of myths. It was not the all-killing, all-penetrating machine of death that is often presented in popular literature and in the "KV and T-34 crisis" of 1941, it often stole thunder from more mundane 10.5cm light howitzers firing AP and HEAT, or even 10.5cm field guns. Similar to Tiger/Panther, it acquired an iconic status and subsequently any "big" AT gun would be referred to as 88 in after action reports. After all it is even easier to blame failure to advance on enemy "superweapon"...

For antitak role, 8.8cm FlaK had a great advantage of being an accurate gun with pretty high muzzle velocity and heavy shell, that would overmatch thin armor (like T-34 glacis) and thus suffer less from slope effects. However it came with several drawbacks that proved themselves both in Russia and in Africa:
1. Ammunition. FlaK units (and army AT units hastily equipped with 88mm guns) did not use the APCBCHE PzGr.39 Tiger did (for most of its career), but originally naval APCBCHE PzGr. This shell contained more HE than PzGr. 39 - so it had significantly bigger post-penetration effect, however it was fragile, tended to deform and shatter. Great for bunker-busting, not so much for anti-tank combat. Even without this, it had less penetration than PzGr.39, roughly on par with 7.5cm PaK. Throughout the war, FlaK units used this shell, PzGr.39 was reserved for units that really needed it (heavy tanks, anti-tank specialist units). This shell was used even by high velocity 88mm guns for some time in 1943. Versus KV with ratehr thick (compared to caliber) and hard armor this shell often had issues.
2. Size. 88mm gun was huge, tall and hard to camouflage. Despite all the hype, this was reason why often in Africa significantly weaker 5cm PaK was preferred, as it can hide in the mirage )effectively masking at range anything lower than 1m over terrain), where 88mm stood like a sore thumb. Same way on the Eastern front, 5cm PaK or 10.5cm leFH can hide much easier and prepare ambush for the heavy tanks.

Both these factors limited the usefulness of 88mm guns in "KV busting". With 5cm and 10.5cm weapons the issue was, of course, penetration and effective range. This does not mean KV's were immune to them ("immunity" is rather shaky concept) - but it means they were very tough target and a fearsome beast on 1941 battlefield indeed, especially in uparmored versions of production model 1941 (both welded and cast turrets). And that 88mm gun was not a panacea.

(one funny fact: KV armor protection was based generally on the same demands as Tiger I protection)

Very well put! (Pity I ran out of rep)

TheKroo #47 Posted 07 November 2013 - 02:09 PM

    Product Manager

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

View Postpiritskenyer, on 07 November 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Very well put! (Pity I ran out of rep)

I will give him one +1 for ya :P

Mantelman #48 Posted 07 November 2013 - 02:44 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostHunter1911, on 07 November 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:


If the paper is in English and you are willing to show it I would very much like to see it.


When I get it back, I will overwork it and probatly I will make short extracts in german and english, but to translate 50 Pages is too much for me  :sad:

Tuccy #49 Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:12 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
One interesting thing re. KV is how the Soviets managed to get things wrong after getting things right :)
The T-28 and T-35 had already a "modern" turret crew layout - Commander, Gunner and Loader, with radio operator tucked away outside the turret. Thus they reached the "!golden standard" - actually in time when most countries had 1-2 men turret crew.
Surprisingly, though, KV-1 messed it up. While the turret crew was still 3, the roles were different. Gunner stayed, but Commander, apart from commanding the tank, also loaded the gun. No. 3 was "Assistant driver/mechanic" - weird function indeed, even weirder to have him in the turret, with generally one role - to fire rearwards machinegun. Not only he did not load the gun - he could not from his position - he had to move away from his seat when commander needed to load gun in combat, as he was getting into the way. Thus the nominally 5-man KV-1 often operated with a crew of 4 even before manpower shortages begun to show (first to go was the Assistand Driver / mechanic. Second was radio operator - in 1942/1943 KV-1 often operated with crews of only 3).
Based on these lessons, one of main changes in KV-1S in 1942 was redesigning the turret for a crew of 3 with normal functions (commander, gunner, loader), moving the commander behind gunner on the left side.

TheKroo #50 Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:37 PM

    Product Manager

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

View PostTuccy, on 07 November 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

One interesting thing re. KV is how the Soviets managed to get things wrong after getting things right :)
The T-28 and T-35 had already a "modern" turret crew layout - Commander, Gunner and Loader, with radio operator tucked away outside the turret. Thus they reached the "!golden standard" - actually in time when most countries had 1-2 men turret crew.
Surprisingly, though, KV-1 messed it up. While the turret crew was still 3, the roles were different. Gunner stayed, but Commander, apart from commanding the tank, also loaded the gun. No. 3 was "Assistant driver/mechanic" - weird function indeed, even weirder to have him in the turret, with generally one role - to fire rearwards machinegun. Not only he did not load the gun - he could not from his position - he had to move away from his seat when commander needed to load gun in combat, as he was getting into the way. Thus the nominally 5-man KV-1 often operated with a crew of 4 even before manpower shortages begun to show (first to go was the Assistand Driver / mechanic. Second was radio operator - in 1942/1943 KV-1 often operated with crews of only 3).
Based on these lessons, one of main changes in KV-1S in 1942 was redesigning the turret for a crew of 3 with normal functions (commander, gunner, loader), moving the commander behind gunner on the left side.

An example that we do not always learn from our past experiences...

pilotknox12 #51 Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5878 battles
  • 508
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostHunter1911, on 07 November 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

Seems to work for me.
What is the issue?
no its fine now, thx :smile:

TheKroo #52 Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:00 PM

    Product Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 10293 battles
  • 5,657
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    08-24-2010
I need to join Mister T. in these little tidbits.
Interesting fact is that early tanks such as PzI, T-26 and some British tanks had used clutch and brake steering. While the Czech and Japanese tanks were using geared steering as soon as 1930's.
The later was quickly popularized and spread into usage, while the Soviets had continued to use clutch and brake steering on their KV and T-34 series.

Joolz_theIRUD #53 Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:54 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27371 battles
  • 266
  • [IRUD] IRUD
  • Member since:
    07-07-2011
I love this!!!! Thanks man!   :smile:

Edited by Joolz, 07 November 2013 - 04:56 PM.


Richochet #54 Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:27 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8226 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
Nice article Hunter1911!
I hope to see more posts from you with this kind of topics.

WolvenworksEU #55 Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:49 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3700 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013
check the FTR blog

apparently there's a mini-explanation-thingy that the FTR guys realize abt the "Czech S-II".

TheKroo #56 Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:59 PM

    Product Manager

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

View PostWolvG, on 07 November 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

check the FTR blog
apparently there's a mini-explanation-thingy that the FTR guys realize abt the "Czech S-II".
Read it.
Agreed my statement about that matter was slightly confusingly worded. I have re-worded it thanks to the input of all of you :)

gasperzli #57 Posted 07 November 2013 - 09:17 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1761 battles
  • 1
  • [SITO] SITO
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013
very good

BioIdra #58 Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:15 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26389 battles
  • 495
  • [-ESC-] -ESC-
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
Very informative and interesting i always love historical articles, thank you.  :smile:

EdwardTeach #59 Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:46 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 18628 battles
  • 75
  • [MIFO] MIFO
  • Member since:
    03-04-2012

View PostHunter1911, on 07 November 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I no way have I disputed the effectiveness of the 8.8cm FlaK gun versus certain tank vehicles.
I was referring to the fact that no vehicle mounted German guns of the initial war period were able to reliably penetrate the KV-1 series.
88mm was vehicle born only after the appearance of 88mm KwK gun.




AFAIK The first 88 ( flak) where mounted on sdkfz 9 in 1940 to be used in an AT function.

TheKroo #60 Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:52 PM

    Product Manager

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

View PostEdwardTeach, on 08 November 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

AFAIK The first 88 ( flak) where mounted on sdkfz 9 in 1940 to be used in an AT function.

It was more of a delivery system rather than an actual anti tank vehicle.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users