Tanks and trucks

Heavy Tanks Specifications

2009-11-06T00:00:00Z

AFV designation	AFV name	Weight, kg	Crew	Dimensions, m	Clearance, m	Armament	Ammunition	Speed		Obstacles					Ground pressure, kg/cm²	Max. range, km	Engine				Radio	Internal communic.
AFV designation	AFV name	Weight, kg	Crew	Dimensions, m	Clearance, m	Armament	Ammunition	On road, km/h	Off road¹, km/h	gradient, degr.	side gradient, degr.	trench, m	vertical wall, m	fording, m	Ground pressure, kg/cm²	Max. range, km	index	type	cylinders	power, hp	Radio	Internal communic.
T-35A	heavy tank	50 000	11	9.72x3.2x3.43	0.53	1 x 76.2 mm KT gun, 2 x 45 mm gun 20K model 1932/38, 2 x 7.62 mm DT TMG, 3 x 7.62 mm DT CMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	76.2 mm: 96, 7.62 mm: 10080	30	20	30°	15°	5	1.2	1.7	0.78	120	M-17T	petrol	12	500	71-TK-1 or 71-TK-3	TPU-7
KV-1	heavy tank	47 500	5	6.9x3.32x2.71	0.45	76.2 mm F-32 gun or 76.2 mm ZIS-5 gun, 1 x 7.62 mm DT CMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	76.2 mm: 114, 7.62 mm: 3000	35	16	36°	30°	2.7	1.2	1.6	0.77	180	V-2K	diesel	12	600	10R	TP-4-Bis
KV-8	heavy flamethrower tank	46 000	5	6.9x3.32x2.71	0.45	ATO-41¹³ flamethrower, 45 mm gun 20K model 1932/38, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	ATO-41: 60, 76.2 mm: 88, 7.62 mm: 2400	35	16	36°	30°	2.7	1.2	1.6	0.77	180	V-2K	diesel	12	600	9R or 10R	TP-4
KV-2	heavy assault tank	52 000	6	6.95x3.32x3.25	0.407	152.4 mm M-10 howitzer, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	152.4 mm: 36, 7.62 mm: 2475	35	16	36°	30°	2.7	1.2	1.6	0.84	140	V-2K	diesel	12	600	71-TK-3	TPU-4R
KV-1S	heavy tank	42 500	5	6.9x3.35x2.64	0.45	76.2 mm ZIS-5 gun, 1 x 7.62 mm DT CMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	76.2 mm: 114, 7.62 mm: 3000	43	18	36°	30°	2.7	1.2	1.6	0.8	160	V-2K	diesel	12	600	10R	TP-3-BisF
KV-8S	heavy flamethrower tank	43 000	5	6.9x3.35x2.64	0.45	ATO-42¹⁴ flamethrower, 45 mm gun 20K model 1932/38, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	ATO-42: 60, 76.2 mm: 114, 7.62 mm: 2400	43	18	36°	30°	2.7	1.2	1.6	0.8	160	V-2K	diesel	12	600	10R	TP-3-BisF
KV-85	heavy tank	46 000	4	6.9x3.25x2.83	0.45	85 mm D-5T gun, 1 x 7.62 mm DT CMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	85 mm: 70, 7.62 mm: 3276	34	16	40°	30°	2.7	1.2	1.6	0.8	180	V-2K	diesel	12	600	9R or 10R	TPU-4-BisF
IS-1 (IS-85)	heavy breakthrough tank	44 160	4	8.56x3.07x2.74	0.465	85 mm D-5T gun, 1 x 7.62 mm DT CMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT BMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	85 mm: 59, 7.62 mm: 2520	37	17	36°	30°	2.5	1	1.3	0.78	150	V-2-IS	diesel	12	520	10R or 10RK	TPU-4-BisF
IS-2 (IS-122)	heavy breakthrough tank	46 080	4	9.83x3.07x2.74	0.465	121.9 mm D-25T gun, 1 x 12.7 mm DShK AAMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT CMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT RMG	121.9 mm: 28, 12.7 mm: 250, 7.62 mm: 2520	37	17	36°	27°	2.3	1	1.3	0.81	150	V-2-IS	diesel	12	520	10R or 10RK	TPU-4-BisF
IS-3	heavy breakthrough tank	46 500	4	9.85x3.15x2.45	0.45	121.9 mm D-25T gun, 12.7 mm DShK AAMG, 1 x 7.62 mm DT CMG	121.9 mm: 28, 12.7 mm: 250, 7.62 mm: 756	40	17	32°	30°	2.5	1	1.1	0.82	185	V-2-IS	diesel	12	520	11RK	TPU-4-BisF

ABBREVIATIONS:
TMG - turret machine-gun;
CMG - coaxial machine-gun;
BMG - bow machine-gun;
RMG - rear machine-gun;
AAMG - antiaircraft machine-gun;
HMG - heavy machine-gun;
GAZ - Gorkovskiy Automobil Factory;

NOTES:
¹ average speed;
² 36 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 25 metres;
³ numbers for tanks w/o radio, numbers in parenthesis for tanks with radio;
⁴ 360 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 50 metres;
⁵ 140 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 50 metres;
⁶ 360 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 35 metres;
⁷ for tanks on tracks, numbers in parenthesis for tanks on wheels;
⁸ for tanks on tracks;
⁹ 170 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 60 metres;
¹⁰ number in parenthesis for T-34 with hexagonal turret;
¹¹ 100 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 65 metres;
¹² 200 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 90 metres;
¹³ 600 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 65 metres;
¹⁴ 600 liters of liquid, max range of throwing - 90 metres.

T-35 Heavy Tank

2005-09-20T18:20:12Z

In December 1930, the USSR had undertaken work to develop a new breakthrough heavy tank designated T-30. This work began after the signing of an agreement between UMM RKKA and the General Design Bureau of the Artillery Department.

The first proposals were for a 50-ton vehicle armed with a 76-mm gun and five machine-guns. However, a lack of experience with such vehicles hampered the finishing of a plausible design - even on paper! At the beginning of 1932, the first sketches and a wooden prototype were created, but the T-30 project was canceled due to design problems (almost insuperable problems with running gear) which appeared during its development.

Another attempt was undertaken by the Auto-Tank-Diesel Section of the Economic Department of the OGPU. This was a special section that employed tank designers convicted during the Purges. As in the previous case, this project had too many serious problems and was also abandoned.

Only foreign specialists could get the project off the ground. In March 1930, a small group of German engineers led by Edward Grotte arrived in the USSR. This group was assigned to the Special Design Bureau AVO-5 in Leningrad in the "Bolshevik" Factory. AVO-5 had already worked on the TG project. As far as I understand, the TG was intended only to teach Soviet engineers how to develop a heavy vehicle, it was not intended as full-functional production vehicle. In August 1931, when the TG was completed and tested all the German engineers were repatriated from the USSR. The AVO-5 was then reorganized.

The New design bureau was issued a directive by UMM RKKA: "By 1 August 1932, a new 35-ton heavy tank based on the TG-1 to be developed and built". The new project received the T-35 designation. On February 28, 1932, G.G. Bokis (Deputy Chief of the UMM RKKA) was reporting to M.N. Tukhachevsky: "The work on the T-35 is going briskly, and should be completed on time".

On August 20, 1932, assembly of the very first prototype under the T-35-1 designation had been completed, and on September 1, it was shown to a special commission of the UMM RKKA. The tank made an impression on all the members of the commission. Outwardly, the T-35 looked like the English A1E1 "Independent" five-turret tank. Many people believe that the T-35 was copied from the "Independent", however, the Russian Archives have no documents or any other evidences that would confirm it.

The main turret was supposed to be armed with a powerful 76.2 mm PS-3 Tank Gun and one DT machine-gun, but because of a lack of PS-3 guns, a dummy gun was mounted instead. Later, the shortage of PS-3s remained, and the 76.2 mm KT Tank Gun used instead.

The transmission of the T-35-1 had been developed with experience gleaned from the TG. It consisted of the M6 Petrol Engine, the main friction clutch, the gearbox and side clutches. Driving the tank was quite easy due to a well-designed pneumatic system.

Tests conducted in the autumn of 1932 revealed some defects in the transmission. Moreover, it was too complex and expensive for mass production, and all work on the T-35-1 had been canceled and the vehicle sent to Leningrad as a study aid for tank corps trainees.

In February 1933, new work on the T-35-2 began. As per Stalin's order, standardization of tank turrets for the T-28 and T-35 was implemented. On the T-35-2 the new M-17 Tank Engine, a new gearbox, and an improved transmission were installed. All other parts were the same as on the T-35-1. This tank was also intended to be arm with the 76.2 mm PS-3 gun. The vehicle was completed in April 1933, and on May 1, it was shown on military parade in Leningrad while the T-35-1 was shown on military parade in Moscow.

Both the T-35-1 and the T-35-2 were prototypes. Almost simultaneously, the first production model, the T-35A, was developing using experience from these prototypes. In May 1933, the Soviet Government ordered mass production at the KhPZ Factory. All documents and the T-35-2 prototype were sent here.

The T-35A had many changes, which distinguished it from its predecessors. The new vehicle had a longer chassis, smaller turrets, an improved hull, and some other alterations. In essence, it was a new vehicle, and so it had some teething troubles during its manufacture. I wish to notice, each T-35 was unique, since minor improvements were made in every tank, and therefore they were not true production vehicles because they didn't pronouncedly follow the base blueprints.

Different parts of the T-35 manufactured at different factories:
- Armored hulls at the Izhorskij Factory;
- Gearboxes at the "Krasnij Oktyabr" Factory;
- Engines at the Rybinskij Factory.

According to the production plan, all these factories should have started manufacture in June 1933, but due to unforeseen problems, they began in August 1933. Final assembly began on October 18, 1933, and was finished on November 1. The final assembly was usually aided by using hydraulic lifting jacks, but in this case, the hull was placed on an elevated assembly jig in order to install the final components such as the running gear, turret, and armament.

The first production T-35A was put on parade in Moscow on May 1, 1934. Per a Governmental order of October 25, 1933, the KhPZ had to complete five T-35A tanks and one T-35B (powered by M-34 Engine) before January 1, 1934, but up to this date only one vehicle had been fully completed. The other three T-35A's were still unarmed, and the manufacture of the T-35B had not even started. The T-35B project was later abandoned at all.

The production of the T-35A was extremely expensive: a single tank cost 525,000 rubles - as much as nine BT-5 Light Tanks. This was definitive reason why its manufacture was cancelled.

According to the plan of 1934, the KhPZ had to produce ten vehicles (T-35A). During production, the factory made some changes to cut production costs. However, factory engineers met with many problems. For instance, the tracks of the tank were too fragile, and the M-17 engine often overheated. The first vehicle had to be completed on August 20, 1934, but was not. However, the KhPZ built ten by the very end of 1934.

In 1937, T-35 was modernised. Its gearbox, side clutches, electrical equipment, the drive shaft, and the oil tank were improved. In addition, engine silencers were installed inside the vehicle. Due to these changes, the reliability of the T-35 increased greatly.

However, the armor protection of the T-35 did not meet the demands of modern warfare, but because the vehicle was already too heavy, it was unrealistic to increase its armor any more.

In 1937, the KhPZ began a plan to convert the T-35 to conical turrets. Production of the new tanks began at the end of 1938. According to KhPZ's records, total five tanks received conic turrets. Total production included one T-35-1, one T-35-2, and 61 production vehicles. The T-35 was the only production five-turret tank in the world.

The layout of the T-35 was optimal for a multi-turret vehicle. Five turrets were set up in two tiers and provided high firepower with one 76.2 mm gun, two 45 mm 20K guns, and three machine-guns. However, such a layout resulted in an excessive vehicle height (about 3.5 metres) and decreased its mobility on the battlefield.

In addition, the T-35 still had many problems with its engine and transmission. Unfortunately, these defects weren't fully eliminated, but Soviet tankers still held this vehicle in high regards.

Outwardly, the T-35 was visually stunning with its huge dimensions, however its internal space was very cramped. When I visited Kubinka I was unable to get inside the T-35 (I'm 198 cm). The separate combat compartments were not connected with each other. Visibility from the vehicle was very bad, especially from the driver's position (he could see straight ahead and left only). However, the greatest problem was egress from a knocked out tank because the crew could escape only from roof hatches, and the crew from the main turret had to expose themselves at a 4-metre height under enemy fire.

The driver was in an even worse situation: his hatch could not been opened until the machine-gun turret rotated out of the way. If this turret was jammed, the driver couldn't escape at all. Escape from the rear turrets was also difficult due to the rounded antenna on the main turret. The tank crew could become "prisoners" of their own tank. The first production T-35's were sent to the 5th Heavy Tank Regiment RGK. On December 12, 1935, this regiment was reorganized into the 5th Separate Heavy Tank Brigade.

The brigade consisted of three Tank Battalions, one Training Tank Battalion, and some support units. On May 12, 1936, under the order of the Defense Minister, this brigade was attached to RGK. The unit was formed to increase the support of infantry and tank troops during breakthroughs of heavily-fortified defense lines.

Deployment of the T-35 revealed its poor maneuverability. For example, one T-35 commander reported: "The tank was able to pass only a 17° slope. It couldn't even traverse a large puddle."

The following directive was addressed to the headquarters of the 3rd Heavy Tank Brigade RGK and regulated the crossing of bridges:

"1. For single-span bridges - only one vehicle at a time;
2. For multi-span bridges - several vehicles at the same time but with distance of 50 metres between them;
3. In all cases, the speed of the tank should not exceed 15 km/h."

Before the Great Patriotic War, the T-35 didn't take part in any military conflicts. Any mention in Western (and some Russian) accounts about T-35's that served in the Winter War are false.

On 27 June 1940, a conference opened in Moscow "On Weapons of AFVs of the Red Army". During debates, a question concerning the T-35 had arisen. Some officers thought that all T-35's should be converted to heavy self-propelled artillery (like the SU-14), others wanted to give all the T-35's to military academies. Interesting, almost nobody raised an opinion to keep them as vehicles of the first line.

However, due to the active reorganization of tank forces of the Red Army, and the formation of the new mechanized corps, it was decided that these vehicles "should be depleted by attrition in operational units". As a result, all vehicles were collected in the 67th and 68th Tank Regiments of the 34th Tank Division of the 8th Mechanized Corps (Kiev Special Military District).

Today, only one T-35 survives. It is on display in the Kubinka tank museum.

Parameter	A1E1 "Independent"
Crew. men	8
Combat weight, kg	31,500
Armament	1x47mm Main Gun 4x7,62mm MGs
Armor, mm	13-28
Engine	"Armstrong-Siddley", 398 h.p.
Max speed, km/h	32
Range, km	320

Location and Duties of T-35's Crew
Crewman	Rank	Location and Duties
Commander	Starshij Leitenant (Senior lieutenant)	in the turret No.1 (main turret); to the right from the gun; command the tank, loads the main gun, fires the DT TMG
Commander's Assistant	Leitenant	in the turret No.2 (frontal turret with a gun); fires of the 45-mm gun; responsible for operational condition of the tank
Junior Tank Technician	Voentechnic Vtorogo Rankga	in the steering compartment; drives the tank; responsible for operational condition of the tank
Tank Driver	Starshina	in the turret No.3 (frontal turret with a machine-gun); fires of the machine-gun, responsible for operational condition of the engine, assistant of the Junior Tank Technician
Commander of the Main Turret	Mladshij Komandir Vzvoda	to the left from the main gun; fires of the main gun; responsible for operational condition of the main turret
Commander of the Turret No.2	Otdelennij Komandir	to the right from the 45-mm gun; loads the gun; responsible for operational condition of the turret No.2
Commander of the turret No.4 (rear turret with a gun)	Otdelennij Komandir	to the left from the gun; fires the 45-mm gun; assistant to the Commander of the Main Turret; responsible for operational condition of the turret No.4
Junior Tank Driver	Otdelennij Komandir	in the turret No.4, to the right from the gun; loads the gun; responsible for operational condition of the running gear of the tank
Commander of the Turret No.5 (rear turret with a machine-gun)	Otdelennij Komandir	in the turret No.5, fires the machine-gun; responsible for operational condition of the turret No.5
Senior Radio Operator	Otdelennij Komandir	in the main turret; operates the radio; loads the main gun
Senior Tank Driver	Mladshij Koandir Vzvoda	outside the tank; responsible for operational condition of the transmission and the running gear of the tank
Motor-mechanic	Mladshij Technic	outside the tank; responsible for operational condition of the tank's engine

Sources: M.Kolomiets "T-35 Heavy Tank", 1995
"Bronekollektsya" No.2 1995
M.Baryatinsky "Soviet tanks in WWII", 1995

{phocagallery view=category|categoryid=41|imagerandom=0|detail=5|limitstart=0|limitcount=31|displayname=1|displaydetail=0|displaydownload=0|bordercolor=No.ffffff|imageshadow=shadow1|bordercolorhover=No.cfcfcf|bgcolor=none|bgcolorhover=none|overlib=2|type=0}

Heavy Flamethrower Tanks based on KV Series

2005-09-20T15:52:09Z

{phocagallery view=category|categoryid=23|imagerandom=0|detail=5|limitstart=0|limitcount=4|displayname=1|displaydetail=0|displaydownload=0|bordercolor=#ffffff|imageshadow=shadow1|bordercolorhover=#cfcfcf|bgcolor=none|bgcolorhover=none|overlib=2|type=0}

Flamethrower tanks were intended for assaulting heavy entrenchments because of their great psychological effect. In November 1941, in Chelyabinsk, work on the KV-8 tank began. Under the Soviet pre-war tank theories, all flamethrower tanks were counted as a part of the Soviet Tank Army.

During that time, some versions of the T-26 Light Tank (OT-26, OT-130 and OT-133) were used as flamethrower tanks. However they were too weak and too light. The experience of the Winter War showed that flame tanks became the first targets for any anti-tank defense. That's why more powerful and better protected tanks were needed. So, Soviet tank designers decided to re-equip T-34 and KV-1 tanks with flamethrowers.

New ATO-41 flamethrower was mounted in the hull of the T-34 (in place of the bow TMG) and in the turret of the KV-1 (in place of the coaxial TMG). Unfortunately, the KV's turret hadn't enough room to mount both the ATO-41 and the 76.2 mm gun, so this gun was replaced with a 45 mm gun mod. 1932. The thin barrel of this gun was camouflaged with a special gun jacket to simulate the common 76.2 mm gun.

KV-8 had 92 rounds for the 45 mm gun and 107 shots for flamethrower with a total of 960 litres of gas mixture. In addition the tank had a bow DT TMG and a DT in the rear of the turret. Also, some tanks were equipped with a DT AAMG. Total ammunition for the machine-guns was 3400 rounds.

ATO-41 could fire up to three times in every 10 seconds. Each shot took about 10 litres of gas mixture. The range of the flamethrower depended on the type of gas mixture:
- 65 litres with 60% mazut and 40% kerosene;
- 100 litres with kerosene-oil mixture.

The production of the KV-8 tank began in 1942. The main advantage of the KV-8 over the OT-34 was the capacity of gas mixture. The KV-8 and the OT-34 were organized in separate battalions of flamethrower tanks ("Chemical Tank Battalions" - according to Soviet designations).

Each battalion have had two KV-8 tank companies (10 tanks per battalion) and one OT-34 tank company (10 tanks plus one commander's OT-34). After production of the KV-1 was canceled, the KV-8 tank was based on KV-1S. It was renamed as KV-8S. The ammunition of the KV-8S was increased up to 114 rounds (for the 45 mm Main Gun), 60 shots for the flamethrower and the gas mixture capacity was decreased to 600 litres. During production, the ATO-41 flamethrower was replaced with the more modern ATO-42. The weight of the KV-8S was 43 tons. It had a crew of 5 men.

Sources: "M-Hobby" #5-6 1997
V.Gagin "Heavy breakthrough tank Klim Virishilov" Poligraph 1996
"Soviet heavy tanks in WWII", Tornado

KV-85 Heavy Tank

2005-09-20T15:51:10Z

{tab=Development history}

Development History

The KV-85 Heavy Tank was not an epochal machine in the history of Russian tank design and construction. Although it was not produced in the thousands, this tank still made a contribution to the victory over fascism.

The first attempts to arm a tank with a powerful 85-90 mm gun were undertaken before the war, in 1939. Development of these weapons was going on at the same time. Tests were conducted with production models of the T-28 and KV, but for a number of reasons were not conducted on the armament. Efforts of this nature were temporarily halted with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

As early as December 1941, Uralmash Factory recommended the U-12 85 mm gun, developed by designers Sidorenko and Usenko, for arming of the KV tank. But the high cost of the gun was excessive for that time and it was recognized as not cost effective to accept it for the armament.

In the spring of 1942 three design groups submitted proposals to the NKV with 85mm tank gun projects: TsAKB (chief-engineer V. Grabin), Kalinin OKB #8, and Factory #92 KB (KB means design bureau) of chief-engineer V. Savin.

All the design bureaus recommended utilization of the mounting and recoil systems of the ZIS-5 or F-34 76 mm tank gun, but mounting in them of the 85mm barrel with the ballistics of the type-1939 antiaircraft gun. For compensation of the recoil the TsAKB recommended increase of the recoil mass, OKB #8 - the employment of the muzzle brake of the anti-aircraft cannon, and Savin's design bureau - a redesigned muzzle brake.

All three variants were rejected because at that time, in the opinion of the technical directorate of the NKV and the leadership of the NKTP, transition to an 85 mm gun was not justified because the per-round-fired cost of an 85 mm gun was significantly greater than that of a 76 mm gun.

However, in 1943, after the appearance on the battlefield of the new German Tiger and Panther tanks, and also the inadequate high explosive effects of the 76 mm gun against new field fortifications, interest in the 85 mm gun re-emerged with new strength.

Projects that had been suggested in 1941-1942 were reexamined, but the most promising of them - the Kalinin Factory #8 design -was rejected because it required use of a muzzle brake, which at that time was considered highly undesirable in a tank gun.

In the winter of 1943, the TsAKB completed the design of a new tank and self-propelled gun cannon, the S-18, which was approved by the NKV technical directorate. Factory #9 was ordered to prepare two trial models in March 1943 (at that time the TsAKB did not have its own production facility). But the preparation of these guns was protracted. When they were finally subjected to testing it was revealed that the guns had been prepared with deviations from the blueprints. Factory #9 KB, under the leadership of F. Petrov, argued that the modifications were appropriate. V. Grabin argued for his original design. Nothing came of the disagreement. The test guns performed normally and rather than correct deficiencies that were uncovered during the tests, the designers and builders undertook liberally to pour dirt on each other. As a result, for testing of the first trial tank - "Object 237" - a non-working model of the S-18 gun was installed in its turret. After the deficiencies of the S-18 were exposed, it was not mounted on the tank but rather given over for prototypes of the SU-85 (SU-85-I and SU-85-IV).

Parallel with the development of the S-18, the TsAKB designed yet another variant of an 85 mm tank gun for the KV-1S and JS tanks, which was designated as the S-31. For this reason this gun was being developed right away in two variants -with the ballistics of the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun (muzzle velocity of 790-800 m/sec) and with improved ballistics (muzzle velocity of 880-900 m/sec). Factory #92 conducted the preparation and testing of the gun, which showed that in comparison with the S-18 the new cannons were much more technological (simpler and cheaper in production). However, the gun with the improved ballistics demanded development of a new propellant in the existing casing. This complex task was not resolved in the time allotted (by 1 October 1943) and all remaining efforts on the 85 mm tank gun were limited to the ballistics of the 85 mm Anti-Aircraft Gun Model 1939.

Meanwhile, the Factory #9 design bureau reworked the design of the U-12 Gun and in May 1943 recommended their own variant of the 85 mm tank gun. The new model received the designation D-5T and differed from the U-12 in that it had a semi-automatic camming-type mechanism borrowed from the ZIS-5 gun, along with several recoil and return components. The solid construction of the gun and the small length of its recoil permitted it to be mounted in the turret of any existing heavy tank without reworking of the turret. The S-31 had an advantage over the S-18 by having a small recoil length and reduced mass of breech components, but it had a greater number of small parts that required precise machining.

Four tanks (two JS and two KV-1S) armed with the 85 mm S-31 and D-5T guns were tested jointly. This test demonstrated the great operational superiority of the D-5T gun and it was accepted for armament.

For these tests the S-31 gun was mounted in the standard KV-1S turret with minimal reworking. The crew had been reduced to four men. This tank (Object 231, serial number 30751-51) is now preserved at the VIM BTVT at Kubinka.

Despite the success with the KV, work on a new future JS-85 tank was dragged out at the same time that the front was demanding new tanks with powerful armaments. It was necessary to withstand for several months before the introduction of the JS-85. A way out was found. The design bureau of J. Y. Kotin decided to come up with a modernisation of the KV-1S tank, mounting on it the turret of the JS-85 tank with the D-5T gun.

The following work was accomplished during the mounting of the new turret on the KV-1S: the under-turret box, in which the enlarged-diameter ring of the improved tank turret fit with difficulty, was widened. The basic load of 70 main gun rounds was stored in improved racks. With the placing of the gun and the ammunition racks, the designers had to delete the fifth crewmember -the gunner-radio operator, for whom there was no longer any space. The hull-mounted DT machine-gun, which previously was carried in a movable ball mounting, was now fixed. The power pack, transmission, and suspension components were taken straight from the KV-1S.

The first KV-85s were re-worked from excess KV-1S hulls, welding up the hole for the ball-mounted hull machine gun. The incorrect opinion has appeared in Western literature that there was a "second version" of the KV-85 with a flexible front machine gun. This confusion most likely arose as a result of study by Western experts of the only KV-85 tank that has been preserved to this day (monument in Avtovo, St.Peterburg), where a mistake was made in the restoration process. According to archival data, 148 KV-85 tanks were produced; they were sent to the front beginning in September 1943. Simultaneously, output of the KV-1S tank was continued until December 1943.

Factory #9 was given an order for production of the D-5T, but it turned out to be rather difficult for the factory. The factory was completely incapable of simultaneous production of guns for the JS-85 and KV-85 and for the T-34-85. Factories #8 and #13 were dedicated to mass production of the D-5T. These problems with production of the gun prevented the KV-85 from becoming a mass tank. By the spring of 1944 the JS-2 entered mass production with incomparably greater armament and armor, and the subsequent fate of the KV-85 (and also the JS-85) was sealed.

{tab=Combat employment}

Combat Employment

A great portion of the KV-85s in the guards tank breakthrough regiments ended up on the Southern Front (2nd formation), later the 4th Ukrainian Front, where they participated in the liberation of Ukraine and the Crimea. Because on the whole our tank was not superior to the German heavy tanks, battles were fought with varied success. The results depended primarily on the training of the crews of the opposing sides and on the tactics they selected for the engagement.

The 34th Guards Heavy Tank Breakthrough Regiment (TTPP) (total 20 KV-85 tanks), which together with the 40th Heavy Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment (TSAP) (total 9 SU-152s), fought in the area of the village Ekaterinovka on 20-25 November 1943 as element of the 28th Army of the 4th Ukrainian Front.

On 20 November both regiments in a two-echelon formation attacked enemy positions that in addition to artillery had Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf.H and Marder II self-propelled guns (up to 18) dug into their positions. In the course of the day the tankers and self-propelled artillerymen managed to capture the first lines of the German trenches, losing 6 KV-85 tanks (left in enemy-controlled zone) and 6 SU-152 Assault Guns in the process. On the second day of the battle up to 10 Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf. H undertook a counterattack on the positions of Soviet troops. The attack was beaten off by the efforts of the infantry and both tank regiments, costing the enemy five tanks without any losses on Soviet side. On 23 November all serviceable vehicles in the regiment again attacked the German positions, broke through their defenses, and advanced 5 kilometers in deep. An additional two KV-85 tanks were lost in this operation (one of them burned up). The 34th Guards TTPP was sent to the rear for repair on 23 November and only the 40th TSAP continued to fight until 28 November, losing one or two vehicles daily in combat.

Along with the 19th Tank Corps, the 1452d Separate Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment (SAP), which was equipped with 11 KV-85s, 5 KV-1S's, 6 SU-152s, and also 3 SU-76s, participated in the liberation of the Crimea. It seems that because of a severe shortage of self-propelled guns, someone decided to equip the SAP with KV tanks, which had the most destructive armament of all the tanks presented in the Crimea at that time. The 19th Tank Corps had only the T-34s and light tanks, and the enemy had two brigades of assault guns: the 191st and 279th under the command of Major Mueller and Captain Hoppe (altogether the XVII German Army had 215 tanks and self-propelled guns, primarily the StuG III with 75 mm cannons). But for a number of reasons associated with the leadership of the operations, the regiment fought with the masterfully retreating German infantry, who broadly employed mines.

On 8 April 1944, in accordance with the order of the commander of the 3rd Guards Rifle Division, to which the regiment (11 KV-85, 5 KV-1S, 2 SU-152) was operationally subordinated, the tankers and infantry, who had concentrated 1.6 km south of Turetskiy wall, attacked the enemy positions from the west to capture the town Armyansk. Several minutes after the launching of the attack the regiment blundered into a minefield that was unknown for the Russians and therefore not marked on the map. Sappers designated for mine clearing were on the tanks and could not dismount because the Germans opened up on them with all types of weapons. Paradoxically, three hours after the launching of the attack, the 1452nd SAP still managed to break through the enemy defenses, losing 1 burned-out KV-85, 3 KV-85s blown up by mines, and 5 KV-1S's, 4 KV-85s, and 2 SU-152s damaged by enemy gunfire. No personnel were killed, but 2 officers and 4 soldiers were wounded. The 3 remaining operational KV-85s and 5 KV-1S's with an assault force from 3rd Guards Rifle Division reached the town Armyansk at 14:00 on 8 April. The regiment had accomplished its assigned mission. As a result of this battle, 11 pillboxes, 5 antitank guns, and up to 200 enemy soldiers and officers were destroyed. Thus, the basic losses in personnel and equipment were caused by insufficiently competent leadership, which was unable to organize coordination of various branches of troops during the breakthrough of the German defense.

The regiment repaired its equipment until 10 April 1944 and on 11 April a tank group (3 KV-85s 2 SU-152s, 2 SU-76s) of 1452nd SAP again attacked the German defenses in the area of Ishun. Tanks supported the infantry of the 3rd Guards Rifle Division. Because reconnaissance was not conducted, the tanks rolled into an 8-meter antitank ditch and special tank traps that were similar to ditches. The attack failed. A pair of KV-85s and SU-76s was recovered from the ditches with the aid of tractors. After this grievous experience of the use of heavy tanks, the command of 2nd Guards Army decided to make a radical change in the tactics of the employment of this unit. The more so because on 10-11 April the Germans began to organize the withdrawal of their forces toward Sevastopol. On order of the commander of 2nd Guards Army (#005/OP of 10 April 1944), the vehicles of 1452nd SAP and 512th Independent Flamethrower Tank Battalion (OOTB) were parceled out to army mobile detachments. These detachments consisted of infantry on Studebaker trucks and also tanks and self-propelled guns, and had the mission as rapidly as possible to break through to Sevastopol. KV-85 tanks also were assigned to these detachments.

Engagements with the StuG III were exceedingly few -the Germans were retreating under the cover of artillery and mine fields. A group under the command of Hero of the Soviet Union Guards Colonel Puzanov (1 T-34, 8 TO-34s, 4 KV-85s) liberated the towns Evpatoria, Saki, and Bakhchisaray. On 6 May 1944, once again formed into a unit, 1452nd SAP, now comprising only 1 KV-85 and 2 SU-152s, reached Sevastopol and fought in the area of Mekenziev Hills, supporting the 37th Guards Rifle Division. On 9 May the two serviceable vehicles of the regiment, a KV-85 and an SU-152, broke into Sevastopol with the 264th Guards Rifle Regiment.

The KV-85 rarely engaged enemy tanks and SP-guns during the liberation of the Crimea, and was employed primarily as a self-propelled gun for support of infantry.

The employment of the KV-85 against the German heavy tanks Pz. Kpfw VI Ausf. H occurred in the zone of combat actions of 38th Army, 4th Ukrainian Front, on 28 January 1944. During this battle Soviet tankers acted decisively and skillfully, not harboring any unfounded illusions regarding the training of the German tankers and the quality of their combat vehicles. An operations summary concerning the combat actions of armored and mechanised forces of 38th Army from 24 to 31 January 1944 to the 7th Independent Guards Heavy Tank Regiment (7th OGTTP) speaks to this. This regiment was covering the withdrawal of units of the 17th Rifle Corps, which had fallen into semi-encirclement as a result of a German counteroffensive.

"In accordance with a combat order of headquarters, 17th Corps, the remaining 5 tanks and SP-guns (3 KV-85s and 2 SU-152s) by 07:00 28.01.44 occupied all around defense at Telman sovkhoz (collective farm) and were prepared to fend off enemy tank attacks toward Rososh, Kommunar sovkhoz, and Bolshevik sovkhoz. Some 50 infantrymen and 2 antitank guns were set up in the defense around the tanks. An accumulation of enemy tanks had been spotted south of Rososh. At 11:30 the enemy launched an attack from the south on Telman sovkhoz in the direction of Rososh with up to 15 T-6 tanks and 13 medium and light tanks.

Occupying favorable positions, because of the cover provided by their fortifications and haystacks, and having permitted the enemy tanks to approach to battlesight range, our tanks and SP-guns opened fire and broke up the enemy combat formations, destroying 6 tanks (of these, 3 Tigers) and up to a platoon of infantry. The KV-85 of Senior Lieutenant Kuleshov was designated to liquidate the German infantry that penetrated our position. He fulfilled this assignment with fire and his tracks. By 13:00 of the same day the German troops had decided not to attack the Soviet position frontally, bypassed Telman sovkhoz, and surrounded the Soviet grouping.

The battle of our tanks in encirclement by superior enemy forces was characterized by the extreme skill and heroism of our tankers. A tank group (3 KV-85s and 2 SU-122s) under the command of company commander Guards Sr. Lieutenant Podust, defending Telman sovkhoz, simultaneously prevented the German forces from being shifted to other areas of battle. His tanks frequently changed firing positions and conducted well aimed fire at German tanks. The SU-122s, exposing themselves, fired at infantrymen riding in transporters and moving along the road to Ilintsa, which limited the freedom of maneuver of German tanks and infantry and, in the main, made possible the escape from encirclement of units of the 17th Rifle Corps. The tanks continued to fight in encirclement until 1930, although there were no longer any infantrymen in the sovkhoz. Maneuver and intensive fire, and as well the use of cover for conducting fire permitted them to suffer almost no losses (only 2 wounded), while inflicting significant personnel and equipment losses on the enemy. Through 28.01.44 the Germans lost (both damaged and destroyed) 5 Tiger tanks, 5 T-4 tanks, 2 T-3 tanks, 7 armored transporters, 6 antitank guns, 4 machine-gun positions, 28 wagons with horses, and up to 3 platoons of infantry.

At 20:00 the tank group broke out of encirclement and by 22:00, after a firefight, reached the position of Soviet troops, having lost 1 SU-122 (burned up)".

Countless examples of the employment of the KV-85 tank demonstrated that the 85 mm gun was an effective weapon against German heavy tanks (Panther and Tiger) and should have been mounted on the T-34 Medium Tank, which in fact it was, later. Even before the operation for the liberation of the Crimea, commanders of mobile pursuit detachments complained of the fact that the KV-85 and SU-152 were not fast enough and fell behind their infantry-carrying trucks. It was understandable, given that the KV-85 was a heavy tank. However its low maneuverability and speed was compensated for by its powerful armor and armament. And if the survivability of the KV was considered at that time to be sufficient, then the gun required significantly more power so that it could defeat German equipment at maximum ranges.

In accordance with the results of the combat actions of the KV-85, the designers and military decision makers concluded that subsequent modernisation of the KV tank family was not appropriate. While the 85 mm gun was adequate to defeat German tanks, it lagged behind German tanks in its armor-penetrating capability when fired at long ranges. Soviet heavy tanks were weaker in armor than their German counterparts. Consequently, the concept of medium and heavy tanks (T-34 and KV) armed with a cannon of a single caliber was outdated. It was necessary to have a heavy tank with a powerful gun that was superior to the German 88 mm gun in all basic parameters.

These conclusions were considered during the creation of the JS-2 tank with its 122 mm gun and during the expansion of the production of the 85 mm cannon for the T-34-85.

As concerns the KV-85, in view of their small quantity in production and intensive employment, only isolated tanks of this modification remained in the forces by the middle of 1944.

At the present time two KV tanks with the 85 mm gun have been preserved. One of them is the KV-85 mounted as a memorial in the area of Avtovo in St.Peterburg. The other is a production KV-1S armed with the 85 mm Tank Cannon S-31 in standard turret located in the Museum of Armored Vehicles at Kubinka, near Moscow.

{tab=Modifications}

Experimental Vehicles

Attempting to increase still greater the firepower of the KV tanks, and also for development of new artillery systems on a "live" tank chassis, it was suggested to mount the 100 mm Gun S-34 in the turret of a KV-85. The new vehicle was designated the KV-100. After testing, the turret of an JS-2 tank with the 122 mm Gun D-25 was mounted on the KV-85 chassis. Although no principal problems resulted from this reworking, the design was rejected because the JS-2 had already been placed in mass production.

In 1943, carrying out a personal order of J.Stalin, the artillery design bureau attempted to give a second life to the KV-2 Heavy Assault Tank, as very necessary for the destruction of enemy defenses. The primary problem in this regard was the fact that it was necessary to mount the 152 mm howitzer in a standard turret of the KV-1S. The TsAKB and OKB #9 were engaged in secret competition for the development of this artillery system. Both collectives drew the conclusion regarding the principal necessity of using a high-efficiency muzzle brake in the construction of their gun. OKB #9 already had a recommendation for adopting the 152 mm Field Howitzer D-1 as standard. Therefore, during the creation of a tank variant, its recoil components were carried over to the carriage of the D-5T tank gun. Thus far no significant proof has been found that the D-1-5 (or D-15) howitzer was mounted even on a single KV, but an SP-gun on the T-34 chassis with armament from the "152 mm Tank Cannon D-1-5" had been considered for some time as a future variant to replace the SU-122.

The TsAKB took a slightly different path. Here they preserved the designs of the ZIS-5 and S-31 guns, but somewhat strengthened them. Production proceeded without problems and a KV with an S-41 152 mm howitzer was demonstrated to Marshal Voroshilov during his visit to the TsAKB in August 1943. Unfortunately, no additional details are known about this vehicle.

In view of their futility, all experiments with 152 mm howitzers in tank turrets were halted by order of the NKV in October 1943. The SU-152 already was slated for fielding and work was being conducted on the creation of the JS-122 (JS-2).

{/tabs}

Translated by: James F. Gebhardt
Sources: "M-Hobby", #1, 2000
I.V.Pavlov M.V.Pavlov "Sovetskie Tanki i SAU 1939-1945", Moscow 1996
M.Svirin "Artillerijskoye Vooruzhenie Sovetskikh Tankov 1940-1945", Armada Vertikal #4
"KV - Sovetskij Tyazhelij Tank", Tornado, Riga 2000.

{phocagallery view=category|categoryid=24|imagerandom=0|detail=5|limitstart=0|limitcount=32|displayname=1|displaydetail=0|displaydownload=0|bordercolor=#ffffff|imageshadow=shadow1|bordercolorhover=#cfcfcf|bgcolor=none|bgcolorhover=none|overlib=2|type=0}

KV-2 Heavy Assault Tank

2005-09-20T15:49:10Z

On December 19, 1939, KV-1 Heavy Tank was accepted for the service. At that time, KV-1 took part in combat tests on the Russian-Finnish War (so-called " Winter War"). During those battles, the Soviet High Command come to conclusion that the heavy tank with more powerful armament is highly needed to combat with enemy bunkers, pillboxes and other fortifications.

The North-Western Front HQ ordered first four KV-1 tanks from experimental party must been armed with 152 mm howitzers. To do this, the best engineers from KTZ's design bureau were summoned. After two weeks a new project was completed. In a first time engineers decided use the 152 mm Howitzer Model 1909/1930, but later it was replaced with more modern 152 mm M-10 Howitzer Model 1938/1940. A new, bigger turret was designed to accept such heavy cannon. That turret was named "MT-1".

At the beginning of 1941, the this tank was renamed to KV-2. Before this, the KV-1 called as "The Tank With a Small Turret" while KV-2 called as "The Tank With a Big Turret". The MT-1 turret was placed on the chassis of a twin-turret experimental tank instead of small turret (a large turret was also removed from the hull). On February 10, 1940, first trials were conducted. At the time, Soviet tank designers weren't very experienced in vehicles of such a heavy weight. They added a small lid on the the howitzer's barrel. That lid was intended to prevent a gun from the dust, shell's fragments and bullets. However, after the first shot this lid was torn away, after that it was never used.

In 1940, a pair of KV-2 were sent to the battlefront on the Karelian isthmus. In spite of some rumors, KV-2s didn't take part in battles before the Great Patriotic War. The pair of KV-2 fired on already captured pillboxes. The results of those tests were excellent and later, in 1940, a KV-2 Heavy Tank was accepted for service. Soviet tankers often nicknamed those tanks as "Dreadnoughts".

During the production, the tank's turret was slightly improved and additional DT Machine-Gun was mounted in it. The shortened M-10 Howitzer was able to fire a 52-kg high-explosive projectile with muzzle velocity of 436 m/s.

Please notice, only high-explosive shells with reduced propellant charge were used for KV-2's gun! No armor-piercing and concrete-piercing ammo used! It was allowed to use Naval Semi-AP Round M.1915/28. However that ammo used only in Red Navies, it was absent in Red Army's warehouses. Despite some modern sources, the usage of armor-piercing and concrete-piercing ammunition was prohibited; it was specially highlighted in the KV-2's Operational Manual. The problem was with its big recoil; it definitely jammed KV's turret. Untill the middle of 1941 Soviet engineed tried to develop a special concrete-piercing projectile for KV-2, but unsuccessful and then Germany invades to the USSR so all further works were stopped at all.

KV-2 had 36 rounds for its main gun and 3087 rounds for its bow and rear machine-guns. The crew of six crewmembers: tank commander, gun commander, second gun commander (loader), gunner, driver, and radio operator.

Besides of the 152-mm howtzer, there were some other guns which were either tested or intended to be mount on the KV-2. One of that was an attempt to mount a long barreled 106.7 mm Gun ZIS-6 (initially, this gun was proposed for the perspective KV-3 and KV-5 tanks). From May to June of 1941, the KV-2 with the ZIS-6 was tested on factory's trials, after that it was sent to the ANIOP's trials which it failed. Main problem was with gun's ammunition: the gun had single-loading rounds. Such a lond and heavy shells were wery hard to handle and operate by a single loader.

Additionaly, the KV-2 armed with the 85 mm Gun F-39. Ordered by the NKO, in March 1941, a KV-2 with this gun was tested but I was unable to find results of those tests.

Unfortunately, the new tank had same drawbacks in transmission and chassis as the KV-1. Besides, most of KV-2 tanks didn't have a proper number of ammunition. Nevertheless, the appearance of KV-2 became a shock for German tankers. There wasn't any weapon, with the exception of the 88 mm AA-Gun, that could successfully defeat this beast.

Up north, the 6-Panzer-Division under Panzer-Gruppe 4 had encountered Russian heavy tanks. As related in the war diary of Panzer-Regiment 11 on 25 June 1941 (cited from T.Jentz "Panzertruppen"):

"During the morning, the II.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 11 together with Kampfgruppe von Seckendorff advanced along the right-hand march route. Throughout the day both units fought off repeated attacks from the Russian 2nd Armored Division. Unfortunately, the Russian 52 ton heavy tanks showed that it was almost insensitive to hits from the 10.5-cm. Several hits from a 15-cm gun were ineffective and bounced off. However, continuous attacks by several Pz Kpfw lV managed to knock out a large number of tanks throughout the day, which allowed our own attack to again drive forward to about three kilometers west of Dubysa.

The bridgehead of Kampfgruppe Raus was held. During the afternoon, as a reserve, a reinforced company and the headquarters of Panzer-Abteilung 65 were pulled back along the left attack route to the crossroads northeast of Rossienie. In the meantime a Russian heavy tank had blocked the communications route to Kampfgruppe Raus, so that contact with Kampfgruppe Raus was broken for the entire afternoon and during the night. An 8.8-cm Flak battery was sent by the commander to fight this tank. It was just as unsuccessful as a 10.5-cm battery whose fire was directed by a forward observer. In addition, an attempt by a Pioneer assault troop using balled explosives failed. It was impossible to get close to the tank because of heavy machine gun fire".

The most of KV-2 tanks were lost because of breakdowns. For example, 41st Tank Division lost 22 KV-2 tanks of 33 tanks total. The only 5 tanks were destroyed by the enemy, other 17 tanks were abandoned because of breakdowns or run out of fuel.

In October 1941, the KV-2's manufacture was cancelled. Totally 334 KV-2 tanks were produced.

Sources: "The KV-2 tank. Operational manual", Voenizdat, 1941;
"M-Hobby" No.5-6 1997
"Modelist-Constructor" No.11 1984
V.Gagin "Heavy breakthrough tank Klim Virishilov" Poligraph 1996
"Bronekollektsiya" No.1 1998
T.Jentz "Panzer Truppen", vol. 1;
"Soviet heavy tanks in WWII", Tornado

{phocagallery view=category|categoryid=22|imagerandom=0|detail=5|limitstart=0|limitcount=16|displayname=1|displaydetail=0|displaydownload=0|bordercolor=No.ffffff|imageshadow=shadow1|bordercolorhover=No.cfcfcf|bgcolor=none|bgcolorhover=none|overlib=2|type=0}