Military Review

For the Germans, the meeting with the HF-2 was a real shock.

143
The first battles of the Soviet-Finnish war, in which heavy Tanks KV-1, clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of this class of armored vehicles. A 76 mm tank gun was enough to defeat any armored targets. At the same time, it is weapon did not allow the destruction of many types of fortifications. If the tree-earth point could be broken with the aid of a 76 caliber of millimeters, then more serious constructions of this weapon were not enough to break through the concrete walls.


For the Germans, the meeting with the HF-2 was a real shock.


The Military Council of the North-Western Front proposed to strengthen the armament of a heavy tank. Instead of a 76-mm gun, they wanted to see howitzer caliber 152 millimeter. The experience of operating field artillery of such caliber showed its sufficient strength to effectively deal with serious enemy fortifications. The military leadership of the country approved this proposal and in January 1940, the design bureau (SKB-2) of the Kirov Plant (Leningrad) was assigned to equip the KV-1 152-mm tank with a howitzer. On the implementation of an important task gave only a few days. Because of this, the design team under the direction of J.I. Kotin was forced to move to a barracks position. The engineers' working day lasted for 16-18 hours. Free time was enough only to sleep, and even then not always.

Initially, the 152-mm howitzer of the 1909 / 30 model was considered as a weapon for the upgraded tank. It had dimensions suitable for installation on a tank, but at the same time its characteristics were already insufficient. Then the look of the designers and the military fell on the 152-mm howitzer arr. 1938 of the Year, also known as M-10. The firing characteristics of this gun were much better than the previous one. At the same time, the breech of the howitzer and its recoil devices had such dimensions, at which a new tower was required. As a matter of fact, most of the time allotted for the creation of the tank went to the creation of a new tower. Compared with the tower HF-1, it had large dimensions, although the diameter of the shoulder strap remained the same. Due to this, laborious modifications of the armored hull and a number of systems were not needed. New tower received an index of MT-1. It is noteworthy that the new heavy tank with a larger-caliber howitzer in the documents was designated as “a tank with a large turret”. The original KV, in turn, during this period was listed under the name "tank with a small tower."



During the deep modernization of the KV tank, the chassis was slightly modified. Transmission, tracked propulsion and a number of related systems remained unchanged. A new engine was installed. Diesel B-2K after revision had more power - horsepower 600 - which, however, did not give a significant increase in performance. The fact is that the new tower weighed down the car and the entire increase in power was “eaten” by the difference in weight. The armored hull of the tank with the thickness of rolled plates from 75 mm (forehead and side) to 30 (roof) provided protection against the overwhelming majority of anti-tank guns that existed at that time. The 75 mm armor plates had a good level of protection, so the new MT-1 tower was built from them. All four walls of the tower were made seven and a half centimeters thick, the roof was three centimeters thick, and the mask of the gun reached 110 millimeters thick. Because of the new turret and more serious gun, the “tank with a big turret” was almost ten tons heavier than the original KV and had a combat mass of 52 tons. At the same time, the specific power of both armored vehicles, due to different engines, was approximately equal and equaled 11-11,5 horsepower per ton of weight.

The armament of the “tank with a big turret” was composed of one gun and three machine guns. The 152-mm howitzer M-10 in its tank variant was mounted on trunnions in a large-size turret. The system of its mountings was designed in such a way that the weapon was completely balanced. However, the designers of SKB-2 did not manage to balance the whole tower. Because of this, the center of gravity of the tower with the instrument was not on its axis of rotation. In combat conditions, this led to the fact that tankers had to closely monitor the roll of his car - when the bias is greater than a certain value, the electric motor turning the tower could not cope with their work. The horizontal guidance of the gun was done by turning the turret. Vertical pickup angles ranged from -3 ° to + 18 °. In addition, if necessary, the crew of the tank could produce so-called. "Jewelry tip". To do this, the tower was fixed, and the gun moved in the limit of the horizontal sector with a width of several degrees. Ammunition howitzer was 36 shells separate loading. Originally it was planned to issue only high-explosive howitzer grenades OF-530 to tankmen. However, in practice, the new heavy tank could use almost any projectile caliber 152 millimeters. Already during the Finnish War, “tanks with a big turret” successfully fired with concrete shells. The large dimensions of the breech of the gun, as well as the features of its attachment, required a special door to be made in the back sheet of the tower. Through it, a howitzer was installed at the plant. In parts, the door was used to repair the gun, load ammunition and landing crew.



Additional armament of the tank consisted of three DT machine guns. One of them was paired with a gun. The other two were installed in ball mounts on the front hull sheet and the back wall of the tower. The total ammunition of three machine guns included 3087 cartridges (49 disc magazines).

The updated armament of the deeply modernized KV-1 tank required an increase in the crew. Now it consisted of six people: the tank commander, gun commander (gunner), his assistant (castle), driver, driver's assistant and radio operator. The duties of the gun commander and assistant included actions previously performed by one loader.

10 February 1940, the first experienced "tank with a large turret" began trial shooting. They were carried out directly on the territory of the Kirov factory, on a trench stand. Shooting was found to be satisfactory, and the chassis did not let down. The only problem with the design was the muzzle cover. To prevent bullets, splinters and other large "garbage" from entering the barrel, a special round piece was installed. The opening of the muzzle was made automatically, in a split second before the departure of the projectile. At the very first trial shot, the cap was torn off from the mountings and flew off somewhere. It became clear that this part of the tank was superfluous. On the second prototype of the “tank with a large turret” the muzzle cover was not installed, and the remnants of the closure mechanism were removed from the first.



Factory tests of the new tank did not last long. Already February 17 both prototypes went to the front. In the course of the military tests, the necessary information for the improvements was collected. In particular, the nomenclature of permissible ammunition was expanded - it was the fortifications of the Mannerheim line that became the objects thanks to which the “tank with a big turret” began to fire with concrete-shells. Also, the military made a number of proposals regarding the layout of the new tower. In accordance with these recommendations, in the second half of 1940, SKB-2 engineers refined its shape. First of all, its dimensions were altered. The updated turret tower had a lower height and was designated by the index MT-2. At the same time, the shape of the frontal and side plates was changed. For ease of assembly, the front of the tower has become rectangular, rather than trapezoidal, as before. Also reworked the mask tools and introduced several smaller improvements.

The modified tank with the MT-2 turret was what the military wanted to get. Now the armored vehicles had the proper power and ease of use. With regard to the level of protection, the booking of KV tanks from the very beginning of their combat work received the highest accolades. So, after the battles on the forehead, sides, and turrets of experienced “tanks with a big turret,” there were dozens of dents from enemy shells. For several months of combat tests, none of them was able to penetrate the 75 millimeters of rolled homogeneous armor. As an example of the power of weapons and the level of protection of the new machine, one can cite the words of tankman EF Glushak:

The obstacles on the Mannerheim line were made solid. In front of us stood in three rows huge granite drags. And yet, in order to make the passage width 6 — 8 meters, we needed only five shots with concrete-concrete shells. While we were hacking open posts, the enemy constantly bombarded us. We quickly spotted the pillbox and then completely destroyed it with two shots. When out of the battle, 48 dents were counted on the armor, but not a single hole.




The combination of protection, armament and mobility influenced the decision of the Commissariat of Defense. At the beginning of the 1941, the new tank was adopted under the designation KV-2. Mass production was deployed at the Kirov factory in Leningrad. KV-2 was produced until October 1941 year. In the first months of the war, the production of heavy tanks gradually declined. The reason for this was several factors at once: the complexity and laboriousness of production, the plight of industry, the need to evacuate production, etc. The exact number of KV-2 tanks produced raises questions. The most commonly cited figure in 330-340 machines. However, a number of sources indicate the fact that Perm Plant No. XXUMX managed to produce only a hundred suspension systems for howitzers. From this it is concluded that the appropriate number of collected tanks.

Despite the relatively small number of manufactured KV-2 tanks, they caused a real sensation on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. With their 152-mm projectiles, heavy tanks confidently hit all the German armored vehicles available at that time. Reservations, in turn, was enough to protect against the vast majority of guns. Only the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns could fight the Klima Voroshilovs of the second model more or less normally. However, the duel of the tank and the anti-aircraft gunners did not have a clear result in advance: at the expense of a larger caliber, the tank could destroy the calculation of the weapon without entering the zone of guaranteed destruction. In addition, the tankers were located behind full-fledged sheets of armor, and not behind the anti-bullet shield of the gun. Overall, the KV-1 and the KV-2 were a formidable force to fear. However, some nuances of application, logistics, etc. led to sad results.



As examples of the failures of new tanks, the 4-I tank division is often cited. In the first two weeks of World War II, this compound lost 22 tank KV-2. Moreover, only five of them were hit by the enemy. The rest of the lack of fuel or spare parts were abandoned or destroyed by the crew. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the losses of Soviet heavy tanks came precisely in non-combat incidents. Difficulties with supplies and constant retreat forced tankers not to repair their cars, but to abandon or destroy them. Nevertheless, even in such difficult conditions, the Soviet tankers brought a lot of problems to the enemy. A vivid example of this is the memoirs of one of the German officers who served in the 1 Panzer Division:

Our companies opened fire with 700 M. We were getting closer. Soon we were already in 50-100 m from each other. But we could not succeed. Soviet tanks continued to advance, and our armor-piercing shells simply bounced off their armor. Tanks withstand direct fire from 50-mm and 75-mm guns. More than 2 shells hit the KV-70, but more than one failed to penetrate his armor. Several tanks were put out of action when we managed to get into the tracks and then shoot them from a short distance from the guns. Then they were attacked by sappers with backpack charges.


For the Germans, the meeting with the HF-2 was a real shock. This is what the commander of the 11 tank regiment (6 tank division of the 4 tank group) 25 June 1941 wrote in his diary:

"In the morning, the 2 Battalion of the 11 Tank Regiment, together with the von Schekendorf group, attacked along the road, avoiding the swamp on the right. All day long, the units reflected the constant attacks of the Russian 2 Tank Division. Unfortunately, the Russian 52-ton heavy tanks showed that they are almost insensitive to the fire of our 105-mm guns.
A few hits from our 150-mm projectiles also proved ineffective. However, as a result of the constant attacks of the Pz Kpfw IV tanks, most of the enemy tanks were knocked out, which allowed our units to advance three kilometers west of Dubys.
The Routh Group managed to keep its bridgehead, but at noon, having received reinforcements, the enemy counterattacked Rasenay on the left flank to the north-east and turned the troops and headquarters of the 65 Tank Battalion to flight. At this time, the Russian heavy tank cut the path that connected us to the Raus group, and there was no connection with this part throughout the day and the following night. An 88-mm anti-aircraft gun was sent to fight the tank. The attack was just as unsuccessful as the previous battle with the 105-mm howitzers battery. On top of that, our reconnaissance group’s attempt to get close to the tank and burn it with incendiary bottles failed. The group was not able to get close enough due to the strong machine-gun fire that led the tank. "


The KV-2 tanks that survived the retreat of the Red Army fought for several years. Beginning with the 1943 year, part of the heavy tanks was converted into repair and recovery vehicles. The fact is that by that time their driving performance was not fully arranged by the military, and the engine of good power was able to provide for the evacuation of wrecked armored vehicles. Several KV-2 were captured by the Wehrmacht and used for their own purposes. In the German army, Soviet tanks received the designation PzKpfw KV-II 754 (r). The last of these trophies was destroyed in 45, during the assault of Koenigsberg.

The main period of life and combat work of the KV-2 tanks fell on the most difficult times of the Great Patriotic War. Because of this, tanks suffered heavy losses, primarily non-combat ones. This was one of the main reasons that of the more than three hundred collected tanks, only one has survived to our time. Now it is an exhibit of the Central Museum of the Armed Forces. Interestingly, in the Museum of the North Air Force fleet (Safonovo, Murmansk region) there is another tank similar to the KV-2. The word “similar” is used here because the tank from Safonov was made for the shooting of the film “Tank Klim Voroshilov-2” and the base for it was another heavy armored vehicle - IS-2.

On the materials of the sites:
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://pro-tank.ru/
http://opoccuu.com/
http://battlefield.ru/
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/
http://vspomniv.ru/
Author:
143 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Poppy
    Poppy 20 July 2012 09: 39
    +11
    In fact, self-propelled, overdone with such a high tower.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 20 July 2012 09: 58
      +29
      Quote: Poppy
      In fact, self-propelled, overdone with such a high tower.


      Well, then they were rehabilitated at ISU-152 replacing the M-10 with the ML-20, and as you know, it is among the best designs of the barrel artillery for the entire period of its existence
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 20 July 2012 10: 13
        +4
        yes, but a little late
        for some reason, our understanding of the need for self-propelled artillery came late
        before the war, the tank was considered a caterpillar weapon
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 July 2012 11: 10
          +8
          Quote: Poppy
          for some reason, our understanding of the need for self-propelled artillery came late


          I don’t think so. In the peacetime states of the mechanized brigade of 1938, there were 28 BT-7A tanks and 8 units. 122 mm SU-5,
          1. mkpda
            mkpda 25 July 2012 10: 56
            +1
            In the states of self-propelled guns were listed, but in the entire history of the production of triplex SU-5 8 units with 122 mm howitzer have not been built. In the photo above, an experienced self-propelled anti-aircraft gun arr. 1915/1928 and it has nothing to do with SU-5, although it is made on the T-26 chassis.
        2. avt
          avt 12 May 2018 07: 39
          0
          Quote: Poppy
          for some reason, our understanding of the need for self-propelled artillery came late

          Look for Gorlitsky, well, what did he actually say about this.
      2. datur
        datur 20 July 2012 12: 11
        +11
        Vadivak, but St. John's wort drank the blood of the Germans !!!!!! A 44kg suitcase is not a khukh-mukhra for you, but a guaranteed road to hell! and it doesn’t matter which beast the Germans were on !!!! wink
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 July 2012 14: 32
          +10
          Quote: datur
          St. John's wort drank blood


          Not only to the Germans ..... West Bank of the Suez Canal, Genif hills, south of Ismailia. 1973 year.
          1. 755962
            755962 20 July 2012 16: 59
            +6
            A noble mallet, Nightmare of the Germans with one look.
        2. valerysvy
          valerysvy 13 August 2015 01: 28
          +6
          Yeah ... drank))))) Write to me real cases "St. John's wort" shot at the tank ... Their Unit! THIS is not intended for fighting tanks ..... sighting range on the shield 2,5 by 2,5 m 700m ..... on the state. trials .... It's like fighting tanks? Only in case of acute need ... Not for anti-tank warfare was created ... in fact, unsuitable for this ... the duel will lose to the tank ...
        3. Pattern
          Pattern 12 May 2018 07: 16
          +8
          "St. John's wort" ... So called SU-100. Recognized as the most effective pt-sau. ISU-152 had negative reviews when fighting tanks, but was used as a siege weapon.
          1. BAI
            BAI 12 May 2018 08: 55
            +10
            Of course, the anti-tank weapon is the SU-100. But the father is really a witness: ISU-152 demolished the Tigra tower (1944, Ukraine).
          2. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 18 May 2018 18: 20
            0
            Quote: Pattern
            "St. John's wort" ... So called SU-100. Recognized as the most effective pt-sau. ISU-152 had negative reviews when fighting tanks, but was used as a siege weapon.

            Initially, St. John's Wort was called the SU-152. This nickname does not apply to ISU-152, which appeared later and on the basis of IS-2, and not KV-1s. The Su-100 was not called so often, and they appeared a year after the cessation of production of the SU-152.
            1. Pattern
              Pattern 26 May 2018 13: 42
              -1
              I agree. But still, it was the SU-100 that turned out to be the most effective in the fight against German tanks. And about KV-2. He was not unexpected for the enemy. Intelligence at the Fritz, as well as the "fifth column", were able to dig a lot of information about parts of the Red Army.
        4. tred
          tred 12 May 2018 19: 16
          +2
          Quote: datur
          yeah, St. John's wort drank krovushki Germans !!!!!! 44kg a suitcase is not Khuhra-Mukhra for you, but a guaranteed road to hell

          In fact, 152 mm self-propelled guns are in vain called St. John's wort. It was extremely difficult to get into the tanks from them. Not their goals. There are few such cases.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 12 May 2018 22: 54
            0
            Quote: tred
            Not their goals

            Well, at least that. Jagdpanzer IV / 70 and Jagdpanter are not delivered, unfortunately.
        5. nikoliski
          nikoliski 13 May 2018 14: 55
          +3
          Why immediately to hell? Maybe in Valhalla?) Some Germans were wonderful warriors, their greatest tank ace Hartmann somehow fought with the Esos, when he saw how they kicked the captive Red Army (the great warrior is always a noble knight!) By the way, the program touched me, they showed the luftwafa veteran who flew up seeing the American bomber that the gunner is dead, and the plane itself is full of holes and barely pulling, suddenly the crew regretted seeing their faces behind the plexiglass and just escorted them to the English Channel with a wave of goodbye, they met now (both live in Canada - these two old men hugged and cried, I was also moved ...)
          1. Alf
            Alf 13 May 2018 22: 38
            +8
            Quote: nikoliski
            greatest tank ace Hartmann

            Hartmann flew the tank? I haven't laughed like that for a long time
            Quote: nikoliski
            , their greatest tank ace Hartmann once got into a fight with the Esosovites when he saw them kicking the captured Red Army with their feet (a great warrior is always a noble knight!)

            Look at the smaller Discovery, there are also not such pearls slipping through.
            Quote: nikoliski
            the great warrior is always a noble knight!

            What about their nobility on the Eastern Front?
            1. bubalik
              bubalik 13 May 2018 23: 01
              +4
              Hartmann flew the tank? I haven't laughed like that for a long time
              Quote: nikoliski
              Hartmann’s tank ace like a fight with the SS men when he saw how they captured a captured Red Army man (

              ,, we are talking about Kurt Knispele ,,

              Four times he presented himself to the Knight's Cross, but he never received it. This fact is associated with his character. In particular, Franz Kurovsky in his book cites famous cases when Kurt Knispel attacked an officer of the Einsatzgruppen, defending a beaten Soviet prisoner of war,
              1. nikoliski
                nikoliski 14 May 2018 00: 44
                -1
                Yes, I just wrote about him, just thinking about mine, thanks for the amendment
            2. nikoliski
              nikoliski 14 May 2018 00: 43
              -1
              expression tank ace, are you unfamiliar? then there’s nothing to talk about with you at all
          2. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 18 May 2018 19: 27
            +1
            Quote: nikoliski
            By the way, the program touched me, they showed a veteran of the Luftwaffe who, having flown up to the American bomber and saw that the radio operator was dead, and the plane was full of holes and was barely pulling, suddenly he regretted the crew seeing their faces behind the plexiglass and just drove them to the English Channel waving goodbye wings, they met now (both live in Canada, hugged and cried these two old men, touched me too...)

            and you are touched by the memoirs of German pilots who were razed to the ground, along with the inhabitants, of Stalingrad, those who bombed Leningrad and stormed ambulances and trains with red crosses on the roofs. Those who were "shedding tears" shot columns of refugees ... And also watch the 6-episode film Aushvic (Auschwitz or Auschwitz) of 2005, as Americans talk about the "poor" Germans who were "forced" to use gas chambers to save the psyche of the SS "forced" several thousand Russians a day. After all, it is "hard" to see so many corpses.

            That "comrade" and showed who he really is, and someone did not even pay attention to it.
      3. tred
        tred 12 May 2018 19: 13
        0
        Quote: Vadivak
        and she is known to be one of the best designs of barrel artillery for the entire period of its existence

        Do not believe it. Agitprop will not tell you something yet.
    2. mind1954
      mind1954 22 July 2012 03: 48
      +3
      So it was a howitzer! The trunk should rise, but where?
      From there and the height !!!
      1. curious
        curious 31 July 2012 13: 25
        +4
        In its 1940th year - it was generally an armored monster that really had no analogues, and one can only guess what the Wehrmacht would do - if it had at least a hundred of these machines with enough ammunition and good communications
    3. avdkrd
      avdkrd 6 September 2017 11: 50
      +13
      It is clear that the KV-2 was closer to the assault gun, and in fact for this purpose it was created. However, with the right tactics, it was a real wunderwaffe. 70 hits and not a single penetration !!! The Red Army simply did not have tactics of its use in defense and they were not thrown out of good life into battle without cover.
      1. Huumi
        Huumi 13 May 2018 17: 47
        +6
        I live in Karelia, I went to the forests of those, I can say one thing is absolutely correct, the designers took the decision! -The self-propelled gun rotated the carcass-in the stony forests of Karelia there are bad roads, it was very important to rotate only the tower
    4. Proxima
      Proxima 12 May 2018 13: 36
      +7
      Quote: Poppy
      In fact, self-propelled, overdone with such a high tower.
      That's it, that this is not a self-propelled gun, but a real effective combat vehicle, which perfectly performed the functions of a heavy tank. What are the combat episodes described in the article? Remember how many shells hit the tank’s tower, but the HF didn’t cost much, Or when the German assault group failed to set fire to the tank, since it was successfully fired from machine guns. Samrohodka, which usually has poor reservation (especially for the sides and stern) and lacks machine gun weapons, would have been destroyed long ago.
  2. Kill
    Kill 20 July 2012 09: 41
    +7
    A non-standard and very promising tank that ruined the lack of time and the then concept of using tanks.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 20 July 2012 09: 47
      +1
      Hardly promising, 152 mm to this day on tanks not.
      That is why a self-propelled gun with such a howitzer was not made as soon as the KV-1 appeared (or in parallel with it) - a big question.
      1. NG inform
        NG inform 17 May 2018 00: 49
        -1
        Sau Acacia?
        Before the war, it was believed that tank guns would become a replacement for artillery, so they made self-propelled tanks.
    2. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 18 May 2018 19: 37
      +1
      Quote: Toten
      A non-standard and very promising tank that ruined the lack of time and the then concept of using tanks.
      You could not even read the article, not to mention other sources. He had only one purpose - the breakthrough of fortified areas, the destruction of pillboxes and armored caps approaching them point-blank. In the 41st, there was simply nowhere to use it, and in the 43rd it was already an easy target ...
  3. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 20 July 2012 09: 44
    +8
    Very powerful for its time. In comparison, German tanks at the outbreak of the war looked like midgets next to Guliver.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 20 July 2012 10: 13
      +12
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      In comparison, German tanks at the outbreak of the war looked like midgets next to Guliver.


      Yes, but it wasn’t created for tank combat, its task was to attack pillboxes and destroy fortifications, an armor-piercing 52-kg shell (sea grenade) with an initial speed of 436 m / s, piercing a 72-mm armor plate located at an angle of 60 degrees. from a distance of 1500 meters

      Already in 1940, the Soviet command on the experience of combat use concluded that the armament of the KV - 2 tank could effectively deal with long-term enemy fortifications, but was useless for tank combat. In addition, the high mass of the heavy tank, which created big problems when passing through bridges, was taken into account and water barriers, as well as the inability to fire on the move, therefore, they tried to install an 2-mm F-39 cannon on the KV - 85, and in May 1941 a prototype F-42. In the picture, in the end the F-42 did not go (heavy for the infectious unitary projectile), and the epic with the KV-2 ended, but it left its mark in tank building

      1. mkpda
        mkpda 24 July 2012 10: 48
        +1
        F-42 used ammunition from the M-60, and starting with the modernized 107 mm gun mod. 1910/1930 ammunition of this caliber became separate loading.
    2. BAI
      BAI 12 May 2018 09: 08
      +10
      Well, not so Lilliputians, although not tanks.

      The German self-propelled howitzer sIG-33 drives past the crew of the Soviet heavy tank KV-2 from the 2nd Panzer Division of the 3rd Mechanized Corps of the 11th Army, General Morozov.

      The KV-2 in the picture is very rare - it has an MT-1 tower, of which only 24 were produced.

      By the way, if we look at the Military Album, we will see that the main reason for the loss of KV-2 is that the tank was abandoned due to a breakdown or got stuck. Those. losses are not combat.
      1. jrvp79
        jrvp79 13 May 2018 10: 34
        +2
        But ours is what a Beauty !! What a wide track, compared to a passing SAU! Well, with the tower, there was no time to develop.
  4. mkpda
    mkpda 20 July 2012 10: 07
    +7
    The article is weak, the V-2K engine was put on both versions.
    As for the KV-2, its appearance is due to the lack of self-propelled and assault artillery in the Red Army. Its use was an even more incorrect decision, a specialized product had no place in ordinary parts. In addition, problems with the power plant and transmission on the main model were exacerbated by weight gain on this modification. The turret rotation mechanism (inherited from the T-28) already worked poorly on the KV-1, and on the KV-2 it was simply unreliable and had great restrictions on the angles of inclination of the hull.
  5. Kars
    Kars 20 July 2012 10: 08
    +24
    Well, I don’t know, I personally like the concept of the KV-2 as an assault tank. Just because they couldn’t be used well in 1941 doesn’t mean the viciousness of the scheme. According to rumors, by the way, the last KV-2 defended the Reichstag, and was generally widely used by the Fritz.

    Now, by the way, I’m trying to assemble --- I just decided not to make a real tank (otherwise the photo was completely knocked out), but it was preserved in parts of the Red Army until 1943 (as in the well-known book about fellow soldiers), and this is like
    1. mkpda
      mkpda 20 July 2012 10: 18
      +5
      The question, as always, is not in the concept, but in its implementation. KV-2 had too many disadvantages to realize its advantages.

      Then the T-28, which fought before the spring of 1944 near Murmansk, and the command sang odes to them, should have the palm ... laughing
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 July 2012 10: 24
        +12
        As for the shortcomings - who didn’t have them? The T-34 had even more of them.

        and BT fought and in 1945 the main place and against whom.
        1. Armata
          Armata 20 July 2012 10: 34
          +13
          Quote: Kars
          Now, by the way, I’m trying to assemble --- I just decided not to make a real tank (otherwise the photo was completely lined)

          Andrey, if necessary, I’ll send you detailed photos of the restored one from Pyshma, right from the exhibition (the video is from there to the article). In general, I think that KV2 was a breakthrough tank for its time.
          1. Kars
            Kars 20 July 2012 11: 31
            +6
            Thank you. I'm waiting for the parcel to arrive.
            I am glad that at least there is one, for some reason the originals have not been preserved. But who knew that the technology of that war in such a volume would be claimed.
            1. Armata
              Armata 20 July 2012 11: 36
              +8
              At the post office they said that until Ukraine 2 will go. And the only thing that was restored is that it has a replaceable tower and put it on the move, the engine, hodovka are all original. Collected from several broken.
              He crippled asphalt at 9 at the May 2010 parade, now only stands at the exhibition laughing
              1. Kars
                Kars 20 July 2012 11: 45
                +6
                There were no questions behind the chassis - this good was enough.
                But here’s the tower and the cannon — at least I’ll be glad if all the same a great authenticity.
                1. Armata
                  Armata 20 July 2012 12: 39
                  +4
                  By the way, for the sake of initiation. In the photographs in the article, the towers are also 2 types. Why?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 20 July 2012 12: 41
                    +5
                    And they both went into battle, and so the author knows better.

                    In my collection a little more than 100 photos, all sorts of.
        2. mkpda
          mkpda 20 July 2012 19: 19
          +1
          Of course, the T-34 was a very mediocre tank in the pre-war period. And here comes the thought - Kotin fundamentally killed the T-28 for the sake of switching to heavy tanks. But the T-28 since 1938 was the best domestic tank for that period in the Red Army, while maintaining it in the series and further modernization, there was a chance to have not only an effective medium tank, but also a reliable one.

          The BT and T-26 in the Far East did not participate in the hostilities before the Japanese company, and the T-28 went through most of the war, provided that it was withdrawn from production at the end of May 1940! Called - feel the difference.
    2. Cashpoint
      Cashpoint 20 July 2012 12: 50
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      Well, I don’t know, I personally like the concept of the KV-2 as an assault tank. But the fact that they couldn’t be used well in 1941 does not mean the scheme’s depravity

      Most of these tanks were abandoned by their crews, it was impossible to disguise it, because everything that could fly into it, thrust-weight ratio was low, maneuverability was also impossible to turn the tower with the slightest roll. This tank was created to break through fortifications such as the Manerheim line in those days when self-propelled guns were not invented.
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 July 2012 12: 53
        +10
        Quote: CashPoint
        impossible to disguise it



        Most of the tanks crashed along the road, which didn’t cause much harm. Failure criteria - breakdowns, lack of fuel - combat damage --- single cases.
        1. Cashpoint
          Cashpoint 20 July 2012 13: 10
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Failure criteria - failures, lack of fuel - combat damage --- single cases.


          Yah smile

          http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/kv2/kv2.htm
          1. Kars
            Kars 20 July 2012 13: 13
            +1
            Quote: CashPoint
            http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/kv2/kv2.htm



            You think you said something new for me? Everything fits my words.
            1. Kars
              Kars 20 July 2012 13: 18
              +6
              By the way, there are no photos on the mechanized corps
          2. Stas57
            Stas57 20 July 2012 13: 34
            +1
            Quote: CashPoint
            Yah

            http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/files/kv2/kv2.htm


            and what is there statistics of abandoned cars?
    3. faiver
      faiver 12 May 2018 11: 37
      +1
      Well, during the defense of Berlin, the Germans and English brands used the time of World War I, by the way, which they got from the Red Army, and ours they got from the Balts ... so the use of KV2 in the defense of Berlin is not an indicator ...
      initially it was necessary to abandon the tower in favor of cutting ...
  6. Poppy
    Poppy 20 July 2012 10: 15
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Well, I don’t know, I personally like the concept of the KV-2 as an assault tank. But the fact that they couldn’t be used well in 1941 does not mean the depravity of the scheme.

    Such a huge height and, accordingly, mass is vicious initially
    1. Dr. Pilyulkin
      Dr. Pilyulkin 20 July 2012 11: 08
      +12
      A huge height is vicious in the presence of effective means of destruction. At the time of the appearance of KV-2, such funds practically did not exist. What is confirmed by the experience of application and numerous memories from both our and the enemy's sides. On the contrary, with proper use, the KV-2 was an extremely formidable weapon both militarily and in terms of psychological impact on the enemy.
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 20 July 2012 12: 21
        +2
        so "aht komma aht" was, it’s easier for her to get into a big goal :-)
        the concept was erroneous, it was not for nothing that later self-propelled guns began to be cut, albeit on the same chassis
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 July 2012 12: 28
          +7
          Quote: Poppy
          was, it’s easier to get to the big goal :-)


          yes, about the same thing, but a tank with a high location of the line of fire is even easier to get into ..shed .. Flaka 36
          Quote: Poppy
          not for nothing that then self-propelled guns began to be cut, albeit on the same chassis

          Cheaper, simpler and faster
        2. Alf
          Alf 12 May 2018 20: 47
          +1
          Quote: Poppy
          so "aht komma aht" was, it’s easier for her to get into a big goal :-)

          How many 8-8 were released in the 41st year?
          How many of them were in units, not air defense?
          The probability of meeting HF and 8-8 can be calculated by yourself.
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 12 May 2018 20: 21
        +2
        Pak 38 ultimate strength of 700 meters, penetration limit of 400 meters (caliber armor-piercing projectile).
        Pak 36 the rear strength of 180 meters, the penetration limit of 120 meters (armor-piercing armor-piercing projectile).
        Not to mention anti-aircraft guns of 88 mm, 105 mm howitzers, nimble doctors with teller mines and more.
        The tank itself is a good one, indeed a step forward from the T-28, it would have TA TA 1944-45 instead of MK MK 1941.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 20 July 2012 11: 26
      +5
      Quote: Poppy
      Such a huge height and, accordingly, mass is vicious initially


      You can’t put a howitzer on such a 152 mm cannon
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 July 2012 11: 41
        +14
        Fritz damn what you want on what you want to put. Maybe not quite that, but very similar.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 20 July 2012 12: 12
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Fritz damn what you want on what you want to put. Maybe not quite that, but very similar.

          Well, just the progenitor of "Msta"
          1. Prohor
            Prohor 20 July 2012 15: 42
            0
            Yeah! Three hundred year old grandfather with badik !!! laughing
        2. datur
          datur 20 July 2012 12: 15
          +1
          Kars, Fritz damn what you want on what you want to put .- so they already had nowhere to fight !!!!!! wink
          1. Kars
            Kars 20 July 2012 12: 28
            +1
            Quote: datur
            so they already had nowhere to fight

            This is before 1941
        3. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 July 2012 12: 30
          +6
          Quote: Kars
          what you want, what you want put. maybe not quite that, but very similar.


          Well this is the Pz platform. Kpfw. I if I’m not mistaken, you will put the M-10 on it and this cart at best will go underground
          1. Kars
            Kars 20 July 2012 12: 37
            +4
            Trophy English Vickers some kind of MK I myself do not know.


            At first, they did not particularly need such devices.
            This is on the chassis of the unit. Then they began to act in the same direction.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 20 July 2012 13: 37
              +2
              and why is Sturmpanzer II “Is Bison better than 2?”
              same cabinet
              1. Kars
                Kars 20 July 2012 14: 22
                +1
                And who says who is better who is worse? These are cars of different classes
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 20 July 2012 14: 42
                  +1
                  Yes, I’m not for you, I am the one who covers it with what
  7. Bugor
    Bugor 20 July 2012 10: 21
    +2
    In TsMVSe in Moscow, it’s, it seems, with a high tower, only the gun seems to me to be 85mm. I haven’t been there for a long time ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 20 July 2012 10: 25
      +5
      Quote: Bugor
      In TsMVSe in Moscow


      There should be the last surviving original HF 2
      Unfortunately, he remained only one and should be from 152 mm.
      1. Armata
        Armata 20 July 2012 10: 35
        +5
        Quote: Kars
        There should be the last surviving original HF 2

        There with a small tower, and the only surviving one stands at an exhibition in V. Pyshma.
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 July 2012 11: 27
          +5
          Unfortunately, the remake tower is unambiguous.
  8. Krilion
    Krilion 20 July 2012 10: 27
    +2
    I read something like a tanker’s memoirs ... some crews were even afraid to shoot from such tanks ... the whole crew had previously left the car, and the shot was fired with a cord ... the commanders had to personally drive everyone inside and make indicative firing .. it helped a little .. .was very unreliable undercarriage and engines .. constantly broke due to which tanks and threw ...

    but in general, I can imagine the horror of the Germans ... compared to the small-caliber pukals installed on their tanks, the KV-2 has a real "devil-pipe" ... 152 mm is not a joke even now, but at that time it was generally a nightmare .. ...
    1. borisst64
      borisst64 20 July 2012 11: 24
      +1
      Because of the traitor Pavlov, by the beginning of the war, shells for these tanks were stored in warehouses beyond 300 km from the border.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 20 July 2012 13: 39
        +1
        Quote: borisst64
        Because of the traitor Pavlov, by the beginning of the war, shells for these tanks were stored in warehouses beyond 300 km from the border.

        what shells? everything?
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 20 July 2012 10: 40
      +3
      If you do not own the question, but just read Suvorov, then it is better not to speak.
      Heavy tanks were in France
      1. sribnuu
        sribnuu 20 July 2012 10: 43
        +1
        Well, which tank in France? Anything like that?
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 20 July 2012 11: 20
          0
          The French also had it - a simple matter, a simple, clumsy fool ...
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 20 July 2012 11: 30
        +10
        Quote: Poppy
        Heavy tanks were in France


        Well with KV-2 compare this g .... V-1
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 July 2012 11: 42
          +6
          And there was also such a miracle of technology French.
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 20 July 2012 11: 59
            +5
            Quote: Kars
            And there was also such a miracle of technology French.


            Well, R35 is certainly recognizable,

            captured by the Red Army in Poland in September 1939. In the spring of 1940, this machine was tested at the NIBTP Polygon in Kubinka

            And then the second 2C like?
            1. Kars
              Kars 20 July 2012 12: 17
              +2
              Quote: Vadivak
              And then the second 2C like?


              Yeah, actually I'm talking about him, a cool contrast.
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 20 July 2012 12: 39
                +4
                Quote: Kars
                Yeah, actually I’m talking about him,


                Yes, interesting. Have you seen these pirates?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 20 July 2012 12: 51
                  +2
                  I saw ---- there were so few of them that they almost explored them by name. But I looked at the pictures so --- the machine itself was of little interest to me.

                  I have 14 photos.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 20 July 2012 12: 55
                    +2
                    From captured German
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 20 July 2012 21: 13
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      From captured German

                      Well, you can and the Russian monster for the company.
    2. Prohor
      Prohor 20 July 2012 10: 44
      0
      From what sources is the number 700?
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 20 July 2012 11: 28
      +5
      Quote: sribnuu
      But Hitler knocked out his eyes to the powerful cyclops.


      An hour not from the Hitler Youth will be Partigenigenoss? Or sympathizing?
      1. sribnuu
        sribnuu 20 July 2012 11: 37
        -6
        Vadivak,
        It was necessary to attack the "Hitler Youth"! To what we were preparing! But it became as fortunate. The best defense is offense.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 July 2012 11: 50
          +2
          Quote: sribnuu
          It was necessary to attack the "Hitler Youth"!


          Yes, it’s against, but what does the cyclops have to do with it?
    4. SIT
      SIT 20 July 2012 12: 09
      +6
      Quote: sribnuu
      You need to understand why it was created - obviously not for the defense of borders on its land, but for the offensive. In total, there were about 22 on the cob on June 1941, 700, and all of them were in the process of regrouping to the western direction. A powerful offensive was being prepared! But Hitler knocked out his eyes to the powerful cyclops.

      The article says what it was created for - to break through complex fortified areas such as the Mannerheim line. What kind of fortifications in Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia had to be broken through? There are beautiful roads that allow you to quickly maneuver high-speed cars. KV 2 there was absolutely useless. There was no off-road of the Karelian Isthmus, which should be crushed by its tracks, nor concrete pillboxes and grooves for its 152mm gun. So it’s not the topic with the cyclops.
      1. loc.bejenari
        loc.bejenari 20 July 2012 23: 29
        +1
        they were all practically on the border with east Prussia
        there, the Germans had fortifications that needed to be hacked
    5. wulf66
      wulf66 20 July 2012 13: 56
      +4
      Well, and a smell from your words ... Traitor rezuna read? Look for the future will not work.
    6. Vladimir 70
      Vladimir 70 20 July 2012 15: 08
      +6
      The storyteller Rezun read?
      1. loc.bejenari
        loc.bejenari 22 July 2012 01: 28
        +1
        1. What does Rezun have to do with it
        2.Read where the main losses of KV2 were
        3. Well, as a defensive weapon it’s hard to imagine a tank designed to fight pillboxes
        4. Clinical and .... there it’s useless to explain something — for some reason they immediately remember about Great Russia and the traitor Rezun laughing
        1. Kars
          Kars 22 July 2012 01: 32
          +1
          Quote: loc.bejenari
          2.Read where the main losses of KV2 were

          Come on, you yourself can say that it would be more visible.
          Quote: loc.bejenari
          Well, as a defensive weapon it’s hard to imagine a tank

          Or can you give an example of a defensive tank? Well, what would be something to compare.
    7. Bronis
      Bronis 21 July 2012 22: 00
      +2
      Ah yes Hitler well done! He, poor, just a mustachioed guy with freckles saw through and decided to act in advance. And we did not understand his noble deed! Because of chagrin, he shot himself a bullet in the head. Although no, he was probably offended and decided to fly to the Antarctic or to the Moon. On a flying saucer, of course. A double shot himself. And so on, so on, so on.
      And now - history. Hitler attacked first and went to this purposefully. "Barbarossa" was not developed on June 21, and it was said about "living space" long before 1941. And the genocide of civilians in the occupied territory bears little resemblance to self-defense.
      Well, the fact that they were Soviet tanks were "regrouping to the west" is quite logical. The time was tense - they had to be kept not beyond the Urals.
  10. Poppy
    Poppy 20 July 2012 10: 52
    +4
    Read oh my illiterate friend
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1

    Didn’t you see this too?
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmpanzer_I
    1. sribnuu
      sribnuu 20 July 2012 11: 09
      -6
      Dear expert. You would also compare "Big Vili" and KV-2. Study the characteristics of Char_B1 and KV (engine, arrangement of components and mechanisms, mobility, etc.). He doesn't hold a candle. It would be more correct to compare the Frenchman with the T-35. But alas, sir, you are only looking at pictures. sad
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 20 July 2012 12: 24
        +3
        and compare
        you blurted out that no one had heavy tanks, so here's an example
        quite comparable to HF
  11. sribnuu
    sribnuu 20 July 2012 11: 12
    -3
    Sturmpanzer I - combat masa 7t. What will you show me the bullshit. See not kattrinki? !!, respected Expert in tanks.
  12. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 20 July 2012 11: 19
    +1
    Initially, there was a stupid idea - it was necessary to do self-propelled guns, and not a tank (of course, now it’s easy to talk about it, but still ...)
    The KV tank was originally a useless walker because of its weight, so sculpting such a fool in a rotating tower was just wrecking - but a self-propelled gun would be at least in the weight of the tank!
    I think that the Germans’s shock is an exaggeration - almost the only problem is to collect abandoned tanks ...
    Sad is a story, very sad ...
    1. 8 company
      8 company 20 July 2012 12: 13
      +2
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      Sad is a story, very sad ...


      Yes ... It’s hard to imagine what our Germans would do if they had such tanks plus normally organized troops under the command of adequate commanders. One has only to recall the history of the tank formations of the Red Army: Tukhachevsky creates a mechanized corps of 500 (it seems) tanks, he is shot and the bodies disbanded as wrecking. Here the Second World War begins and it suddenly turns out that the Germans achieve success precisely with the help of large tank formations. Again they create a mechanized corps, but already 1000 tanks each, although yesterday they shouted that there were too many 500. In the summer of 41 they all lose, because they are not provided with communications, vehicles and God still knows what. Brigades are again disbanded and created in the fall ... One need only be surprised at how the world's best tanks were created in such a mess. Maybe the mess was just less in the defense than in the army?
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 July 2012 12: 21
        +5
        Quote: Company 8
        One has only to recall the history of the tank formations of the Red Army Tukhachevsky creates a mechanized corps of 500


        Tukhachevsey and Type KV and T-34 tanks are not compatible. BT-9 is its limit.
        And by the way, both 1000 and 500 are many, and Herr Tukhachevsky made the main mistake - some tanks, almost no infantry.
        Quote: Company 8
        how in such a mess created the best tanks in the world.

        They were created through a mess. And they were the best only in our army and when used by our people.
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 20 July 2012 12: 25
        +2
        Andrey from the 8th company, but maybe about KV-2 and not about the Red Army as a whole?
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 July 2012 12: 39
          +2
          Well, the 8th company, it’s hard without him.
      3. Poppy
        Poppy 20 July 2012 12: 25
        +2
        Quote: Company 8
        Maybe the mess was just less in the defense than in the army?

        Unfortunately no, there were many
      4. mkpda
        mkpda 20 July 2012 17: 09
        0
        The mechanized corps of the first formation were disbanded according to the experience of the Polish campaign. Instead, they wanted to create motorized divisions, but France happened and instead of an adequate structure they began to create an analogue of the German tank group in the form of mechanized corps of the second formation with the simultaneous repetition of the mistakes of the first formation. In addition to structural problems, organizational problems arose - instead of 9 mechanized corps and two TDs, they decided to form another 20 mechanized corps! There were no people or equipment for this!
        1. aKtoR
          aKtoR 14 May 2018 08: 28
          +2
          I would clarify. After the receipt of reconnaissance information about the formation of new tank divisions by the Germans in late September, 1940, in early October, it was decided to form dozens of infantry support brigades around 2,5. Subsequently, these forces are deployed in microns. According to Soviet intelligence, the Germans could have put up 10000 tanks against the USSR at the end of 1940. Here, our and tried to compare. Also, on reconnaissance of the beginning of the 1941, the German MD should have been strengthened by giving a separate tank battalion
      5. avt
        avt 12 May 2018 13: 49
        +2
        Quote: Company 8
        Tukhachevsky creates a mechanized corps of 500 (it seems) tanks, he is shot and corps disbanded as wrecking.

        Many military commanders, including Shaposhnikov, send reports - it is completely impossible to manage such units, in view of the stupid organizational staff structure.
        Quote: Company 8
        Here begins the Second World War

        Toropykhka missed a simple, scumbling fact - they again began to form BEFORE the war and ... again, large military commanders began to write reports - completely uncontrollable units, the organizational structure was not thought out at all, and here it is

        Quote: Company 8
        the Second World War begins and it suddenly turns out
        that those, well, with the above-mentioned Shaposhnikov, are absolutely right. Tank and mechanized divisions and corps are bulky and slow in comparison
        Quote: Company 8
        Germans achieve success precisely with the help of large tank formations.
        and because of this, they are introduced into the battle in parts for a completely unified tank fist of the Germans, perfectly interacting with the Luftwaffe.
        Quote: Company 8
        Again they create a mechanized corps, but already 1000 tanks each, although yesterday they shouted that there were too many 500. In the summer of 41 they all lose, because they are not provided with communications, vehicles and God still knows what.

        fool ,, D.B. "Teach the materiel! There was already nothing to lose, they lost everything, but they haven’t done new ones yet, because of the undeveloped production of the evacuated. And they form tank brigades
        Quote: Company 8
        One need only be surprised

        Where do such mitrophanus come from when you don’t need to sit in the library in order to understand the topic in chronological order - work as a search engine, but not on Wikipedia and not rich in your thought.
    2. mkpda
      mkpda 20 July 2012 17: 00
      0
      The problem is not weight, but the creation of a reliable transmission for a heavy tank with a diesel engine. Plus organizational - their complete need for mechanized corps.
  13. 8 company
    8 company 20 July 2012 13: 40
    +4
    Quote: Poppy
    Unfortunately no, there were many


    Many, many, but the top commanders at the defense were, in my opinion, much better than the top commanders of the Red Army. What claims can we present to defense leaders in the prewar and war periods? Thinking, any sane person will say: yes no! On the contrary: even taking into account the loss of many engineering and technical activities in 1937-38, both the output in general grew and the quality. And since June 41, they have done the impossible - relocated the huge masses of enterprises to the east and in a matter of days arranged the production of high-level military products. This is an amazing labor feat, in my opinion, the only one in history in its scope! And the Red Army at that time fell into one boiler after another, handed over one city after another ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 20 July 2012 14: 31
      +1
      Quote: Company 8
      : yes no!

      And for example, the release of BT and T-26 tanks and not the release of spare parts for them?
      Marriage at work?
      Systematic failure to fulfill the plan for the same spare parts, rem kits of ammunition? And all this before the war.
      1. Rainger
        Rainger 20 July 2012 18: 25
        +1
        Are you a young man aware of how these very plans came down to "the most advanced and just Soviet state in the world"?
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 July 2012 19: 44
          +1
          But are you kind of aware of everything that was going on at the factories? And the fact that there were no spare parts for tanks in 1940-41 is a fact, which greatly influenced the loss of the border battle.
        2. Raven1972
          Raven1972 20 July 2012 20: 12
          +4
          I am in the know ... Nefig was to take obligations that you cannot fulfill - for which Comrade. Zaltsman and flew away from the post ... He drove the shaft to the detriment of quality .... I can also recall Shakhurin’s machinations with military acceptance, when defective planes were sent in part - they’ll bring the mind to mind ... And there are darkness examples !!! I.V. Stalin is not Khrushch, when they sowed on a call, these comrades themselves took such plans that they could not fulfill, for which they answered in full ...
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 21 July 2012 12: 23
            +1
            Quote: Raven1972
            I can also remind about the machinations of Shakhurin



            Well, he, unlike the constructor of that rubbish, unwound the top ten, then Mikoyan said thanks for not being shot
  14. Kobra66
    Kobra66 20 July 2012 15: 20
    +1
    Well the Germans raked with such a tank, but it began to become obsolete by the middle of the war
    1. Alf
      Alf 12 May 2018 20: 59
      0
      Quote: Kobra66
      Well the Germans raked with such a tank, but it began to become obsolete by the middle of the war

      Military equipment in war generally becomes obsolete very quickly. Example. The tiger in the 42nd and 43rd years is a very strong tank. In August of the 44th, the Tiger gave way to the production of the Royal Tiger.
  15. urich
    urich 20 July 2012 19: 08
    +2
    To prevent bullets, fragments and other large “debris” from entering the barrel, a special round part was installed on the barrel. The opening of the barrel was done automatically,
    As I read "on the muzzle", "opening the muzzle", everything ... I did not read any further! AUTHOR!!!
    there is no DULA at the gun (gun), there is a barrel! A person writing on these topics should know such things! If just a scribbler, then let him go to the women's magazine!
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 20 July 2012 23: 46
      +1
      Know the service - spit in ruzhzho, but do not dunk the barrel ...
    2. alex86
      alex86 21 July 2012 08: 03
      +1
      For objectivity - both in this case and in others - "muzzle" is the final cut of the barrel, opposite to the breech. Although from a stylistic point of view it sounds so-so ...
  16. Yemelya
    Yemelya 20 July 2012 20: 33
    +4
    The history of the KV-2 is at the same time an example of how weapons should be made and how not. Development and construction is a brilliant example of the military's reaction to unforeseen circumstances (Mannerheim Line), and the military-industrial complex - to the demands of the military. We have created, one might say, "in real time" a car that is fully adequate to the moment, and do not care about the low reliability - the main thing is that the Finnish bunkers shoot. But then ... then it was necessary to either thoroughly process it, or develop another machine altogether. Instead, considering the positive experience of the Winter War sufficient, they launched an extremely raw car into a series. The result is known - the majority remained on the roadside. The brilliance and poverty of the Soviet military-industrial complex, so to speak
    1. mkpda
      mkpda 23 July 2012 13: 01
      0
      First of all, we must say that the KV-1 was weakly armed (albeit in full accordance with the assignment of the military) to break through the enemy’s defense (even to defeat the bunkers). Not for nothing was the work on installing 122 mm howitzers in this tower. KV-2 with M-10T began to be made only due to the lack of concrete-piercing shells for 122 mm howitzers.
      I agree that the launch of the KV-2 series was not a well-thought-out solution, but the release of the basic KV-1 left a lot of questions.
  17. Igarr
    Igarr 20 July 2012 21: 45
    +2
    No gentlemen ...
    read your posts ... and in surprise.
    Are you reading for the first time about KV-2?
    I remember, as a kid, I read about him in Technique-Youth, and in Young Technique, And in Knowledge-Strength, and in Rationalizer-Refrigerator.
    Yes, wherever I read ...
    And so much in the memoirs.
    The main test - shooting under course 90 degrees - Voroshilov himself, allegedly, took.
    Okay ... I took ... gram 500 .... Joke.
    ...
    The Germans ... having met with such a chassis - KV ... and began to build their heavy.
    Not because ... they didn’t.
    Because, understood - it is necessary! And we, Hubert Alles, are behind ... from the Russians.
    Caught up.
    Fast.
    Gloomy, flea, Teutonic genius.
    ...
    Another reason is to think about it ... that the Germans, that the Russians, were always ahead of everyone ... in military equipment. And in the combat technique.
    ...
    One field ... battle ... berries.
    ...
    Glory to our designers ... and .... fighter users.
    1. 8 company
      8 company 20 July 2012 23: 45
      -2
      Quote: Igarr
      The Germans ... having met with such a chassis - KV ... and began to build their heavy.
      Not because ... they didn’t.
      Because, understood - it is necessary! And we, Hubert Alles, are behind ... from the Russians.
      Caught up.
      Fast.
      Gloomy, flea, Teutonic genius.


      So in RuNet, a whole category of "connoisseurs" of Soviet armored vehicles has grown up, which, with a blue eye and foaming at the mouth, will argue that before the war both Soviet tanks were g // but, and Soviet artillery was g // but, and Soviet the people were dark, uneducated, "the academies did not finish," that was the reason for our defeats in 1941-1942. And then the tanks with artillery suddenly became of high quality, people at once graduated from the academy, and drove the enemy to the west under the wise leadership of the CPSU (b) and personally Comrade Stalin.
      1. Kars
        Kars 21 July 2012 00: 02
        +1
        [quote = 8 company] that before the war and Soviet tanks - g // but, and Soviet artillery - g // but, [/ quote]

        Do you want to argue about the qualities and comparisons? By artillery, you have already lost ---- and Tukhachevsky’s ears cannot be removed from there.

        Or maybe in tanks? Where again, because of the mugging work on a tank with projectile armor, they didn’t start in 1936?
        [quote] The final stage of the tests was their return on their own to the plant in April 1940. Upon the arrival of cars in Kharkov after a 3000 km run, a number of defects were found during disassembly: the brakes and ferrodo burned on the main clutch discs, cracks appeared on the fans, and chips on the gears of the gearboxes were chipped. The design bureau worked on a number of options for eliminating defects. However, it was clear to everyone that the warranty mileage of 3 km without defects (even after corrections) A-000 will not work.

        In the summer of 1940, clouds began to gather over the T-34. The fact is that two Pz.III tanks, purchased in Germany after the signing of the nonaggression pact, arrived at the Kubinka training ground. The results of comparative tests of the German tank and T-34 were disappointing for the Soviet combat vehicle.

        T-34 surpassed the "troika" in armament and armor protection, yielding in a number of other indicators. Pz.III had a triple tower, in which there were quite comfortable conditions for the combat work of crew members. The commander had a convenient turret that provided him with an excellent overview, all crew members had their own internal communication devices. In the T-34 tower, two tankers were hardly placed, one of which served not only as a gunner, but also as a tank commander, and, in some cases, as a unit commander. Only two out of four crew members were provided with internal communications - the tank commander and the driver.

        The German car surpassed the T-34 in terms of smoothness, it turned out to be less noisy - at the maximum speed Pz.III could be heard for 150-200 m, and the T-34 for 450 m.

        A complete surprise for our military was the superiority of the "German" in speed. On the gravel highway Kubinka - Repishche Pz.III accelerated at a measured kilometer to a speed of 69,7 km / h, while the best indicator for the T-34 was 48,2 km / h. The BT-7 allocated as a standard on wheels developed only 68,1 km / h!

        The test report also noted a more successful suspension of a German tank, high quality optical instruments, convenient placement of ammunition and radio stations, a reliable engine and transmission.

        These results produced the effect of an exploding bomb. GABTU (since July 1940, the Red Army’s Armored Directorate became known as the Main Armored Directorate) submitted a landfill report to Marshal G.I. Kulik, who approved it and thereby suspended the production and acceptance of the T-34, demanding that all shortcomings be eliminated
        [/ Quote]

        [quote] According to the directive of the Deputy People’s Commissar of Defense No. 76791 of 25.10.40, the test of the T-34 tanks was carried out by the mileage method with separation from the base in combination with the firing of fire missions.

        Due to the lack of approved tactical and technical requirements for the T-34 tank, conclusions and evaluations are made based on the identified tactical and technical characteristics.

        Long run: Kharkov - Kubinka - Smolensk - Kiev - Kharkov.

        The purpose of the test:

        1. Determine the tactical and technical characteristics of the tank as a whole and establish its compliance with the tactical and technical requirements presented by the General Staff.

        2. Determine the reliability and reliability of the tank units in the long run.

        3. To determine the conformity of weapons, ammunition, surveillance and communications to the tactical tasks facing tanks of this class.

        4. Determine the security of the tank with a transportable set of spare parts and tools and finally develop the kit. Determine the volume and frequency of tank maintenance in the field. Determine the repair capabilities of the tank in the field.

        The total mileage of 3000 km, of which 1000 km along highways, along dirt roads and off-road with overcoming natural obstacles - 2000 km.

        Note: 30% of the total mileage is carried out at night, 30% of the mileage on dirt roads and virgin snow is in combat position (with hatches closed).

        Testing the tightness of the hull and turret of the tank - by pouring a combustible liquid.

        The test was carried out from October 31.10 to December 7.12.40, XNUMX, in late autumn.

        The entire route traveled in 14 working days. Inspections and repairs during the run took 11 days. 8 days were spent on special tests. Preparation and delivery of the car - 2 days. In total - 38 days.

        The accuracy of firing results obtained after all firing and expressed through the core stripes in deviations in width and height, are higher than the tabular data for the 76 mm gun arr. 1927


        The results of shooting at the accuracy of the gathering should be considered low due to the complication of the aiming conditions with significant backlash of the rotary and lifting mechanisms.

        The results of machine gun firing show that the dispersion values ​​for the machine gun paired with the gun do not exceed the normal data for the DT machine gun.

        When firing from a machine gun of a radio operator, the dispersion value increases significantly and goes beyond the limits of normal data, and the number of holes decreases.

        As a result of conducted combat firing with the solution of fire missions, the following disadvantages were identified:

        1. the tightness of the crew in the fighting compartment due to the small dimensions of the tower on the shoulder strap;

        2. The inconvenience of using ammunition stacked in the floor of the fighting compartment;

        3. delay in the transfer of fire, due to the inconvenient location of the turret swivel mechanism (manual and electric);

        4. the lack of visual communication between the tanks when solving the fire problem, due to the fact that the only device that allows circular viewing - PT-6 - is used only for aiming;

        5. the impossibility of using the TOD-6 sight due to the overlapping scale of the aiming angles with the PT-6 sight;

        6. significant and slowly damping tank oscillations during movement, adversely affecting the accuracy of firing from guns and machine guns.

        The maximum rate of fire from the L-11 cannon (from the spot) obtained during the tests reaches 5-6 rounds per minute. Practical average rate of fire (firing on the go and short stops) - 2 rounds per minute. The rate of fire is insufficient.
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 July 2012 00: 04
          0
          [quoteVentilation (hygienic) of the tank is carried out by a cooling fan and an additional exhaust fan located in the partition of the engine compartment.

          The content of CO during a shot with working ventilation significantly exceeds the permissible norm (0,1 mg / l) and is toxic.

          Thus, the existing ventilation means in the tank are insufficient.

          The turret is rotated with the right hand. The location of the flywheel and the handle of the rotary mechanism do not provide a quick turn of the tower and causes severe fatigue of the hand. With simultaneous operation of the rotary mechanism and observation of the PT-6, the flywheel and handle rest against the chest, making it difficult for the turret to rotate quickly.


          The efforts on the handle of the rotary mechanism increase significantly with increasing angle of heel of the tank and significantly complicate the work.

          The electric drive is located on the left side of the tower and provides 360 ° rotation in both directions. Access to the start-up flywheel of the electric drive is hindered from below by the electric motor housing on the left with a viewing device and tower housing, on the right with a forehead and PT-6 device. Turning the tower in any direction is possible only if the head deviates from the forehead of the PT-6 device, that is, the tower is actually rotated blindly.

          The window of the scale of angles of aiming of the telescopic sight TOD-6 is overlapped by the levers of the angles of terrain of the PT-6 device and the parallelogram thrust. Installation of sighting data is possible at elevation angles of 4-5,5 ° and 9-12 °, which actually makes it impossible to fire with a TOD-6 sight. The drum of the aiming angle scale is located in the middle of the sight and access to it is extremely difficult.

          With an elevation angle of 7 ° and lower to the maximum angle of descent, access to the handle of the all-round visibility mechanism is possible with only three fingers due to the fact that the sector of the lifting mechanism of the gun does not allow the grip of the handle by the hand.

          The indicated position does not provide a quick view of the terrain.

          The viewing device "circular view" is installed to the right-rear of the tank commander in the roof of the tower. Access to the device is extremely difficult, and observation is possible in a limited sector: horizontal view to the right up to 120 °; dead space 15 m.

          The limited field of view, the complete impossibility of observation in the rest of the sector, and design flaws - breakage of the instrument mount, breakage and engagement of the wiper on the upper mirror, grazing of the armored shutter in the grooves, and inconvenient position of the head during observation make the sighting device unusable.

          Side observation devices of the tower. The arrangement of the instruments relative to the observer is inconvenient. The disadvantages are a significant dead space (15,5 m), a small viewing angle (53 °), the inability to clean the protective glass without leaving the tank and the low location relative to the seats.

          Viewing devices of the driver. When driving on a contaminated dirt road and virgin soil for 5-10 minutes. viewing devices are drawn in with dirt until they are completely lost. The wiper of the central unit does not clean the protective glass from dirt.

          Driving a tank with a closed hatch is extremely difficult.

          When firing, the protective glasses of the viewing devices burst. The external finish of the tank is rough, the protruding parts are sharp (lamb on the side instruments), which leads to injuries to the driver's head. The driver’s sight gauges are generally unsuitable.

          All PT-6, TOD-6 sighting devices installed on the tank and surveillance devices in the combat compartment and control compartment do not have protection against atmospheric precipitation, road dust and dirt. In each individual case of loss of visibility, cleaning devices can only be done from the outside of the tank. In conditions of reduced visibility (fog), the PT-6 scope head fogs up after 4-5 minutes until complete loss of visibility.


          Conclusion: the installation of weapons, optics and ammunition in the T-34 tank do not meet the requirements for modern combat vehicles.

          The main disadvantages are:

          a) the tightness of the fighting compartment;

          b) tank blindness;

          c) poorly placed ammunition laying.

          To ensure the normal location of weapons, firing and surveillance devices and crew, it is necessary:

          1) expand the overall dimensions of the tower.

          By 76 mm gun

          1. replace the trigger guard with a more advanced design that ensures trouble-free operation;

          2. protect the shutter handle with a shield or make folding;

          3. remove the foot trigger, replacing it with a trigger on the aiming mechanisms.

          DT machine guns

          1. provide the ability to conduct separate firing from a machine gun coaxial with a gun;

          2. increase the visibility and accuracy of the radio operator’s machine gun by installing an optical sight;

          3. cover the outer part of the radio operator’s machine gun and the ball mount with a tight cover to protect against contamination.

          By aiming mechanisms and sights

          1. the rotary mechanism (manual) is not suitable, replace with a new design that provides small effort and ease of operation;

          2. provide sampling of the backlash of the tower by a rotary mechanism;

          3. position the triggering mechanism of the turret electric drive so that it provides a turn with simultaneous observation of the terrain;

          4. replace the TOD-6 sight with a TMF sight with a scale of aiming angles in the field of view.

          On viewing devices

          1. replace the driver’s sighting device, as obviously unsuitable, with a more advanced design;

          2. install a device in the roof of the tower that provides a circular view of the tank.

          Ammunition laying

          1. the ammunition of the 76-mm gun in cartridges is unsuitable. The stacking of cartridges should be arranged so that there is simultaneous access to a number of cartridges. Stacked cartridges and machine gun magazines should be protected from dust.

          Jobs in the fighting compartment

          reduce the overall dimensions of the seats; make the loader's seat reclining.

          Tower mount
          1. the tower stopper is unusable in a marching position; replace with a stronger one;
          2. to seal the shoulder strap of the tower, preventing water from entering the fighting compartment;
          3. close the shoulder strap of the tower with a shield.
          The hull of the tank and the tower in this embodiment are not satisfactory. It is necessary to increase the size of the tower by increasing the shoulder strap and changing the angle of inclination of the armor plates.
          The useful volume of the hull can be increased by changing the suspension of the chassis and the elimination of side wells.
          Low positioned (260 mm) from the ground armor of the gears of the final drives reduce the permeability of the tank.
          The location of the walkie-talkie in the tank is an advantage compared to placement in the tower. In this case, the wiring diagram is simplified (wiring bypasses the VKU) and the tank commander is exempted from servicing the walkie-talkie
          Radio installation was unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
          1. the antenna in the lowered state is not protected from damage by parts and equipment carried on the wing, the antenna input is too long, the design and location of the handle of the antenna lifting mechanism does not provide a reliable antenna rise;
          2. the receiver's transformer is mounted under the feet of the radio operator, the current-carrying terminal is damaged and the receiver is dirty.
          Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov
          [/ quote]] [/ quote]
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 21 July 2012 00: 50
            0
            A complete surprise for our military was the superiority of the "German" in speed. On the gravel highway Kubinka - Repishche Pz.III accelerated at a measured kilometer to a speed of 69,7 km / h, while the best indicator for the T-34 was 48,2 km / h. The BT-7 allocated as a standard on wheels developed only 68,1 km / h!

            I remember, I remember how Svirin, and then Jenz fumbled for these 69,7 km / h, where he got them
            1. mkpda
              mkpda 23 July 2012 13: 11
              0
              For the Pz.III, the speed was obtained with the "twisting" of the engine, and the figures were taken from the report, Svirin has a link to the source. Another thing is that the maximum speed is a purely informational characteristic, the average speed and speed are much more important for the execution of the "track".
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 23 July 2012 17: 35
                0
                Svirin took from Yents, and Yents ...
                but there was an interesting discussion, versions, calculations, conjectures, with a letter to Yents and an answer to it .... winked
                1. Kars
                  Kars 23 July 2012 18: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Stas57
                  Svirin took from Yents, and Yents ...


                  What are you talking about? What’s Jenz about testing in Kubinka?
          2. loc.bejenari
            loc.bejenari 22 July 2012 01: 29
            0
            reprinted from the alternative history site or something http://alternathistory.org.ua/
            there just read it
            Thank God someone from the local reads it, and the impression is that there are some lovers of Runet Fantasy
            1. Kars
              Kars 22 July 2012 01: 33
              -1
              Quote: loc.bejenari
              alternative history site

              They didn’t. But I read it.
        2. 8 company
          8 company 21 July 2012 16: 49
          -4
          Quote: Kars
          Quote: 8 company
          that before the war, and Soviet tanks - g // but, and Soviet artillery - g // but,


          Do you want to argue about qualities and comparisons? By artillery, you have already lost


          I told you in Russian then that I had nothing to talk about with such sharpers like you. In a discussion on artillery, you attributed 4 statements to me that I did not make, and then you “heroically” rinsed me for them. You are a sharper, namesake, so don't bother me with any suggestions. Did it make it this time?
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 July 2012 16: 55
            +2
            Quote: Company 8
            what's wrong with cheaters like you

            Strange, but apart from your truthfulness, no one turns to me with such claims.
            Quote: Company 8
            so do not come to me with any suggestions. Got this time?

            But I won’t do this to you.
        3. mkpda
          mkpda 23 July 2012 13: 05
          0
          It is also worth adding that when testing the T-34 when performing the standard exercise, the crew could not detect the anti-tank missiles (which fired idle), and the driver kept the tank with an ajar hatch.
  18. 8 company
    8 company 21 July 2012 18: 36
    -1
    Quote: Kars
    Strange, but apart from your truthfulness, no one turns to me with such claims.



    Just in case, I remind you of your lie:
    1. what I said in the detachment;
    2. what I said about the connection of Tukhachevsky with border battles;
    3. that I deny the use of gases in the Tambov uprising by Tukhachevsky;
    4. that I allegedly refer to Corned Beef-Rezun.

    It was May 19 this year in the subject of the KV-7. In just a day you managed to lie clean 4 times, attributing to me statements that I did not do.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2012 18: 43
      0
      Quote: Company 8
      Your true lie

      It’s not interesting to argue about empty demand, I’ll analyze only one.
      Quote: Company 8
      that I deny the use of gases in the Tambov uprising by Tukhachevsky

      Yes, of course you do not deny its use, just say that no one was killed.

      But God bless you, I admit that you did not say this? Yes please.
      And I always say this, by the way, about Tukhachevsky’s guilt in losing the Border Battle, I also say that he ditched the Soviet artillery and delivered a very decent blow to tank building. I can’t answer for the rest.
      Quote: Company 8
      Quote: Kars
      Strange, but apart from your truthfulness, no one turns to me with such claims.

      Why do you need it? You only confirmed it, although very many people just take my word for it, and when I give confirming facts through drugs, they say that this is not necessary, and there are several people who openly admitted that I was right, even though my beliefs went to section with prevailing stereotypes.
      1. 8 company
        8 company 21 July 2012 19: 11
        -1
        Quote: Kars
        But God bless you, I admit that you did not say this? Yes please.


        That's good, and now try to remember: you need to discuss honestly if you want to communicate with you.
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 July 2012 19: 19
          -1
          Quote: Company 8
          try to remember: you need to discuss honestly

          Do not think if I made concessions, I changed my opinion about you even by a millimeter. And I conduct discussions honestly, if you did not like my assumptions and conclusions about you, then these are your personal problems.
          Quote: Company 8
          if you want to communicate with you.

          For the most part, I don’t care whether you will communicate with me or not, my comments are more relevant to those who will read yours.
  19. Drednout
    Drednout 21 July 2012 20: 17
    +1
    Maybe someone thinks this "sledgehammer" is ugly, but for me the KV-2 is still fascinating. To imagine such a "fool" poking at you in a combat situation is not a pleasant impression.
    Andrey (KARS), thanks for the information about the tests of the A-34, read from and to, very interesting.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2012 20: 27
      +1
      Please.

      Full option
      http://flibusta.net/b/146868/read
  20. Volkh
    Volkh 21 July 2012 21: 59
    -2
    Quote: Kars
    And I always say this, by the way, about Tukhachevsky’s guilt in losing the Border Battle, I also say that he ditched the Soviet artillery and delivered a very decent blow to tank building. I can’t answer for the rest.


    Please illuminate in more detail the wrecking activity of Comrade Tukhachevsky?
    We need specific information and not the diaries of all grabins.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2012 22: 13
      -1
      Quote: WOLF
      Please illuminate in more detail the wrecking activity of Comrade Tukhachevsky?

      And what I get for this?

      And can you highlight the reason for continued production of BT and T-26 tanks after the Spanish War of 1936?
      Quote: WOLF
      We need specific information and not the diaries of all grabins.

      Search
  21. Volkh
    Volkh 21 July 2012 22: 24
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    And what I get for this?

    Faith in your words for this will be.
    I do not consider the BT and T26 series obsolete even by the beginning of 1941. In comparison with the main tanks of the Wehrmacht on 06.1941 they do not look obsolete.

    Quote: Kars
    Search

    As I understand it, you have the right to say something that does not have any ground under it?
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2012 22: 32
      -2
      Quote: WOLF
      Faith in your words for this will be

      Don't want don't believe
      Quote: WOLF
      I do not consider the BT and T26 series obsolete even by the beginning of 1941. In comparison with the main tanks of the Wehrmacht on 06.1941 they do not look obsolete

      And I consider them obsolete compared to the T-34 and KV and do not meet the requirements of the upcoming war from the moment of putting into service rapid-fire anti-tank guns.
      Quote: WOLF
      As I understand it, you have the right to say something that does not have any ground under it?

      I have, just as you do. Want to prove the opposite.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 22 July 2012 00: 40
      +2
      Quote: WOLF
      main tanks of the Wehrmacht

      The main tanks of the Wehrmacht are PZ3 and PZ4
      and what could BT or T26 do to them?
      1. Volkh
        Volkh 22 July 2012 02: 04
        -2
        On 22.06.1941. I mean the main Panzerwaffe tanks.
        Stas 57, I advise you to look at the directories.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 22 July 2012 02: 51
          0
          Quote: WOLF

          On 22.06.1941. I mean the main Panzerwaffe tanks.
          Stas 57, I advise you to look at the directories.


          so you decide, or write "bulk"
          otherwise the panther can be remembered, the most that is the "main tank" in the modern sense
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 July 2012 11: 15
            0
            You can immediately see the specialists.

            For general development, the German Pantses 1 and 2 by the Germans themselves were considered obsolete and not suitable for modern military operations. And their use was compelled.

            But do not forget that, unlike the USSR, Germany began to seriously engage in tanks only from 1934-35, and unlike the USSR, after the Spanish company, it began work on tanks with anti-shell armor.
            And pretty quickly got Panzer 3 aus E.

            And you can compare Panz 1 with the T-26 even before the second advent. Better compare with the PAK-36 which on the mentioned date was much more than 10
    3. mkpda
      mkpda 23 July 2012 13: 39
      0
      1. The BT series had an unsuccessful undercarriage (which switched to the T-34 and greatly weakened the car), and shatterproofing sharply narrowed the range of its application.
      2. The T-26 was only good at low cost and ease of operation. In other parameters, it was inferior to BT.
      3. A significant part of the BT (all BT-2/5) and T-26 (all double-turret) were released before the first Pz-I, which predetermined their unsatisfactory technical condition, even if they were considered in good working order.
      4. Compare naked TTX - mediocre lesson. In addition to the Pz-I, all German tanks were significantly superior to BT and T-26 in terms of surveillance and communications, and most importantly, they had trained crews and competent supplies, and at the same time they could hit our tanks at equal distances.
  22. Volkh
    Volkh 21 July 2012 22: 40
    -1
    Sorry, you gave enough information that I would have a definite opinion about you.
    I do not intend to continue the conversation with you.
    Aufiderzeien.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2012 22: 41
      -2
      Quote: WOLF
      I do not intend to continue the conversation with you.



      I'm crying
      1. 8 company
        8 company 22 July 2012 02: 08
        +1
        Quote: Stas57
        The main tanks of the Wehrmacht are PZ3 and PZ4
        and what could BT or T26 do to them?


        Of the more than 5000 tanks concentrated against the USSR in 1941. only 1171 were PzIII and PzIV.
        http://topwar.ru/8452-1941-god-skolko-tankov-bylo-u-gitlera.html
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 22 July 2012 03: 10
          0
          Quote: Company 8
          http://topwar.ru/8452-1941-god-skolko-tankov-bylo-u-gitlera.html

          but according to your link, in the second table for yents there is a slightly different figure

          264 + 732 + 439 =1728 3ek and 4k, - of which 996 triples
          909Two
          374 units
          625 Czech
          is everything right?
          1. 8 company
            8 company 22 July 2012 09: 58
            -2
            Quote: Stas57
            but according to your link, in the second table for yents there is a slightly different figure


            It’s just that there are several different opinions there, so what has changed? If we compare the number of light tanks in the Soviet Socialist Republic and Germany, then the USSR should have crushed all the goslings alone. And the Germans have almost the same number of triples and fours as our KV and T-34.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 22 July 2012 10: 41
              0
              Quote: Company 8
              It’s just that there are several different opinions,

              yes it was
              Quote: Company 8
              so what has this changed?

              nothing, PZIII main tank

              Quote: 8 company
              If we compare the number of light tanks in the Soviet Socialist Republic and Germany, then the USSR was supposed to crush all the goslings alone

              this is the second question

              Quote: Company 8
              And the Germans have almost the same number of triples and fours as our KV and T-34.

              and this is the third :))
  23. fgc56gfs
    fgc56gfs 21 July 2012 23: 27
    -2
    You will probably be surprised - but there is a site in which data about all the inhabitants of the beating USSR.
    Everything that the authorities carefully concealed is now known to everyone on this site ydn. * Ru / sngpoisk (copy the link without *)
    You drive a name, a surname - and it shows you everything that can beat
    (your relatives, friends, phone numbers, well, a lot)
    And most importantly, it is accessible to everyone, I was really scared at first - you never know what moron there will climb
    Well, the truth is that you can remove yourself from the site, there you just need to find yourself, go through registration and delete
  24. Volkh
    Volkh 22 July 2012 10: 36
    0
    Quote: Stas57
    so you decide, or write "bulk"

    Read carefully, there are numbers - 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX. This time.
    Two, you can go into the wilds of TTX - T26, BT2, BT5, BT7 and PTs1, PTs2, PTs3, and PTs4.
    I don’t argue that in comparison with the T34 and QX, the T26 and BT were obsolete, but excuse me, the appearance of the T34 and QV made absolutely all other tanks obsolete. These are three.
    But in the battle with the German, Soviet obsolete, tanks were not cannon fodder, were not close.
    Another question is how them were able to apply, and how the majority fought on them.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 22 July 2012 12: 42
      0
      let's not go into the wilds

      I already answered above to another comrade, just copy
      Quote: 8 company
      http://topwar.ru/8452-1941-god-skolko-tankov-bylo-u-gitlera.html
      but according to your link, in the second table for yents there is a slightly different figure

      264 + 732 + 439 = 1728 3к and 4к, - of which 996 triples
      909Two
      374 units
      625 Czech
      is everything right?

      total treshka
      - main tank. 996 pieces
      -45ka has problems with breaking through,
      shall we argue?

      I don’t argue that in comparison with the T34 and QX, the T26 and BT were obsolete, but excuse me, the appearance of the T34 and QV made absolutely all other tanks obsolete. These are three.

      I didn’t say that and I don’t think so,
      But in the battle with the German, Soviet obsolete, tanks were not cannon fodder, were not close.

      I didn’t say that, and I almost think so
      Another question is how they were able to apply them, and how the majority fought on them.

      fucking
      1. 8 company
        8 company 22 July 2012 14: 17
        0
        Quote: Stas57
        fucking


        That's the consensus smile
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 22 July 2012 14: 31
          0
          Bullshit consensus ... recourse
      2. Andrey77
        Andrey77 22 July 2012 14: 24
        +1
        Stas, combat use is our headache. Everyone is afraid to take responsibility. It was in the USSR, it is now. Alas.
  25. Stas57
    Stas57 22 July 2012 17: 03
    +1
    Quote: Andrey77
    Andrey77

    Quote: Company 8
    8 company


    I advise you to read the reports on the use of tanks for 41.
    even the tears do not come - they threw, drowned, lagged behind, lost and do not know where, they knocked out and threw, etc.
    To kill the hunt, I’m surprised that they weren’t shot as pests in 41.
    They’re even a Tiger, even a T-90 dai, they’ll drown a tiger and cut their hands
    1. 8 company
      8 company 22 July 2012 18: 58
      0
      Quote: Stas57
      I advise you to read the reports on the use of tanks for 41.
      even the tears do not come - they threw, drowned, lagged behind, lost and do not know where, they knocked out and threw, etc.
      To kill the hunt, I’m surprised that they weren’t shot as pests in 41.


      And I advise you to dig a little deeper, and you will find out what was in the mechanized corps: a huge lack of vehicles, so the troops could not fight for a long time, the ammunition and fuel tanks ran out, and there was nothing to give a lift;
      a huge shortage of spare parts and tools for repair, so even minor breakdowns brought the tank, and the car, and the tractor out of order;
      lack of radio stations and inability to use them;
      mechanical drivers had only a few hours of driving the best and most expensive cars - KV and T-34;
      and many more "miracles" were happening in the troops before the war, so choose your target carefully when you are going to shoot "pests".
  26. Stas57
    Stas57 22 July 2012 20: 23
    0
    8 company
    And I advise you to dig deeper,

    you can start with the kings, who all did not dare to make an industrial revolution ..
    so choose your target carefully when you are going to shoot "pests".

    you confuse the crime of military use, and the global problems of the country, although fools and scum are also a global problem of the country
  27. 8 company
    8 company 22 July 2012 21: 06
    0
    Quote: Stas57
    you confuse the crime of military use, and the global problems of the country, although fools and scum are also a global problem of the country


    You are well-versed in the situation! Here there is only one more, but important nuance: who will specifically determine - where are the fools and scum? A lot depends on this. You understand what will happen if such a judge is a fool and a bastard.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 22 July 2012 21: 13
      0
      I would head SMERSH (s)
      Yes, I’m not sure that I’m not a bastard ... But it’s necessary to punish, for good we don’t know how, unfortunately
      1. 8 company
        8 company 22 July 2012 22: 44
        0
        Quote: Stas57
        Yes, I'm not sure I’m not a bastard ...


        The ability to self-criticism is not given to everyone, so you are a plus. I, too, are not Mr. Nerdy, and not an angel; I judge from my belfry, perhaps low compared to others. However - mine and she are dear to me. Okay, we hit philosophy, and this is a sure sign that it's time to round off. Thank you for the company, for the ability to communicate and discuss.
  28. Bugor
    Bugor 22 July 2012 22: 27
    0
    Yes, stop fighting. Was the polar army lost? Lost ...
    The war in Finland taught nothing to anyone, as it becomes clear. A huge amount of equipment has been dragged through due to the wretched management and supply system (not at the top, but below). They came to the Japanese fully armed and tore one and a half million as a heating pad. Grandfather said that he didn’t have time to bring the wounded from the front to the Finnish one, and he didn’t have time to deliver shells to Manchurian (he called her that). He served on one and a half, then on Studer.
  29. bairat
    bairat 23 July 2012 09: 56
    +2
    Quote: Bugor
    The war in Finland taught nothing to anyone, as it becomes clear

    We learned to storm long-term fortifications, only in the 41st year it was not useful. In the 41st they began to learn to fight the highly maneuverable German troops. Training was expensive, we were preparing for protracted border battles, but you won’t get any other experience. It is difficult to break stereotypes, from the First World it all took 20 years, the legendary red commanders were still alive. Nowadays, when 60 years have passed since the last war, the army is still being measured by the standards of those years: how many tanks, how many infantry, what armor, what caliber of the gun? And in the event of another war, God forbid, of course, there will be a similar result, a blow will be dealt in an area where no one was waiting. The form of this strike can be assumed in general terms, but it is very difficult to adapt to it, because it requires effort. And so, the service is going on, in brilliant parades ...
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 23 July 2012 17: 33
      0
      And in the event of another war, God forbid, of course, there will be a similar result, a blow will be dealt in an area where no one was waiting. The form of this strike can be assumed in general terms, but it is very difficult to adapt to it, because it requires effort. And so, the service is going on, in brilliant parades ...

      exactly
  30. Volkh
    Volkh 23 July 2012 17: 05
    0
    Quote: bairat
    the blow will be dealt in an area where no one was waiting


    There were people who guessed and correctly guessed. Only now until 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX for the most part they did not survive.
    1. mkpda
      mkpda 24 July 2012 13: 55
      0
      Apparently they remembered Frunze?
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 29 July 2012 00: 53
        0
        Take it higher. Intelligence intelligence. Richard Sorge is the only one we know about. Information went through different channels. At the highest level, everyone knew everything. The war was beneficial to both Stalin and Hitler.
        1. mkpda
          mkpda 1 August 2012 12: 00
          0
          Sorge failed after 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX and it was about the warlords of high flight. Rather, one should speak of mobilization surprise - Germany had a mobilized army and was limited only by the time of concentration of forces and means, and the USSR had to mobilize the army (local conflicts showed the weakness of the freshly mobilized units), which was tantamount to a declaration of war. At that time, no solution to this problem was found, for which the Germans punished us well. I want to note that everyone has overlooked this situation - from the repressed to the nominees and the old guard.
  31. Black sniper
    Black sniper 14 September 2017 10: 49
    0
    Quote: Vadivak
    Quote: sribnuu
    But Hitler knocked out his eyes to the powerful cyclops.


    An hour not from the Hitler Youth will be Partigenigenoss? Or sympathizing?

    What are the Nazis doing here ?! It’s for you the fascist cockroach’s legs were cut off ...
  32. BAI
    BAI 12 May 2018 09: 13
    0
    I don’t understand at all when the article was published: today or in 2012.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 12 May 2018 13: 25
      0
      The matrix failed. Although reading komenty was interesting.
  33. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 12 May 2018 10: 39
    0
    according to those instructions from the KV-2, the self-propelled bunker fighter of the bunkers that they ordered then received a self-propelled guns with a tank layout, I don’t understand, before the war they didn’t have time or didn’t guess to shoot the M-10 with a BTN BTK? and I didn’t need a naval semi-armor-piercing from Kane, which from the M-10 required a reduced charge, this was not all ground artillerymen knew, but tankers even more so!
  34. Blue fox
    Blue fox 12 May 2018 11: 15
    0
    I have been studying the history of the assault and breakthrough of the Mannerheim line for a long time and I go to LM not once each year, however, neither in literature nor in the documents have I come across reliable confirmation of the destruction or incapacitation of at least one Finnish bunker with KV-2 fire, only artillery fire or combined actions of assault groups from T-28 and sappers with explosives. The area of ​​Boboshino and Sumy (Sumy) mentioned in the memoirs of Glushak and Meretskov is two neighboring LM fortified areas: Summakul and Summayarvi and the bunkers of these fortified areas, for the most part, according to Finnish data, destroyed by artillery fire or assault groups, or even left by their garrisons after breaking through adjacent plot. In UR, Summakul remained the same as the QMS that was blown up on a HE mine, however, like the usual T-28s, which also broke deep into the Finnish defense but were not capable of developing success without infantry support.
  35. mvg
    mvg 13 May 2018 07: 21
    0
    Does anyone care about the level of the article? The author tied you to engage in this activity. Really tired.
  36. VictorZhivilov
    VictorZhivilov 13 May 2018 11: 10
    0
    I like this self-propelled howitzer in the turret. A very interesting idea and a good, at the time of appearance, implementation. smile
    Something like Bishop, it’s only a pity that their fate is different.
    https://topwar.ru/111621-samohodnye-gaubicy-vtoro
    y-mirovoy-voyny-chast-12-bishop.html
  37. Usher
    Usher 13 May 2018 14: 44
    0
    Great heavy tank.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 May 2018 19: 43
      0
      Quote: Usher
      Great heavy tank.

      With one tiny drawback: the KV tank was originally designed as a tank with a combat weight of 40 tons. HF chassis and transmission were designed specifically for this mass. belay
      This figure is taken from the official review of the GABTU for the project of the heavy assault self-propelled guns based on the KV (taken from the book by uv. Pasholok on SU-152).
  38. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 May 2018 15: 11
    0
    Despite the relatively small number of manufactured tanks KV-2, on the fronts of World War II, they made a splash.

    Such a huge, heavy and ineffective machine like the KV-2 is hard to come up with.
    With their 152-mm shells, heavy tanks confidently hit all the German armored vehicles available at that time.

    How can you confidently hit a moving target if you have a gun with a rate of fire of 1 (one) shot per minute?
    The reservation, in turn, was enough to protect against the vast majority of guns.

    Booking KV-2 did not protect at least 105 mm, 88 mm and 50 mm Fri guns, which was enough.
    More or less normal fight with the "Klima Voroshilov" of the second model could only 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. However, the duel of the tank and anti-aircraft gunners did not have a clear result in advance: due to the larger caliber, the tank could destroy the gun’s crew without entering the zone of guaranteed destruction.

    1. Resulting the KV-2 duel with German 105 and 88 mm cannons, as a rule, ended badly for the tank. They hit him before he could find out who and where to shoot from. An 88 mm cannon could hit 75 mm KV-2 armor with more than 1500 meters, and a 105 mm cannon with more than 2000 meters. The rate of fire of the guns was 7-8 and 3-4 shots per minute, respectively, the accuracy of the shooting and the ability to see the tank is incomparably more visually, the size of the guns as a target is much smaller and so on.
    2. It is very interesting how the author imagines the destruction of these cannons by a tank without entering the affected area.
    These guns could hit all tanks in horizontal projection at a maximum firing range which for 88 mm guns is more than 14 km, and for 105 mm guns more than 18 km.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 May 2018 19: 34
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Such a huge, heavy and ineffective machine like the KV-2 is hard to come up with.

      You can - look at the British. Machine gun "Matilda", projects of assault self-propelled guns of the middle of the war with two-pounders or with machine guns in general, TOG II * finally. smile
      Quote: Kostadinov
      How can you confidently hit a moving target if you have a gun with a rate of fire of 1 (one) shot per minute?

      This is when working completely from a stop - when the HF is stationary between shots. If the tank was supposed to move, then everything was even sadder:
      KV-2 showed a rate of fire of 1 shot in 3.5 minutes, which was due, in particular, to the fact that it was impossible to charge the KV-2 gun in motion
      © D. Shein, from the test report of HF with a large tower.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      1. Resulting the KV-2 duel with German 105 and 88 mm cannons, as a rule, ended badly for the tank.

      PMSM, 8,8-cm and 10,5-cm for HF were less dangerous - because of their epic dimensions ("barn gate") - neither hide nor hide from fire. More dangerous was the less noticeable PaK-38.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      An 88 mm gun could hit 75 mm KV-2 armor with more than 1500 meters, and a 105 mm gun with more than 2000 meters.

      Do not confuse ballistics and effective fire range. Even in 1944, 8,8 cm fired from a distance of about 600 m - even along the T-34. The reason is simple: from this distance it was possible to precisely aim and hit the tank with the first shell.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      These guns could hit all tanks in horizontal projection at a maximum firing range which for 88 mm guns is more than 14 km, and for 105 mm guns more than 18 km.

      Yeah ... the point is small - shoot at a moving target. You can hit the target from the first 2-3 shots only at direct fire range. And then the consumption of shells increases many times.
  39. mva
    mva 16 May 2018 15: 53
    0
    Enough to feed the people with fairy tales, but for the Germans the KV-2 was a surprise, but they themselves had the means to deal with it. Anti-aircraft guns (88 mm) confidently corrupted him from 1 km, and Pak 38 anti-tank guns (50 mm under-caliber tungsten carbide shells) from 500 meters. Look for a photo on ebee how many damaged KV-2 there can be found. Isolated cases of their resistance are explained by a good position and skillful actions of the crew (in the swamp tanks, and in front they did not allow them to approach with their fire).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 May 2018 19: 37
      0
      Quote: mva
      Anti-aircraft guns (88 mm) confidently corrupted him from 1 km, and Pak 38 anti-tank guns (50 mm under-caliber tungsten carbide shells) from 500 meters.

      KV armor made its way through the usual 50-mm chamber armor-piercing shells.
      50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
      The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
      The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
      That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.
      © retracted by uv. D. Sheina. Test results of domestically produced tank armor with captured shells armed with German artillery and shells armed with spacecraft. Gorokhovets training ground. Autumn 1942
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 18 May 2018 10: 44
        0
        KV-2 is not a tank, and this can end the argument, it is self-propelled and was created as self-propelled guns for very specific tasks
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 May 2018 15: 39
          0
          Quote: Kibb
          KV-2 is not a tank, and this can end the argument, it is self-propelled and was created as self-propelled guns for very specific tasks

          Eeeee no, KV-2 was created just like an artillery tank. Self-propelled guns are "212" and other vehicles based on the KV family.
          Although the tasks of the artillery tank were a mixture of the tasks of the assault self-propelled guns and self-propelled guns fire support:
          ... artillery tanks are intended for artillery escort of tanks and fire at detected targets, mainly from a place, from closed or open positions from the attack line.

          It seems to me that all this leapfrog with artillery tanks and self-propelled guns had exclusively organizational reasons: the tanks were under the command of the GABTU, and self-propelled artillery belonged to the GAU (self-propelled guns were reassigned to tankmen only during the war).
  40. Kibb
    Kibb 23 May 2018 15: 17
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Eeeee no, KV-2 was created just like an artillery tank.

    An artillery tank, this is a self-propelled gun, another question is why they were created
  41. ashnajder
    ashnajder 27 September 2018 16: 36
    0
    the Germans wrote that aiming at them was extremely convenient, you won’t miss it.