For the Germans, the meeting with the HF-2 was a real shock.
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.
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 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:
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:
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/
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. "
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/
Information