Categories
WW2 Soviet Heavy Tanks

KV-1

Soviet Union (1939)
Heavy Tank – 5,219 Built

Heavy tank and “deep battle” concepts in the USSR

The concept of “deep battle”, which contained the doctrinal use of the Soviet heavy tank, was first theorized during the late twenties, then refined and eventually adopted by the Red Army Field Regulations in 1936. The tactical deep battle doctrine advocated for fast battle tanks (BT series and T-26), reconnaissance types (T-27, T-37A, T-38 tanks and tankettes) and medium or heavy penetration tanks (“Tyazholy”). The latter were also also called “siege tanks” and had to be able to resist most AT gun calibers, either deployed by enemy infantry or other tanks, and to destroy them as well. They were to be placed on key tactical positions to drag and concentrate enemy fire, or destroy enemy fortified positions while assisting infantry. Protection was therefore given priority over mobility.

Hello dear reader! This article is in need of some care and attention and may contain errors or inaccuracies. If you spot anything out of place, please let us know!

T-35, T-100 and SMK

After the T-28, which was considered a medium, infantry tank design, the T-35 became the first of these heavy tanks to enter service with the USSR. This was a true monster, influenced by the multi-turreted fad which came from Great Britain, but was quite complicated and unsatisfactory in operations.
A new 1937 specification gave birth to the two T-100s and the unique SMK prototype, showing a new arrangement of firepower, with tandem turrets. All three were tested in operations in Finland during the “Winter War” (September-December 1939). They proved resistant, but showed very poor reliability and mobility. They were also costly, over-complicated and difficult to maintain. Another prototype however, the KV, had been drawn by the same team which designed the SMK, as a single-turreted variant. During these operations, the two KV prototypes outperformed the others and the type was subsequently approved for a 50-unit pre-series under the name of KV-1.

Origin of the Kliment Voroshilov tank

The TsKB-2 design bureau responsible for the SMK, through chief engineer Zh. Kotin, designed at first an all-welded hull with cast turret and large parts, with wide, reinforced tracks and a torsion-bar suspension. Alongside the SMK, the KV, named after People’s Defense Commissioner and political statesman Kliment Voroshilov, was essentially a single-turret variant, the weight saved being utilized for extra frontal and side protection, without any sacrifice to mobility. Initially not meant for production, the KV was given direct approval from Stalin himself.
KV-1 model 1942, Finnish capture at Parola museum
This model should have been named “Kotin-Stalin” (KS-1) instead. A wooden mockup was ready in April 1939, and first presentation to the general staff in September. Both prototypes were tested at the Kubinka proving grounds near Moscow, and immediately after in real combat conditions in Finland. The two KV prototypes and the first 50 preseries KV-1s were virtually identical, only differing by some redesigned parts for easier production. The hull, transmission, optics and torsion bar suspension were all borrowed from the SMK. Production was first assumed by Kirov Factory, ChTZ, and the first 50 were part of the “model 1939”, but were delivered in March 1940.

Design of the KV-1

KV-1 model 1939The model 1939 was nearing 45 tons in weight, with a long hull (6.75 m/22.14 ft), relatively narrow if not for the very large tracks. The generous mudguards above gave exceptional room for storage. However, as no transmission was able to cope with such mass, the designers found an expedient, giving both prototypes and the SMK an old but sturdy Caterpillar system, which proved tricky, even unreliable in operations. The driver sat in the middle and the radio operator/machine gunner sat on the left, the three other crew members being located in and below the turret.
They had poor visibility, with narrow vision slits. The driver had his frontal slit made of poor quality laminated glass, which proved blurred most of the time and his vision periscope had limited traverse. The commander (which also the loader) had two turret periscopes. The wheel train comprised front idler wheels and rear drive sprockets (like on the T-28) and a set of 6 twin roadwheel bogies, each sprung to an independent torsion-bar apparatus. There were also, due to the weight of the tracks, three large and thick return rollers. These large tracks had excellent traction on soft ground (snow and mud). The protection, reaching 90 mm (3.54 in) on the front (glacis and turret), was unrivaled for the time, if not for rare equivalents like the British Matilda II (80 mm/3.15 in) and the French B1 bis (70 mm/2.76 in), but way ahead of any German tank.
Destroyed KV-1 s ekranami model 1940 near Olonets, September 1941

The KV-1 model 1939 and 1940

At first, the 76.2 mm (3 in) F-32 was chosen as main armament, but due to delays in production, the first 50 preseries models and all remaining model 1939s were equipped with a medium-velocity “short” barrel L-11 of the same caliber, fitted with a recognizable recuperator above the barrel. The F-32 was able to fire AP (F-342 rounds) and HE shells. The BR-3502 AP rounds were capable of reaching 612 m/sec (2007 ft/s), giving them a 66 mm (2.6 in) armor-piercing capacity at 500 m (1640 ft). Secondary armament comprised a coaxial DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine gun, another in a rear turret ballmount, another mounted in a hull ballmount and an extra AA mount on the model 1942.
Destroyed KV-1 model 1941 destroyed near Voronezh in 1942 - Credits: Bundesarchiv
The engine was the 12-cylinder diesel model V-1, giving 600 hp@2000 rpm (450 kW), and then V2 (model 1940), fed with a 615 liters capacity storage. In all, 141 model 1939s were delivered, followed by 243 to 250 of the model 1940. Most were delivered during 1940 and early 1941. The model 1940 (also called KV-1A) was equipped with the longer F-32 gun and a new mantlet. When production began the German invasion was on its way. The Kirov factory was later moved at Chelyabinsk during the winter of 1941, and a new model was designed.

The KV-1E or Ekranami

Before the model 1941 production started and the factory was relocated near the Urals, many KV-1s were taken over for an expedient armor improvement. These versions, called “Ekranami” (“with screens”), received tailored 20 mm (0.79 in) soft steel plates, bolted-on (with huge bolts), as appliqué to the turret, frontal glacis and sides of the hull. These KV-1Es were mostly surviving units of the earlier model 1939, which were up-gunned with the F-32 in the same process, and later 1940 and 1941 models, sometimes damaged and recovered tanks.
Exact number of this variant remains mysterious. Some sources speaks of 150 to 200+ units being converted in 1942. This was a response to new German tactics, hastily devised on the spot to counter the impregnable KV-1. The introduction of the new Pak-38 and Pak-40 AT guns and later some airborne weapons, like the MK 101 fielded by the Henschel 129 ground attack aircraft, urged this conversion. Total armor thickness was around 110-120 mm (4.33-4.72 in), making the KV-1 once again nearly impregnable.

The KV-1B model 1941

The model 1941 was designed and produced at Chelyabinsk. A model F-34 gun was fitted. This was the same gun installed on most T-34/76s. As a response to the field-expedient appliqué armor, the hull, sides and turret were protected by an additional 25 to 35 mm (0.98-1.38 in) of extra armor, and the turret was now cast instead of welded. This version also introduced many simplifications for mass-production. However, it was slow to arrive at the front, and the first model 1941 became operational in early to mid-1942 at best.
The late production tanks received an even longer barreled gun, the ZiS-5 76.2 mm (3 in). This increased somewhat its penetrating performances. However, by the fall of 1942, new German tanks, like the Panzer IV F2 and 50 mm (1.97 in) armed late Panzer IIIs, outranged the KV-1 while still being able to pierce it. This version however still retained the original V12 diesel, and was decidedly underpowered. Speed was reduced further and this proved an issue in combined operations alongside the T-34. Production of this model was around 1200 units, according to the factory log.

The KV-1C (model 1942)

The model 1942 was essentially a late up-armored model (10-15 mm/0.39-0.59 in), either with a cast or welded turret. This was also the biggest production of the type, with around 1700 units. They were also all armed with the 76.2 mm (3 in) ZiS-5 and sometimes equipped with AA mounts. However, criticism about the series prompted parallel studies to improve the KV-1 as a whole. These reports stated that its only asset was excellent protection, however, speed and agility were poor, the transmission proved often prone to break downs, the suspensions, crumbling under the raising weight also showed critical stress failures, as well as the overwhelmed engine (the V12 V-2K, a modified version of the T-34 diesel).
Final weight of this 1942 version was around 48 tons. Only the German Tiger was equivalent in weight, but was equipped with better optics and a gun which far outclassed anything on the field. This led to the two last improved versions of the type, before the production really stopped in favor of better designs.

The KV-1S, the fast one

The main criticism about the weight imposed a completely revised version with somewhat “downgraded armor”, in order to regain some agility. In fact, this was not an equal sacrifice. Some vital parts, determined after carefully studied statistics about tank loss reports, were still well protected, while sacrificing others. This was a near “all-or-nothing” protection, which also came with special tactical maneuver instructions in order to reduce the exposure of these “weak spots” to the enemy. However, the engine was untouched.
Another improvement concerned the cast turret, which was redesigned completely, lower, smaller, with slightly sloped sides and, most importantly for the first time, fitted with a real commander cupola bearing all-around vision blocks, which in turn greatly improved the overall vision and efficiency of the commander.
However, this KV-1S (for “Skorostnoy” – “fast”), was still much more expensive than the T-34/76, for the relative same performances. By late 1943, there were concerns about the cancellation of this new version, which occurred after 1370 had been delivered, from autumn 1942 to the fall of 1943. Total weight was 42 tons, and protection ranged from 30 to 75 mm (1.18-2.95 in). The main armament, a 76.2 mm (3 in) L42, was fed by 114 rounds, and the three DT machine-guns by 3000 rounds.

Read More

The KV-85, blueprint for the IS-1

Another strong criticism about the KV-1 concerned its main armament, which was the same as the medium main tank of the Red Army, the T-34. But the KV-1 was more expensive and with far less mobility. A better gun could have effectively saved the KV-1, making something comparable to the last version of the Panzer IV or the Tiger. By 1943, Lieutenant-Colonel Kotin’s technical bureau was split in two, a part being affected to studying a new stopgap heavy tank based on the KV-1, waiting for its replacement to come. The team naturally chose the improved KV-1S, but increased the armor protection in vital parts to 110 mm (4.3 in), and widened slightly the hull to accommodate a larger turret and gun, the 85 mm (3.35 in) D-5T which was also chosen to equip the IS-1.
KV-1 model 1942 with welded turret, on display at the Leningrad diorama museum near Kirovsk- Credits: Wikipedia CC licence
Due to this interim position, the KV-85 was only produced in limited quantity by the beginning of 1943. 143 units of this ultimate version will be delivered until the production stopped for good. The KV-85 had the same engine as its predecessors and was 46 tons strong, with thickness of 60 mm/2.36 in (hull), 75 mm/2.95 in (frontal glacis), to 100-110 mm/3.94-4.33 in (turret front, sides and rear). Max speed was around 40 km/h (29 mph) and range 250 km (155 mi). The DT-5 gun was a shorter derivative of the original 85 mm (3.35 in) AA gun (792 m/s or 2,598 ft/s muzzle velocity).

Read More

The KV-1 in action (1941-44)

As the production began in 1940, at a slow pace, only a handful of KV-1s were operational when Operation Barbarossa began. Usual figures are about 530 operational into twenty-nine mechanized corps, alongside all available T-34s (1590 tanks in all). They were about a third KV-1s for each of these units. They first met the Wehrmacht on June, 23, 1941, the second day of the invasion. More precisely, it was at the Battle of Raseiniai, when the Soviet 2nd Tank Division from the 3rd Mechanized Corps clashed with the 6th Panzer Division near Skaudvilė.
They encountered little resistance from forces composed mainly of Pak-36 and 38 AT guns and Panzer 35(t) light tanks. The next day, a single KV-1 successfully blocked any advance of some elements of the 6th Panzer Division for 24 hours, before running out of ammunition and retiring. It was hit by dozens of different calibers, but remained unscathed.
At Krasnogvardeysk (Gatchina, near Leningrad) on August 14, 1941, a small unit of 5 well-hidden and entrenched KV-1s, plus two in reserve, with twice the usual ammunition supply, including a majority of AP shells, were skillfully placed around the single road bordering a swamp. This unit, commanded by Lieutenant Zinoviy Kolobanov, destroyed some 43 German tanks from German 8th PzD during a single half-hour action. Kolobanov was later awarded the Order of Lenin and made Hero of the USSR.
KV-2 model 1940
The KV-2, heavy howitzer version. This was a generally unsuccessful variant. The turret was easy to spot, top-heavy, making the tank fairly unstable. Plus, the howitzer blast provoked excessive vibrations for the engine and transmission.
Many alarming reports all pointed in the same direction. These “new” Russian tanks were nearly unstoppable. In fact, their existence had been one of the biggest blunders of German intelligence prior to the invasion.
Facing these, the Germans had a total of 3266 tanks, but only 1146 Panzer IIIs and IVs armed with 50 mm (1.97 in) or 75 mm (2.95 in) guns, barely able to penetrate the armor (and only on weak spots) of the two models (T-34 and KV-1). Most of the KV-1s were concentrated in 6th, 4th, 8th and 15th Mechanized Corps during the summer, and all but one were sent in Ukraine. They suffered heavy losses however, despite being usually bypassed by the Panzers, left to the air support, field artillery and 88 mm (3.46 in) guns, or special antitank squads using shaped charge grenades.
Many also broke down, ran low on fuel or were abandoned due to the confusion of the first two weeks of Barbarossa. The total losses were far greater anyway to those related by the German reports, and by the autumn 1941, few were still extant. Anyway, the impression left by the KV-1 (as well as the T-34, which was faster and more numerous), from the simple soldiers to the general staff, was huge. It triggered an unprecedented Panzerkommision on 20 November 1941, which studied remains of both tanks on the field. The T-34 is notable to have inspired the development of the sloped-armored Panther.
After a ruthless relocation in dire conditions of the entire Russian war industry next to the Ural mountains, production of the KV-1 was resumed. Two models were produced alongside, the “cast turret” and “welded turret”, which otherwise were generally similar, bearing the same F32 gun. For easier production the model 1942 was a near-repeat of the former, although up-armored. Older models were massed together for the counter-offensive of Moscow in January 1942, but the Germans were now better prepared, although still fielding the same Panzer IIIs and IVs.
Among these, many were upgraded as Ekranami versions, receiving thick appliqué bolted plates. This was a response to some new German weapons, like the shaped charges and airborne AT guns. Throughout 1942, the KV-1s performed well, although combined operations with the T-34 were problematic due to the speed difference between them. Too often, the KV-1s were relegated as support rearguards and committed only when encountering a fierce resistance.
These tanks fought during nearly all major engagements of 1942-43, including the large counter-offensive of Stalingrad, in January 1943. By then, Soviet industry has produced enough T-34 to literally overwhelm the KV-1 in number (the latter being much costlier). Growing discontent about the type revolved usually around the same issues. It was too slow (easier to spot and target), prone to transmission failures, simply too heavy for many bridges and at the same time not equipped to ford deep rivers, and lacking range against the late 1942 German AT units and rearmed Panzer IVs. Late versions, even heavier, lost what was left of its former maneuverability, while at the same time still not being better armed than the T-34.
Further heavy losses at Kursk proved they definitely found their match in the new German tanks generation. This situation was found acceptable for the general staff however, which considered them as breakthrough tanks, operating against infantry and fortified lines of defenses, firing HE shells at relatively short range and only carried a few AP rounds for occasional encounters. They kept this tactical specialization until late 1943, before being superseded by the IS-2. By 1944, the existing KV-1s were mostly of the late KV-85 type. Their heavy armor still proved effective while dealing with well-prepared German defenses. However, by the end of 1944, they were seen as obsolete. There is no evidence that any KV-1 or KV-85 took part in the battle of Berlin.

Derivatives of the KV-1

The KV-2 heavy artillery tank

When encountering difficulties on the heavily fortified Mannerheim line during the Winter War in Finland, the general staff demanded a specially equipped version fitted with a heavy howitzer, intended to deal with concrete bunkers, in support of the regular KV-1 units. But instead of choosing a more pragmatic solution of a traditional SPG, the Soviet engineers tried to get the best of both worlds in a hurry, while using the same turret ring to accommodate a fully traversable, redesigned turret to house the gargantuan howitzer. This gave the KV-2 an unmistakable profile, with its huge, towering turret, which was only accessible by a ladder. An obvious target which was also top heavy, compromising the lateral stability of the tank while crossing a sloped terrain. All these deficiencies were taken in account when the factory was relocated in the new “Tankograd” complex at the steps of the Ural. The production was no longer maintained. Only 334 were built in all from late 1939 to mid-1941.

Read More

The KV-8 flame-thrower

The KV-1 was also chosen to be used as platform for the new ATO-41 flame-thrower. The gun mantlet accommodated the flamethrower tube, a coaxial DT machine-gun and, replacing the former ZiS-5 gun, a 45 mm (1.77 in) QF model 1932 in disguise, housed inside a 76 mm (3 in) tube. The gun was standard issue on the BT series and the T-26, and had good penetration power against 20-25 mm (0.79-0.98 in) of armor. 45 units were converted using KV-1B hulls (model 1941), and later on, 25 more based on the upgraded KV-1S. Two prototypes of the next version (KV-1M) and a few experimental units with the flame-thrower was relocated in the hull were also built and tested in combat.

The SU-152 SPG

Probably the most distinctive Soviet SPG of the war, the SU-152 renewed the idea formerly tried, although unsuccessfully, by the KV-2. Developed relatively late in the war, for the upcoming Operation Uranus (the great Stalingrad counter-offensive), this “pillbox killer” was a more sound (and simpler) design. The long howitzer was simply relocated into the hull, making it easier to manufacture, more stable and more difficult to hit. It was based on the KV-1S and arrived in time for Kursk, proving also an excellent improvised anti-tank machine, soon nicknamed “the beast killer”. Later on it was associated to the great offensives of 1944-45 and was widely used (and photographed) during the battle of Berlin. Around 700 were built in all, including the late ISU-152 based on the improved IS-1 series chassis.

Prototypes

Heavy tanks
The T-150, KV-220 and KV-220-2 were early 1942 projects with 700 to 850 bhp diesels, armed with 76 mm (3 in) to 85 mm (3.35 in) guns. One KV-13 was buit, being a new generation “universal” medium tank drawn in late 1942.
Super-heavy tanks
The KV-1 chassis served as a basis for many tests, starting with the KV-3, a single prototype, which had an extra pair of rollers, a lengthened hull to accommodate a new 850 hp V-2SN engine, a hull protected (at the front) by 130 mm (5.12 in) of armor and a 107 mm (4.21 in) ZiS-6 gun. It was shipped to the front with a KV-1 turret and destroyed in combat by German field artillery in 1941. The KV-4 and KV-5 were even larger version, but stayed as paper projects. These super-heavy tanks would have been up to 150 tons. 20 different projects were proposed, but all cancelled by 1943 in favor of the IS-1.
SPGs
The experimental KV-7 was a self propelled-gun with three guns (one 76 and two 45 mm/3-1.77 in). The KV-9 was a battle-tested 122 mm (4.8 in) SPG prototype, which was an early forerunner for the SU-122 series. The U-18 and U-19 existed only as a mockups or on paper. The KV-10 (or KV-1K) was fitted with four 132 mm (5.2 in) M-13 rockets launchers installed on the large mud-guards, but remained a prototype.

KV-85 variants
Only 148 of this promising intermediate model were built, before the IS-1 was introduced. It led anyway to four variants. The KV-85G was a competitor, also armed with a 85 mm (3.35 in) S-31 cannon, but the KV-85 was chosen instead. The KV-100 and 122 were prototype derivatives armed with a long 100 mm (3.94 in) or a 122 mm (4.8 in) gun, built and tested in 1943-44. They served as testbeds for the IS-2.

Legacy of the Kliment Voroshilov heavy tank

Despite being plagued by problems due to a rushed conception, the formidable reputation of the KV-1 came first from a legendary sturdiness, which was paid in return by a record weight. It paved the way for the next generation of Soviet heavy tanks which took everything from it. Despite the name, their new turret and heavier guns, the IS (Iosif Stalin) series were still KV-1s in disguise. They borrowed everything from the chassis to the tracks, road wheels, suspensions, diesel engine, transmission and most of the equipment.
And if the IS-3 (which was never to fire a shot before the capitulation) had a different look, with a brand new, entirely redesigned sloped hull and characteristic rounded, flat turret of the Soviet postwar design, it remained essentially a KV-1 inside. The KV-13 design tried briefly to reunite the T-34 and the KV-1 in a single package, but failed. However, its legacy was to endure in the very last Soviet heavy tank design, the T-10 (1958), after a long series from the IS-4 to the IS-7. They were to bring support to the more agile T-54/55 during the Cold War. But the heavy type had to definitely disappear in favor of the “universal” type, the main battle tank.

KV-1B specifications

Dimensions (L-w-h) 5.8 x 4.2 x 2.32 m (19.2×13.78×7.61 ft)
Total weight, battle ready 45 tonnes
Crew 4 (commander, driver, 2 gunners)
Propulsion V12 diesel V2, 600 bhp (400 kW)
Maximum Speed 38 km/h (26 mph)
Range (road/off road) 200 km (140 mi)
Armament 76.2 mm (3 in) L32
3x DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-guns
Armor 30 to 100 mm (1.18-3.93 in)
Total production 5819

Links and references

The KV-1 on Wikipedia
ww2 soviet armour
All ww2 Soviet Tanks Posters
The first KV-1 prototype in Finland with the 91st Tank Battalion of the 20th Heavy Tank Brigade, near Suma, 17-19 December 1939, alongside two T-100s and one SMK
The first KV-1 prototype in Finland with the 91st Tank Battalion of the 20th Heavy Tank Brigade, near Suma, 17-19 December 1939, alongside two T-100s and one SMK.
KV-1 model 1939 with welded turret. Central front, summer 1941.
KV-1 model 1939 with welded turret. Central front, summer 1941.
KV-1 model 1940, Central front, autumn 1940. Slogan For Russia.
KV-1 model 1940, Central front, autumn 1940. Slogan “For Russia”.
KV-1 model 1940 of the Moscow heavy tactical reserve, winter 1941/42. Slogan: For Stalin
KV-1 model 1940 of the Moscow heavy tactical reserve, winter 1941/42. Slogan: “For Stalin”.
KV-1 model 1941 with a complex Finnish camouflage pattern, winter 1941/42. Also notice the new spoked wheels.
KV-1 model 1941 with a complex “Finnish” camouflage pattern, winter 1941/42. Also notice the new spoked wheels.
KV-1 model 1940 s ekranami (up-armored). Unknown reserve front unit, summer 1942.
KV-1 model 1940 s ekranami (up-armored). Unknown reserve front unit, summer 1942.
KV-1 model 1941 s ekranami (up-armored), unknown unit, Leningrad sector, winter 1942.
KV-1 model 1941 s ekranami (up-armored), unknown unit, Leningrad sector, winter 1942.
KV-1B (model 1941), 124th Guard Tank Brigade, part of the 24th Tank Division, operating near Leningrad.
KV-1B (model 1941), 124th Guard Tank Brigade, part of the 24th Tank Division, operating near Leningrad.
KV-1B, Leningrad sector, winter 1941/42. The winter camouflage is another variation with omitted spots to create an alternative pattern.
KV-1B, Leningrad sector, winter 1941/42. The winter camouflage is another variation with omitted spots to create an alternative pattern.
KV-1 model 1941, late production, 53rd Army of the Transcaucasian Front, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, September 1941.
KV-1 model 1941, late production, 53rd Army of the Transcaucasian Front, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, September 1941.
KV-1 model 1941/42 with a partially welded turret and the new ZiS-5 long barrel gun. Unknown unit, Central Front, autumn 1942.
KV-1 model 1941/42 with a partially welded turret and the new ZiS-5 long barrel gun. Unknown unit, Central Front, autumn 1942.
KV-1 model 1942 with a fully cast turret. Unknown unit, Southern Front, summer 1942. Slogan October Revolution
KV-1 model 1942 with a fully cast turret. Unknown unit, Southern Front, summer 1942. Slogan “October Revolution”
Artist's impression of a KV-1 model 1942 (fully cast turret) Kutuzov in white washable paint livery, unknown unit, Northern front, winter 1942/43. Many Soviet tanks were named after Soviet generals and heroes.
Artist’s impression of a KV-1 model 1942 (fully cast turret) “Kutuzov” in white washable paint livery, unknown unit, Northern front, winter 1942/43. Many Soviet tanks were named after Soviet generals and heroes.
KV-1 model 1942, unknown unit, Finnish front, March 1942. Notice the DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-gun AA mount and the faded white paint.
KV-1 model 1942, unknown unit, Finnish front, March 1942. Notice the DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-gun AA mount and the faded white paint.
KV-1 model 1942 (late production), unknown unit, Southern front, spring 1942.
KV-1 model 1942 (late production), unknown unit, Southern front, spring 1942.
KV-1 model 1942 (late production), Central front, early 1943. Slogan Death for death. The original factory green was modified due the passing of one winter and burning gasoline from an explosion and other chemicals. Fighting inside factories was not unusual in many street battles.
KV-1 model 1942 (late production), Central front, early 1943. Slogan “Death for death”. The original factory green was modified due the passing of one winter and burning gasoline from an explosion and other chemicals. Fighting inside factories was not unusual in many street battles.


Flamethrower versions

KV-8 (flame-thrower version), 503rd Independent Armored Battalion, Volhovsky sector, summer 1942.
KV-8 (flame-thrower version), 503rd Independent Armored Battalion, Volhovsky sector, summer 1942.


Captured KVs (Beutepanzers)

PzkPfw KV-1B 753(r), SS Panzer Regiment of the 2nd SS Panzergrenadier Division
PzkPfw KV-1B 753(r), SS Panzer Regiment of the 2nd SS Panzergrenadier Division “Das Reich”, Group Center, spring 1943. Notice the salmon camouflage over the standard dunkelgrau of captured units.
KV-1C (Model 1942) or PzKpfw KV-IC 753(r), 3rd SS Panzer-Grenadier Division
KV-1C (Model 1942) or PzKpfw KV-IC 753(r), 3rd SS Panzer-Grenadier Division “Totenkopf”, Kharkov, March 1943.
PanzerKampfwagen KV-1B 756(r), 204th Panzer Regiment, 22nd PanzerDivision, Kursk, summer 1943.
PanzerKampfwagen KV-1B 756(r), 204th Panzer Regiment, 22nd PanzerDivision, Kursk, summer 1943.

Red Army Auxiliary Armoured Vehicles, 1930–1945 (Images of War)

Red Army Auxiliary Armoured Vehicles, 1930–1945 (Images of War), by Alex Tarasov

If you ever wanted to learn about probably the most obscure parts of the Soviet tank forces during the Interwar and WW2 – this book is for you.

The book tells the story of the Soviet auxiliary armor, from the conceptual and doctrinal developments of the 1930s to the fierce battles of the Great Patriotic War.

The author not only pays attention to the technical side, but also examines organizational and doctrinal questions, as well as the role and place of the auxiliary armor, as it was seen by the Soviet pioneers of armored warfare Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Vladimir Triandafillov and Konstantin Kalinovsky.

A significant part of the book is dedicated to real battlefield experiences taken from Soviet combat reports. The author analyses the question of how the lack of auxiliary armor affected the combat efficacy of the Soviet tank troops during the most significant operations of the Great Patriotic War, including:

– the South-Western Front, January 1942
– the 3rd Guards Tank Army in the battles for Kharkov in December 1942–March 1943
– the 2nd Tank Army in January–February 1944, during the battles of the Zhitomir–Berdichev offensive
– the 6th Guards Tank Army in the Manchurian operation in August–September 1945

The book also explores the question of engineering support from 1930 to the Battle of Berlin. The research is based mainly on archival documents never published before and it will be very useful for scholars and researchers.
Buy this book on Amazon!


ww2 soviet armour
ww2 Soviet Tanks Poster

By David.B

Tank Encyclopedia's Creator, webmaster and illustrator since 2010.

42 replies on “KV-1”

Hi!
Very funny illustrations.
KV-1 model 1939 with welded turret. Central front, summer 1941.
written – “Чаиавб” – must be “ЧАПАЕВ” (national hero of civil war) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Chapayev
KV-1 model 1940, Central front, autumn 1940. Slogan “For Russia”
written – “Для России!” – must be “За Россию!” – slogan look like mistake, because in this time “Родина”,”Русь”,”СССР”, more popular. Preposition “For” in this case must be “За”, not “Для”
Another remark – in 1940 no such “Central front”, war begin in 22 july 1941. But tank can be manufactured in 1940 as well.
KV-1 model 1940 of the Moscow heavy tactical reserve, winter 1941/42. Slogan: “For Stalin”.
written – “Для Сталина!” – must be “За Сталина!”
KV-1 model 1940 s ekranami (up-armored). Unknown reserve front unit, summer 1942.
“Победа будет за нами!” – “Victory will be ours!”
KV-1 model 1941, late production, 53rd Army of the Transcaucasian Front, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, September 1941.
“Бей захватчиков!” – “Beat the invaders!”
KV-1 model 1942 with a fully cast turret. Unknown unit, Southern Front, summer 1942. Slogan “October Revolution”
written – “Октября Револю…” must be “Октябрьская революция”
Artist’s impression of a KV-1 model 1942 (fully cast turret) “Kutuzov” in white washable paint livery, unknown unit, Northern front, winter 1942/43. Many Soviet tanks were named after Soviet generals and heroes.
written – “Катазов” – must be “Кутузов” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kutuzov
KV-1 model 1942, unknown unit, Finnish front, March 1942. Notice the DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-gun AA mount and the faded white paint.
written – “КИРТ” – must be “КИРОВ”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kirov
KV-85, unknown unit of the Guards, Eastern Prussia, June 1944. This transition model between the KV-1 and IS-1 was only produced to a number of 143 machines.
written – “Алексбидв Нев…” – must be “Александр Невский” – Alexander Nevsky (prince, war leader, saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, etc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky
KV-8 (flame-thrower version), 503rd Independent Armored Battalion, Volhovsky sector, summer 1942.
written – “СЧВОРОВ” – must be “СУВОРОВ” – Suvorov is one of the few generals in history who never lost a battle, being undefeated in over 60 large battles while frequently having numerical disadvantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov
wbr,
Vladimir

Hi Vladimir,
All right, thanks for this detailed correction of Cyrillic. You know how tricky it can be for us westerners… Using crappy translators, crappy photoshop font rendering, or just wrong modellers reference plates.
I will correct these asap.

The mass of the KV-1 is stated at 45 tons, however it is (according to wiki) 45 tonnes, which is a metric unit =45,000kg, 45 tons is an American standard unit which would be 90,000lbs. 90,000lbs is only 40,823kg. Please check your source, tonnes aren’t equal to tons and I’m not sure which one you meant to use.

Isn’t funny how a single KV-1 was able to stop a whole entire Panzer Division. A Panzer Division consists of 14,750 people.

Question for the TE Moderators: can you add the shell types the tanks used? It would make the article more informing. Plus, some people need to know what shells each tank uses so then if they decide to do something involving tanks using their shells, they would know where to find the information

not sure if you are expressing skepticism or just general astonishment at that statement, but yes, that is entirely plausible. that doesn’t mean that that the entire division was thrown at the single tank and defeated, a unit moves as a unit, you can delay the advance of the entire unit by delaying a single element in the right time and place. especially since it’s extremely rare for the entire combat power of a division to be engaged all at once. if they are advancing on a broad front, and you stop the lead elements of the center in a strong position, the flanks have to stop as well, least they advance ahead and leave their own flanks open to counter attack from the enemy forces still in their rear. it’s kind of like soldiers advancing in a line, them can only advance as fast as the slowest man if they want to hold their formation intact.
but what’s more common is that the division is advancing in a column along a certain axis. the vast majority is in the rear while only a few battalions are making up the spearhead. you only have the majority in the front line when you are breaking through a fortified line in a prepared assault. when covering distance, you have lead elements with the rest of the division in a train behind down one or several roads. if you station a small but effective force on the single road available to pass though a certain area, the lead elements are stopped and everyone else stops behind them. it’s only a single road, and if you carefully choose your location so they can’t just go around you and attack you from behind because of geography, they must go through you. and there is only so much force you can put into a small space to attack, you don’t want your units all crammed together into a single place on a road trying to advance and attack all at once. even if they fit, it’s asking for them all to get wiped out by artillery or air strikes. this is literally the idea behind a tactical bottleneck, Thermopylae, etc, where 300 Spartans (and others) held the entire Persian army off. it’s why a bridge is so easy to defend, how a single regiment of cavalry could hold the Union Army back and prevent them from passing though the mountains, by holding e one road though the pass. the front is a fixed width, so you can’t use all your force at once, so only the guys in the front can actually fight. the defenders have the commanding position, so you CAN just stack your forces up and send them forward and grind them down by sheer weight, but it’s extremely wasteful. your lead elements engage the tank in the ravine and the first three get knocked out and they withdraw. now you have a narrow ravine, no way to flank that enemy tank or battery, and three dead tanks blocking your way. you try again with heavier tanks, which have to go around the dead tanks and try to kill the enemy behind protecting firing from higher ground. as they pass the dead tanks, they present weaker side armor and two more are hit, and now it’s totally blocked, until you can move them under fire. and then what, you assemble all your tanks and push ahead and take whatever losses it takes to destroy him? not the efficient way to do it. he has already delayed you for six hours and now it’s dark. so you decide to bring up artillery and emplace it. that takes the rest of the night, and the next day to finally kill the enemy tank. and of course the tank isn’t alone, there is infantry guarding the hills on each side so you can’t just send troops around to attack it from the rear.
so yes, a single tank well located and fought well can absolutely delay a whole division. history is full of examples of a few men holding off much more powerful forces by wise defensive choices.

KV-1 model 1941 s ekranami (up-armored), unknown unit, Leningrad sector, winter 1942.—It means “Ehkranami” and i think it is a KV-1E.
KV-1 model 1940 s ekranami (up-armored). Unknown reserve front unit, summer 1942.— Also a KV-1E (Ehkranami) i think.
Greetings from Germany, Mike.

The KV-3 and 220 are the same vehicle. 220 coming from the designation Object 220. An Article isn’t in the works at the moment, but will come in the future.
– TE Moderator

Indeed so. KV-3 actually falls under Object 150, 221, 222, 223. According to Yuri Pasholok.
– TE Moderator

Your link is the old article based on the work by Solyankin, which is not reliable at all. The article was written before Yuri published his research on KV-3 (and other super-heavy KVs); Looks like only the document scans were taken from Yuri Pasholok’s LiveJournal blog.
Originally KV-3 went under the code “222”, which would be the modified T-150.
Later the designation “KV-3” was given to another vehicle, which went under the code “223.” It was to be built using the components of experimental T-221. There was more to it, obviously; KV-3 has really messed-up history.
The bottom line is you would be more accurate if you said that the first(!) KV-3 and T-150 were pretty much [although, not entirely!] the same vehicle. There were some similarities with 220, but it is in no way the same vehicle.

Don’t forget the KV-4. The T-35 Land Battleship was a beast. 2 frontal cannons and 1 in the back. With, i think, 5 machine guns. I would also like to see the FV215b 183.

Hello just wanted say that in picture where you tell about first KV-1 the place is not Suma it is Summa

Hello, I noticed the KV1’s suspension was not symetrical on each side, the roadwheels and return rollers have a noticeable offset, for what reason?

The KV-1 uses torsion bars which take up the entire width of the hull, so one side of the running gear has to be offset in order to have proper working suspension on each side.

Was the KV-9 prototype armed with the 122mm U-11 gun real? as well as the KV-11 that was proposed with the F-30 85mm?
found those bits of info from wikipedia.
Hello from Canada, and the NA WoT servers! 😀

I believe so, Wikipedia states that one KV-9 prototype was built, and I have seen models of it on google images. Either it was leaked to the model company by some spy, or it’s a real thing.
The KV-11 I am not sure about, but as you know, it exists in world of tanks.
Hello from the NA blitz server!

Dimensions (L-w-h) 5.8 x 4.2 x 2.32 m (19.2×13.78×7.61 in)
I must admit, I’ve never seen a 7.61″ tall KV-1 before… shouldn’t these dimensions be in feet and not inches?

You’re correct. Our writing team is international so sometimes conversion between metric and imperial can go a bit awry. it has been corrected
TE Moderator

I’m no tank expert, just an enthusiast. I enjoy using your articles as references for technical illustrations, just as a hobby. I think I’ve noticed a discrepancy and wanted to clarify. It’s stated in the article under paragraph “The KV-1 model 1939 and 1940” that the model 1939 was initially supposed to be equipped with the F-32 gun, but due to circumstances the first 50 as well as all remaining 1939 models were equipped with the L-11. However the side depiction of the KV-1 Prototype 1939 in Finland is shown with what doesn’t look like a L-11, same goes for the depiction below it of the “KV-1 model 1939 with welded turret. Central front, summer 1941”. The barrel looks too long and there is no recuperator above it, they look more like a KV-1A than a KV-1 model 1939. My first thought was that the KV-1 Prototype was equipped with the F-32 while the rest from 1939 were equipped with the L-11. Do these images represent accurate historical models or are they just for fun.
Either way, keep up the good work. 🙂

This article is in serious need of a rewrite. In fact, most of our early articles are.
Most of those designations are not historical, and are in fact, arbitrary. A new modern naming system should be developed to give names to all these variants.
For technical illustrations, this article is not the best at all.
-TE Editor

One of the problems with naming Soviet tank series is that modifications introduced into a tanks series were not introduced uniformly in practice. It depended on which factories had which parts at the time of production. Thus it was not uncommon to see tanks roll of the production line containing both “old” and “new” elements. The most accurate system would be a production/naming system based on the factories themselves but this would be horribly complex. In the meantime, I composed a KV-1 identification system some time ago on ACG. You can find it here: https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/historical-events-eras/world-war-ii/armor-in-world-war-ii/soviet-armor/64845-kv-1-identification-thread

The 1939 and 1940 design models (manufactured in 1940 and 1941 respectively) had the rounded rear. The 1941 design introduced the angled rear but did not begin rolling off the production line until 1942. However, depending on the factory, it was not unusual to have 1942 KV-1s still being manufactured with the rounded rear. Production runs were not uniform across all factories due to supply restraints and the need to maintain production numbers.

Would the KV-1 prototype with a 57mm gun, the same as the T-34-57, fit under the KV-1 section, or would it have to be it’s own category?

It should be its own article. However, I haven’t seen any info about such a vehicle. Do you have anything you could share?

There is enough evidence that a unit of about 30 KV-1 (designed KW-76 by the Soviets) was transferred into 2nd Belorussian Front to the 2nd Strike Army (46. Heavy Panzer Regiment) as late as mid-March 1945. They took part in the battle for Danzig/Gdansk, attacking along the main road leading from Pr. Stargard /Starogard Gdanski. Few of them made it to the city center two weeks later, while about 20 were destroyed/disabled. It’s very likely that some of them were destroyed by Hermann Bix who commanded a Jagdpather platoon from 3./Panzerregiment 35.

why exactly is the first KV-1 prototype used in Finland illustrated here as painted in washable white with a red star? so far all pictures I can find of the first production KV-1’s and prototypes appear to be in protective green with no markings, is there a picture or a source that mentions it ever being painted as such?

The reason why the Russian KV-1 had a Red star on the turret is because it resembled the Red Army and it meant Military Service

– A “bogie” usually implies a multi-axle assembly, so I am not sure your description of the KV-1 as having “six twin wheel bogies” is accurate. that implies to me three sets of two axles on each side, like the M4 Medium. they are just independently sprung twin road wheels.

-What’s with the illustration of the tank with Cyrillic clearly painted in modern computer font on the side of the turret?
I also see no explanation for the KV-1 in German markings with what is clearly a different main gun and a cupola. my first thought was that it was supposed to be an 8,8cm gun but maybe it’s just supposed to be a 7,5cm. I see absolutely nothing about this in the text.
– I also see no explanation for the mysterious caption explaining that the green paint is a different color because of “a year passing and burning gasoline, fighting in factories was very common”. what is the value of a caption like that which hints at some greater story or detail that isn’t included anywhere in the article, but which doesn’t actually explain itself at all. so I know that the green is not standard for a reason, I know that reason is because gasoline was burning, and presumably a factory was involved somehow because it specifically mentions factory fighting. am I to interpret this as that this machine was built in a factory that was so close to the front lines that it was actually slightly damaged in the fighting while still in the factory? or was in maybe engaged in a fight in a factory at some point (although I can’t easily imagine how a tank is fighting inside a factory). I say either fully explain the subject or just don’t mention it at all, it just raises more questions than it answers..
– The crew is listed as four, but I was always under the impression that it was intended to be five, because people always say “at least the KV-1 had a three man turret” ignoring the fact that the third man was actually just there to fire the rear DT. which never made any sense to me, since it doesn’t seem like that would be a constant duty, and the guy serving as loader could easily just take over the machine gun as needed. which I suspect is exactly what they did do. so it should be driver, gunner, commander/loader, two machine gunners (one part time loader.
– and to nitpick, since the axles are staggered to fit the torsion beams, it seems unlikely that the wheels could ever line up so to can see straight though to the other side . even if the wheels were exactly parallel, it’s very unlikely that the holes would line up exactly except by amazing coincidence. I also feel like it’s not quite right to call them “spoked wheels” when it’s just a series of holes punched around the outside.

Thanks for your comments Sam.

Our KV-1 article in is a bad state and in serious need of a rewrite. The text and illustration accuracy issues will be resolved when the article is rewritten.

Unfortunately, we don’t currently have anyone undertaking this gigantic task. We are always open for outside people to help us with rewriting old articles and providing new ones.

Thanks
Gareth (TE Manager)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *