@@Channel-sp3fp Please let me know of my political bias, since I have been called everything from left-wing to right-wing, maybe you have something new to add.
Just in general, everything is the thing that scares you the most. And that is entirely rational as if you are wrong you are less likely to be dead. The irrational part can be in the incorrect belief of what is the most dangerous (you see many instances when any German artillery is called an 88 because it was the scariest even when the 10.5cm and 15cm guns were a much bigger threat to troops).
I suspect the reason there was no 'KV-1 shock' may have also had to do with expectations. The KV-1 is a heavy tank, so it having a (for the time) large calibre long barrelled gun, thick armour, and a powerful engine was to be expected by the Axis forces who encountered or captured them. While the T-34 on the other hand was a medium tank with firepower and armour protection closer in equivalence to the KV than its German counterparts, capabilities that were not normally expected in a vehicle of that weight class at the time, and hence the level of alarm
The main Soviet weakness in the end was using flags for tanks due to the lack of radios. THe KV1 was a powerful tank but they say it's transmission was a nightmare.
@@ComissarZhukov Only the leader had radios on tank platoons. They still used flags to command. This is why germans often said the Soviets behaved like chicks following their mom. They learned that by knocking out the leader, all platoon would lose control.
@@TankArchives I just checked here, you guys are right. I wonder if there is any video about the differences of protection quality between types of steel used. I know Rolled, cast and high hardness had their differences. Just curious
@@thiagorodrigues5211 in general cast armour is about 10% weaker for the same thickness. However, you can make a complex shape like the front hull of a Sherman all in one piece while welding several plates together to make the same shape is going to take a long time and have vulnerable areas that are penetrated more easily. Maybe @MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized or I will make a video one day but it's a pretty niche topic.
☹️ I'm offended by your insinuation that we Soviets built sub-par bridges in the pre-WW2 period! My family's company built many of those bridges. Our company name was: "Popov & Son's Primo Bridges LLC"(formerly: "Tsar's Choice Bridges"). Anyway, it was founded in 1906 by me and my son, Viktor. For God's sake, our mottos were "Tank Tuff" & "Maus? meh...."(obviously linguistically _tuned_ for that time period & culture). Our radio ads stated: "Guaranteed not to collapse, or we'll send *_ourselves_* off to the gulag"!
There weren't many bridges in USSR that could support 30 ton tank either, but that doesn't negatively impact the amount of rimjobs T-34 is receiving for some reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@TheArklytethe praise the T-34 gets is probably the direct inverse of the Nazi worship and claimed allied superiority in the west, so it generally balances out. What get’s many people in the west butt hurt is that a. The Wehrmacht failed to destroy the Soviet Union and b. that the Red Army destroyed the bulk of the Wehrmacht. It doesn’t matter if tank A or bomber B was better or worse, in the end we are talking total industrial war. If you like rimjobs, there is an endless list of Western self praise that can be licked from Spitfires to Land Lease and Atomic bombs. Everything Soviet or Russian is supposedly inferior. One does as one licks.
@@TK421-53 Chad KV-1S >>>>>> virgin T-34:P And I guess KV-1, KV-1S, T-70, KV-85, IS-1, SU-76, IS-2, ISU-152, ISU-122, T-43, KV-13 and dozen others are all american tanks, right? Or maybe it's just T-34 that is piece of sh//t? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks had used Christie suspension? None? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks used sloped side armor? Also none? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks made commander work as loader? Some, but not really? Oh, I'm sure that T-34 was a great tank and the fact that it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M ASAP or that it costed almost exactly as much to produce as KV-1 due to the use of shared bottleneck components isn't telling a different story. Such a pity that all soviet reports and archives are still in place about pre war testing and all the attempts to replace that "tank". Otherwise some kid would have even believed you:D
Zinoviy Kolobanov, 20 August 1941. One KV-1 destroyed or disabled 22 tanks. Turret armor sustained 114 hits. Semyon Konovalov, 13 July 1942. One KV-1 destroyed or disabled 16 tanks, 2 armored cars and 8 trucks with infantry. The tank was destroyed but 3 of the crew survived. After a week behind enemy lines they captured a Pz3 and used it to reach the Red Army forces.
Main weaknesses of KV-1 were: 1)Voroshilov being a moron, who almost cancelled development until appeased with the naming bribe; 2)some f//cks making T-34 use same engine and gun; 3)low load cranes on many factories; 4)overrating engine instead of derating it as well as overloading transmission. They tried to run V-2 at 600hp on KV-1, but V-2 on IS-1/2/3 ran only at 520hp. Otherwise a great tank, especially for its time. Ideally KV should have gotten sloped front, lowered side armor thickness, new transmission and derated engine. And be produced instead of T-34 as "universal" tank until 1943. Edit: another small correction, KV-1 had superior firepower to T-34 despite having de facto same gun and ammo. KV-1 had dedicated loader and the crew weren't choking on fumes. So unlike T-34, KV-1 crew could both really achieve the stated RoF of the gun AND allow commander and gunner to do their jobs unopposed. Same gun=/=same firepower.
One issue is that making an engine produce more power (larger bore, stroke, etc.) is quite a large amount of engineering work, where bolting/welding plates on is relatively easy. The Germans proved that keeping the same engine and transmission while increasing the armor quickly ruins its performance and reliability. It is great to know the Russians reproduced this same experiment. As an English speaker (well, those in England might disagree) I always check to see if 'it is' can replace it's, if not, then it is 'its'. (Yes, I thought about saying it's 'its', but it seemed wrong.)
They came right back around. Work on the Object 701 began in 1943. That eventually grew to 60 tons. Work on the series of tanks collectively called IS-7 began in 1945 and that went up to almost 70 tons before the order was given in 1949 to stop all work on tanks weighing over 50 tons.
@@HaVoC117X IS 2 was decent tank, about as heavy as German Panther, and IS 3 was actually bit lighter them all tanks from Patton series. Any later IS tank did not go beyond prototype phase and now Russian tanks are some 20t lighter then German or American. Later IS tanks did not go beyond trial versions.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 T10 weight 52 tons, at served right up to the 1970s. And the IS3 was also very unreliable and served with the soviet forces. The 6th guard tank army reported that their IS 2s and ISU 152 had a service life of around 1600 - 1800km and their T34/85 2000 to 2500km in late 1944/45. Panthers service life was reported at 1500 - 2000km between to major maintenance and repair procedures (between spring and fall 1944. Befor and after that the Panther suffered from teething problems or poor built quality and resource shortages). Early T34s and KV 1s had a service life of just 300 to 400km till late 1942. Seems like the russians were also just cooking with water like any body else. Churchill had a servicelife of 1000miles (1600km). And the 40+ ton M26, M46, were also less reliable than the shermans. Shermans used to have a service life between engine overhaul of 2000miles. So it seems like, that even the US 40+ ton tanks were in samy range as everybody's else's 1940 heavy tanks.
I think that the german were far more impressed by the T34 because of its slope armour. Not all shots were hitting the target so non penetrating shots could be missed ones with the KV-1. But a glancing shot is clearly seen and is very impressive with a red hot projectile going to the sky.
Germans were impressed by the Kv-1 as well as the t-34, 1 did go on a rampage behind the german lines in early barbarossa and took non-penetrating hits and glancing blows until with was brought to a halt by point zero blast from a 150mm field howitzer. Germans in 1941 faced the samething as brits had with the tiger in africa(even though tiger 131 was 1st one lost to the allies due to 57mm ap hit.)
one of the funniest thing was that the designers were supposedly told to make a larger turret and it does have a 3-man turret, but the 3rd guy can't load or shoot the main gun and the most he can do is face rearward and just stand around there.
Lets just have mile after mile of fuel trucks following these tanks. I can hear them guzzling decades later. What a truly remarkable landmark on tracks. Really eye opening.
Thanks for this video, guys. People often ignore the KV tank. I still think for 1941 at least, the KV was a better tank than the T-34 version present at this time. Just in terms of visibility, for instance, at least the KV could see through the back. T-34 not even a single vision port or anything had. KV also had torsion bar suspension, which due to its weight, I assume it might have not worked as well as it would be supposed to for torsion bars, which seems to be one of the best designs for suspensions. Now, another problem the KVs may have faced in 1941 is the production number, because the KV seems to be just as rare, or perhaps even rarer than the T-34. As far as I know, the only production line the Soviets had in the beginning of the war was sited in Leningrad, so I guess it's the place where this tank might have been the more relevant, I don't recall people talking about it for other areas in the front back in 1941. In the Battle of the Caucusus in 1942 I know that the Soviet had a dozen of those vehicles there. But I heard you guys saying that the tank engine was different from the T-34. But didn't the T-34, the BT and KV tanks shared all the same 500 hp diesel engine? Or did they modified it for the KV, something like this? Regards.
This. Early war the KV1 would have been the best tank in the war, easily better than the T-34. It was just very unlucky that the whole organization (spare parts, ammo, trained personell, overall command structure) was just terrible. Like you say, too ignored.
@@triarii217 yep. The T-34 was a rushed tank. It wasn't meant to be in production so early. The KV at least was somewhat more ready, saw action in tests against Finland as well, if I'm not mistaken.
Nah, thats not really a factor. If anything the T-34 would have a slight disadvantage due to having fewer road wheels, because ground pressure is highest below the road wheels, so fewer road wheels means those spikes in ground pressure are even higher. But the real factor is the weight and track area, and the T-34 had it better in both categories.
Basically it was unreliable, slow and less common than the T-34. Which practically means they never played a big role. 2-3 T-34s moving in at twice the speed are much more of a threat than a single KV-1 getting hit by all available guns, if it didn’t break down before it could be used.
Except 2-3 T-34 would cost as much as 2-3 KV-1 to produce and they have almost the same combat offroad speed due to faulty transmissions of both tanks. In all regards KV-1 was "bad", T-34 was even worse and it wasn't any cheaper to produce.
@@TheArklyte Pretty sure that they built more T-34s and I don't think the German troops cared how expensive the tanks were they had to face. T-34 cost also decreased because of mass production and of course cuts in quality where it wasn't deemed necessary. Also German evaluated that the T-34 was infact more mobile than their own vehicles, thus the Panther was going to be more mobile than either Pz III and IV.
@@aperson9500 I got the ling 75 on the Panzer IV, and yea, it just so happened that I managed to aim it at the lower view port of the bow gunner/driver and it actually did go through. So I guess just think about it as another Sherman that's smaller and impenetrable from the sides and anywhere on the turret lol.
Soviet heavy tanks were improved more than their medium tanks, and are the most successful Heavy Tank program of World War 2. The KV-1 was well armored, but it used almost the same gun as the T-34 medium tank, but with weaknesses to due its slow maximum speed, poor-moderate acceleration, handling, and cross-country ability. That still made it better than the majority of vehicles. It was improved to be the KV-1S with slightly weaker armor but noticeable increased mobility. Then that was replaced with the KV-85, then the IS-1-85, then the IS-2-122.
Probably shot them from all sides until something broke and the crew abandoned the tank 🤔 Otherwise you have AT mines, AT guns from close range, 88mm FlaK and field guns from long range or infantry close and personally. Even artillery can stop tanks by blowing craters into the ground where tanks get stuck in.
If you need a pak 40 to kill a T-34, and a pak 40 also kills the KV-1, then the T-34 will be more dangerous since the KV is heavier, slower with the same gun as the T-34
Problem is that early war you dont have a pak 40. You have mostly pak 38 and pak 36 both of wich have a really hard time piercing a KV1, while the T34 was vulnerable to the pak 38.
Rare and precious for Soviet dimension generally still means a lot of them. About 337 KV-1s in the Western District for Barbarossa, that is about 10 % of the German Tank Forces attacking. About 830 T-34s.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Of course, but nowhere near the thousands some people suggest. The numbers I've seen thrown around don't reflect reality, and Peter's comment just made me chuckle in remembrance.
@@MaxRavenclaw I am not sure what you mean by that? By end of 41 the Germans had destroyed more T34 than they had Pz3 and 4 for the year and KVs were also more often destroyed than PZ3 or 4… And among the 20k Russian tank losses this might only be about 10% but it is a significant number. I also havent read anyone claiming the Germans drowning in thousand of at-34 in 41… that happened in 1943 though…
@@bingobongo1615 Oops, decided to reply later when I first read this and forgot about it. What I mean is that I've seen some big exaggerations online on the topic. According to Krivosheev, the Soviets lost about 2300 medium tanks in '41, and 900 heavy. The Germans had about 2000 Pz.III&IV in June '41. They built about 2200 during the year. So, not really. But honestly I don't see the point of rivet-counting. Just as I said, I was merely remembering some exaggerations I read online in the past. I'm glad you've been spared, but I have heard people claiming that.
@@mtnbound2764 Military asked why kv1 did not had a greater impact on the german soldiers,like t34 had,what were its weakness and if some tanks were simply misidentified by the germans in their report or memoirs and if they named kv1 as t34 resulting in actions done by kv1 to be named or remembered as done by t34,like allied soldiers had done with tiger and panther and peter spoke about various variants of the kv,nothing else. So 2 different subjects,with no conexion between them.
please do a video on these (this is a copy and paste list for a few channels) units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches) the tank doctrine of countries evaluation of tank veiw ports evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works) evaluation of types of ships or evaluation of navil warfare flag ship vs capital ship, battleship vs dreadnought air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples, ancient persan ships, ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser) better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3, and probably the esayest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks, ancient urban warfare ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, tactics in the ruso jap war cold war navil tactics, Korean war tactics, strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot
Peter‘s new book is available at is-2-tank.com/
If it were not for your political bias, I could appreciate your channel.
@@Channel-sp3fp Please let me know of my political bias, since I have been called everything from left-wing to right-wing, maybe you have something new to add.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Did Ukraine Change your Mind about German and British Tanks?
@@СергейНиколаев-б8ж see my video about if Chieftain changed his mind about Russian tanks.
"Let's increase the weight of the tank by 25%"
"Why are the torsion bars breaking?"
Germans: Every Russian tank is a T-34.
Allies: Every German tank is a Tiger.
At least the allies had an bit of an excuse
Just in general, everything is the thing that scares you the most. And that is entirely rational as if you are wrong you are less likely to be dead.
The irrational part can be in the incorrect belief of what is the most dangerous (you see many instances when any German artillery is called an 88 because it was the scariest even when the 10.5cm and 15cm guns were a much bigger threat to troops).
@@armchairgeneral7363
The germans slso had the excuse that like, 80% of the soviet armor was t-34s
tbf a panther 4 and a tiger look awfully similar down the sights of your sherman
Except a panzer II. 😆
Welcome back sir, hope your well
Hey, thanks, not fully recovered, but it is getting better.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualizedHii, that's unfortunate.
What had happened to you?
@NikhilSingh-xu3bb tendon issue in his hands I believe :(
I wish you recover fully soon!
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Happy convalescence, sir.
I suspect the reason there was no 'KV-1 shock' may have also had to do with expectations. The KV-1 is a heavy tank, so it having a (for the time) large calibre long barrelled gun, thick armour, and a powerful engine was to be expected by the Axis forces who encountered or captured them. While the T-34 on the other hand was a medium tank with firepower and armour protection closer in equivalence to the KV than its German counterparts, capabilities that were not normally expected in a vehicle of that weight class at the time, and hence the level of alarm
The main Soviet weakness in the end was using flags for tanks due to the lack of radios.
THe KV1 was a powerful tank but they say it's transmission was a nightmare.
All KV-1 tanks where issued with radios.
@@ComissarZhukov Only the leader had radios on tank platoons. They still used flags to command. This is why germans often said the Soviets behaved like chicks following their mom. They learned that by knocking out the leader, all platoon would lose control.
@@thiagorodrigues5211 on light tanks and T-34s, yes. Heavy tanks (including the T-28) all had radios.
@@TankArchives I just checked here, you guys are right.
I wonder if there is any video about the differences of protection quality between types of steel used. I know Rolled, cast and high hardness had their differences.
Just curious
@@thiagorodrigues5211 in general cast armour is about 10% weaker for the same thickness. However, you can make a complex shape like the front hull of a Sherman all in one piece while welding several plates together to make the same shape is going to take a long time and have vulnerable areas that are penetrated more easily.
Maybe @MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized or I will make a video one day but it's a pretty niche topic.
Glad to see new content, it’s good to know you’re recovering well! I hope you’ve taken time to heal and come back with a fresh outlook
Unfathomably stellar amd stupendous vid as usual! Keep the good work, sir! 😊
7:42 "Stalin signed..." Just say how many weapon designers were never seen again.
aside from rail moving it must of been a pain, cant imagine many bridges in Russian in those days could support a 44 ton tank
☹️ I'm offended by your insinuation that we Soviets built sub-par bridges in the pre-WW2 period! My family's company built many of those bridges. Our company name was: "Popov & Son's Primo Bridges LLC"(formerly: "Tsar's Choice Bridges").
Anyway, it was founded in 1906 by me and my son, Viktor. For God's sake, our mottos were "Tank Tuff" & "Maus? meh...."(obviously linguistically _tuned_ for that time period & culture). Our radio ads stated: "Guaranteed not to collapse, or we'll send *_ourselves_* off to the gulag"!
There weren't many bridges in USSR that could support 30 ton tank either, but that doesn't negatively impact the amount of rimjobs T-34 is receiving for some reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@TheArklytethe praise the T-34 gets is probably the direct inverse of the Nazi worship and claimed allied superiority in the west, so it generally balances out. What get’s many people in the west butt hurt is that a. The Wehrmacht failed to destroy the Soviet Union and b. that the Red Army destroyed the bulk of the Wehrmacht. It doesn’t matter if tank A or bomber B was better or worse, in the end we are talking total industrial war. If you like rimjobs, there is an endless list of Western self praise that can be licked from Spitfires to Land Lease and Atomic bombs. Everything Soviet or Russian is supposedly inferior. One does as one licks.
@@TK421-53 Chad KV-1S >>>>>> virgin T-34:P
And I guess KV-1, KV-1S, T-70, KV-85, IS-1, SU-76, IS-2, ISU-152, ISU-122, T-43, KV-13 and dozen others are all american tanks, right? Or maybe it's just T-34 that is piece of sh//t? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks had used Christie suspension? None? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks used sloped side armor? Also none? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks made commander work as loader? Some, but not really? Oh, I'm sure that T-34 was a great tank and the fact that it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M ASAP or that it costed almost exactly as much to produce as KV-1 due to the use of shared bottleneck components isn't telling a different story.
Such a pity that all soviet reports and archives are still in place about pre war testing and all the attempts to replace that "tank". Otherwise some kid would have even believed you:D
That actually sounds pretty cool, have you got any sources or records?@@HighlanderNorth1
Zinoviy Kolobanov, 20 August 1941. One KV-1 destroyed or disabled 22 tanks. Turret armor sustained 114 hits.
Semyon Konovalov, 13 July 1942. One KV-1 destroyed or disabled 16 tanks, 2 armored cars and 8 trucks with infantry. The tank was destroyed but 3 of the crew survived. After a week behind enemy lines they captured a Pz3 and used it to reach the Red Army forces.
Thank you Bernhard and Peter. Well worth watching.
Great video as always
I missed your videos dude. Great to see you back
Hey, thanks!
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualizedDid you hurt your hand or something? I hope you're ok now
@@anttikoponen7038 Tendons due to overuse.
I was wondering about the injury. Hope that your hands get better soon.
Main weaknesses of KV-1 were:
1)Voroshilov being a moron, who almost cancelled development until appeased with the naming bribe;
2)some f//cks making T-34 use same engine and gun;
3)low load cranes on many factories;
4)overrating engine instead of derating it as well as overloading transmission. They tried to run V-2 at 600hp on KV-1, but V-2 on IS-1/2/3 ran only at 520hp.
Otherwise a great tank, especially for its time. Ideally KV should have gotten sloped front, lowered side armor thickness, new transmission and derated engine. And be produced instead of T-34 as "universal" tank until 1943.
Edit: another small correction, KV-1 had superior firepower to T-34 despite having de facto same gun and ammo. KV-1 had dedicated loader and the crew weren't choking on fumes. So unlike T-34, KV-1 crew could both really achieve the stated RoF of the gun AND allow commander and gunner to do their jobs unopposed. Same gun=/=same firepower.
Your last point makes a lot of sense, but would that be recognized back in the design office, or merely the fact that they had the same gun?
One issue is that making an engine produce more power (larger bore, stroke, etc.) is quite a large amount of engineering work, where bolting/welding plates on is relatively easy. The Germans proved that keeping the same engine and transmission while increasing the armor quickly ruins its performance and reliability. It is great to know the Russians reproduced this same experiment.
As an English speaker (well, those in England might disagree) I always check to see if 'it is' can replace it's, if not, then it is 'its'. (Yes, I thought about saying it's 'its', but it seemed wrong.)
Really interesting when we get to explore this side of accounts and sources, really love this
Nice to see you back in action! BTW It seems Soviets went to school of oversized tank design sooner then Germans, and also sooner graduated from it.
And went on building IS 2, IS3 and IS 10 till 1966.
Merkste selber ne....
They came right back around. Work on the Object 701 began in 1943. That eventually grew to 60 tons. Work on the series of tanks collectively called IS-7 began in 1945 and that went up to almost 70 tons before the order was given in 1949 to stop all work on tanks weighing over 50 tons.
@@TankArchives Fortunately, because such beast could not go over bridge and would sink in mud.
@@HaVoC117X IS 2 was decent tank, about as heavy as German Panther, and IS 3 was actually bit lighter them all tanks from Patton series. Any later IS tank did not go beyond prototype phase and now Russian tanks are some 20t lighter then German or American. Later IS tanks did not go beyond trial versions.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 T10 weight 52 tons, at served right up to the 1970s.
And the IS3 was also very unreliable and served with the soviet forces.
The 6th guard tank army reported that their IS 2s and ISU 152 had a service life of around 1600 - 1800km and their T34/85 2000 to 2500km in late 1944/45.
Panthers service life was reported at 1500 - 2000km between to major maintenance and repair procedures (between spring and fall 1944. Befor and after that the Panther suffered from teething problems or poor built quality and resource shortages).
Early T34s and KV 1s had a service life of just 300 to 400km till late 1942.
Seems like the russians were also just cooking with water like any body else.
Churchill had a servicelife of 1000miles (1600km).
And the 40+ ton M26, M46, were also less reliable than the shermans. Shermans used to have a service life between engine overhaul of 2000miles. So it seems like, that even the US 40+ ton tanks were in samy range as everybody's else's 1940 heavy tanks.
I think that the german were far more impressed by the T34 because of its slope armour. Not all shots were hitting the target so non penetrating shots could be missed ones with the KV-1. But a glancing shot is clearly seen and is very impressive with a red hot projectile going to the sky.
Sloped armor wasn't new
Germans were impressed by the Kv-1 as well as the t-34, 1 did go on a rampage behind the german lines in early barbarossa and took non-penetrating hits and glancing blows until with was brought to a halt by point zero blast from a 150mm field howitzer. Germans in 1941 faced the samething as brits had with the tiger in africa(even though tiger 131 was 1st one lost to the allies due to 57mm ap hit.)
The interview seemed to end abruptly and awkwardly.
one of the funniest thing was that the designers were supposedly told to make a larger turret and it does have a 3-man turret, but the 3rd guy can't load or shoot the main gun and the most he can do is face rearward and just stand around there.
Lets just have mile after mile of fuel trucks following these tanks. I can hear them guzzling decades later. What a truly remarkable landmark on tracks. Really eye opening.
We created problems by up arming are humvees. Very interesting conversation. The king 🐅 was a heavy set 👧 lots of stress on everything.
Interesting Video. Thank you both :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for this video, guys. People often ignore the KV tank. I still think for 1941 at least, the KV was a better tank than the T-34 version present at this time. Just in terms of visibility, for instance, at least the KV could see through the back. T-34 not even a single vision port or anything had. KV also had torsion bar suspension, which due to its weight, I assume it might have not worked as well as it would be supposed to for torsion bars, which seems to be one of the best designs for suspensions. Now, another problem the KVs may have faced in 1941 is the production number, because the KV seems to be just as rare, or perhaps even rarer than the T-34. As far as I know, the only production line the Soviets had in the beginning of the war was sited in Leningrad, so I guess it's the place where this tank might have been the more relevant, I don't recall people talking about it for other areas in the front back in 1941. In the Battle of the Caucusus in 1942 I know that the Soviet had a dozen of those vehicles there.
But I heard you guys saying that the tank engine was different from the T-34. But didn't the T-34, the BT and KV tanks shared all the same 500 hp diesel engine? Or did they modified it for the KV, something like this?
Regards.
This. Early war the KV1 would have been the best tank in the war, easily better than the T-34. It was just very unlucky that the whole organization (spare parts, ammo, trained personell, overall command structure) was just terrible. Like you say, too ignored.
@@triarii217 yep. The T-34 was a rushed tank. It wasn't meant to be in production so early. The KV at least was somewhat more ready, saw action in tests against Finland as well, if I'm not mistaken.
*Increases weight by 25%*
*Parts break.*
Suprised Pikachu face. 😮
Glad to see you
Certain things don't seem to change
Beast of Raisenai
-That was KV-2-
Edit: Looks like i was wrong and it was indeed KV-1.
Me, a Company of Heroes 2 player, watching this.
Maybe the T-34 "flew over the snow" because it had a Christie suspension rather than a torsion bar suspension like the KV-1.
Nah, thats not really a factor. If anything the T-34 would have a slight disadvantage due to having fewer road wheels, because ground pressure is highest below the road wheels, so fewer road wheels means those spikes in ground pressure are even higher. But the real factor is the weight and track area, and the T-34 had it better in both categories.
Thanks.
Basically it was unreliable, slow and less common than the T-34. Which practically means they never played a big role.
2-3 T-34s moving in at twice the speed are much more of a threat than a single KV-1 getting hit by all available guns, if it didn’t break down before it could be used.
Except 2-3 T-34 would cost as much as 2-3 KV-1 to produce and they have almost the same combat offroad speed due to faulty transmissions of both tanks. In all regards KV-1 was "bad", T-34 was even worse and it wasn't any cheaper to produce.
@@TheArklyte no. no way a kv1 has same speed as t34. WRONG.
@@mtnbound2764 you're right, on parades T-34 is faster :D
@@TheArklyte Pretty sure that they built more T-34s and I don't think the German troops cared how expensive the tanks were they had to face. T-34 cost also decreased because of mass production and of course cuts in quality where it wasn't deemed necessary.
Also German evaluated that the T-34 was infact more mobile than their own vehicles, thus the Panther was going to be more mobile than either Pz III and IV.
Kinda unfair considering that t34 is a few years newer than the kv
Am I the only war thunder player who hopped to actually learn about a weak point on the thing?
I doubt that :D
Lower turret cheeks and the driver’s vision port if you got the long 75 or 76 on the american tanks
@@aperson9500 I got the ling 75 on the Panzer IV, and yea, it just so happened that I managed to aim it at the lower view port of the bow gunner/driver and it actually did go through.
So I guess just think about it as another Sherman that's smaller and impenetrable from the sides and anywhere on the turret lol.
The KV-1 wasn't found to be wanting of upgrades till 1942 not 1941 ,and was still a decent tank even during battle of Kursk in 43.
Thank you. Great content.
Soviet heavy tanks were improved more than their medium tanks, and are the most successful Heavy Tank program of World War 2.
The KV-1 was well armored, but it used almost the same gun as the T-34 medium tank, but with weaknesses to due its slow maximum speed, poor-moderate acceleration, handling, and cross-country ability. That still made it better than the majority of vehicles.
It was improved to be the KV-1S with slightly weaker armor but noticeable increased mobility. Then that was replaced with the KV-85, then the IS-1-85, then the IS-2-122.
KV-85 proved to be rather tempremental to operate since the larger gun caused increased stress to the KV-1s suspension and chassis.
Okay, it was overweight and hard to keep operational.
How did the Wehrmacht deal with the ones they encountered?
Probably shot them from all sides until something broke and the crew abandoned the tank 🤔
Otherwise you have AT mines, AT guns from close range, 88mm FlaK and field guns from long range or infantry close and personally.
Even artillery can stop tanks by blowing craters into the ground where tanks get stuck in.
i know as a dedicated german main that the KV1s weakness is the lower front plate. a hit there from a german 75 is always a one shot kill
War Thunder is not real
@@ghostcat5303 Neither is your sense of humor.
yes. thats the joke. congratulations....@@ghostcat5303
Awfull visibility leading to non existant situational awereness
Extremely difficult to operate
If you need a pak 40 to kill a T-34, and a pak 40 also kills the KV-1, then the T-34 will be more dangerous since the KV is heavier, slower with the same gun as the T-34
Problem is that early war you dont have a pak 40. You have mostly pak 38 and pak 36 both of wich have a really hard time piercing a KV1, while the T34 was vulnerable to the pak 38.
I think the KV tanks just look good.
No they actually feared the KV more than T-34 there was no "T-34 shock"
Longer barrels and larger calibers.
✌️
8mm guns come about huh
The 234 was not rare at the start of the war the Russians already had well over 2000 of them
soviets had bit over 2k tanks in general in 1941 none of which were Is-1´s.Is-1 entered the chat in 1943.
let me guess: mechanical problems
"They were rare and precious." Meanwhile, the Internet: "The Germans were drowning in T-34s from DAY ONE!!"
Rare and precious for Soviet dimension generally still means a lot of them.
About 337 KV-1s in the Western District for Barbarossa, that is about 10 % of the German Tank Forces attacking.
About 830 T-34s.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Of course, but nowhere near the thousands some people suggest. The numbers I've seen thrown around don't reflect reality, and Peter's comment just made me chuckle in remembrance.
@@MaxRavenclaw I am not sure what you mean by that?
By end of 41 the Germans had destroyed more T34 than they had Pz3 and 4 for the year and KVs were also more often destroyed than PZ3 or 4…
And among the 20k Russian tank losses this might only be about 10% but it is a significant number. I also havent read anyone claiming the Germans drowning in thousand of at-34 in 41… that happened in 1943 though…
Internet and reality are often two ends of the spectrum, even on some of the most popular channels.
@@bingobongo1615 Oops, decided to reply later when I first read this and forgot about it.
What I mean is that I've seen some big exaggerations online on the topic.
According to Krivosheev, the Soviets lost about 2300 medium tanks in '41, and 900 heavy. The Germans had about 2000 Pz.III&IV in June '41. They built about 2200 during the year. So, not really. But honestly I don't see the point of rivet-counting. Just as I said, I was merely remembering some exaggerations I read online in the past.
I'm glad you've been spared, but I have heard people claiming that.
mud, oh wait you didn't want a one word answer, or rather that might be the wrong one word answer.
The German-Soviet War? Should this not be the German-Russian War or the Nazi-Soviet War? Just saying! 🤔
German Reich and Soviet Union, those were the official names.
Yeah and dont forget the KV85s and IS Tanks.
First!
What did you asked , what peter answered.It is like both of you spoke about total different subject
not sure which video you watched. they talked about the weakness of the kv1. weight, mechanical issues... etc. what did you expect?
@@mtnbound2764
Military asked why kv1 did not had a greater impact on the german soldiers,like t34 had,what were its weakness and if some tanks were simply misidentified by the germans in their report or memoirs and if they named kv1 as t34 resulting in actions done by kv1 to be named or remembered as done by t34,like allied soldiers had done with tiger and panther and peter spoke about various variants of the kv,nothing else.
So 2 different subjects,with no conexion between them.
Get off war thunder & pick up a book.....
Lack of usefulness.
please do a video on these
(this is a copy and paste list for a few channels)
units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches)
the tank doctrine of countries
evaluation of tank veiw ports
evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries
navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works)
evaluation of types of ships
or evaluation of navil warfare
flag ship vs capital ship,
battleship vs dreadnought
air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples,
ancient persan ships,
ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser)
better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3,
and probably the esayest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal
how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks,
ancient urban warfare
ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords,
tactics in the ruso jap war
cold war navil tactics,
Korean war tactics,
strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war
why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot
I'm sure he'll get right on that extensive list mate
@@tehhappehhaps im asking about 20 different youtubers
Surly one of them will do some of these