FOV KV-1 pictures

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:37 am

* ......... as not so on the KV-2 , which was a waste.

- Mitch v MG

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:16 am

I suspect that the Russians simply didn't have the industrial know-how to even consider the technically complicated designs that the Germans took for granted. Also I think the Russians were terrified of the Germans and simply went to their strong suit- lots of simple weapons. The Germans were arrogant of their technical superiority and didn't merely expect to win, but to overwhelm with their panache as well.

AMERICAN_GRENADIER · Post by **AMERICAN_GRENADIER** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:54 am

The 2 biggest problems the German's had was over engineered and always wanting to make things that could be the best! thats why the simplicity of the T-34 was what made it one of the best tanks of the war.

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:58 am

* Yeah !

.......... now the ,..

* British Vickers A1E1 Independent

[+] > Grosstraktor by Daimler-Benz

* Soviet SMK

* Soviet T-100 proto-type

* and last but not least , the Soviet T-35

.............. were "Land Battleship" concepts.

- Mitch v MG

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:13 pm

I don't think that multi-turreted necessarily means "battleship." I am thinking of the "dreadnaught" concept- super heavy gun with super armored chassis. Slow but "undefeatable."

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:24 pm

............ you don't stop , do you. "You just don't give up".

......... well , I'm that way too ! *

............... "They are Land Warships".

- Mitch v MG

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:24 pm

Cruisers perhaps. DDs & DEs. You gotta go Maus to reach BB level. I'd put the Tigers and gthe IS-II & III at, maybe, just maybe the l,evel of a land-CB.

Defeat is for those who give up my friend.

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:49 pm

* Not necessarily now. They are still considered that "Land Battleship" concept I was referring to.

- Mitch v MG

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:34 pm

More the "Land DE" I have in mind.

ostketten · Post by **ostketten** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:49 pm

the KV-2 , which was a waste

The KV-2 was developed as a direct result of Soviet experiences in the Russo-Finnish war of 1939-40, where the Russians encountered severe problems with stubborn Finnish fixed fortifications of the "Mannerheim Line" type, ie. concrete bunkers and the like. The KV-2 was woefully unsuited to the highly mobile "blitzkrieg" style of warfare that the Nazi's unleashed on the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, and the Russians quickly recognized the deficiencies and limitations of the KV-2, thus production of the type ceased altogether in October of 1941, although individual examples fought on well beyond that date. In retrospect it proved to be the wrong "tank" at the wrong time, but it wouldn't be altogether fair to say it was a complete waste since the foundation of the KV-2 lived on to become what was arguably the best heavy breakthrough tank of WWII, the IS-2.

AMERICAN_GRENADIER · Post by **AMERICAN_GRENADIER** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:24 pm

agreed, i looked it up in a couple books and it really wasnt meant as a tank. more like a Brummbar or a type of heavy gun platform. i need to find a book i have on the KV series and ill have more info

Volksdeutsch · Post by **Volksdeutsch** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:33 pm

i have a book on the KV- series. there was several versions. even a KV-85 of which only 130 were made. it was the version that later became the js-2. a fun note the six months leading up to the gates of Berlin the Russians lost almost 12 thousand tanks. They had to bring up many KV versions to help bolster low tank numbers for the final push into Berlin.

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:39 am

Lots of arguablies on this topic, that's for sure.

The KV-II, then, was in fact the first assault gun. An infantry combat support weapon. Yes?

AMERICAN_GRENADIER · Post by **AMERICAN_GRENADIER** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:03 pm

i found some info the Russians did sonsider it a heavy tank. although it was out classed before it even left the assembly line. to heavy to slow

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:54 pm

the KV-2's original concept was to be a bunker buster, similar to the brumbar and sturmtiger. Lumber up to within close range, protected by its thick armour and blast bunkers and other emplacements to rubble.

It was never used in this intended role, coming too late for the Finnish war. So they were used defensively, very effectively, like mobile pillboxes, in the early days of the german invasion. I have no idea what happened to them after that.

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:00 pm

Fewer than 300 we and I would guess they were all lost in the early months of the war.

Volksdeutsch · Post by **Volksdeutsch** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:54 pm

AMERICAN_GRENADIER wrote:agreed, i looked it up in a couple books and it really wasnt meant as a tank. more like a Brummbar or a type of heavy gun platform. i need to find a book i have on the KV series and ill have more info

i geuss you and aferguson have the same books?

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:49 am

The same information anyway. There is no collusion on the GPXD forum.

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:54 pm

* KV-2 ,.. an assualt-gun version of the KV-1 , it proved to be unsuccessful ,
because of the excessive overall height and general clumsiness of the arrangement.

- Mitch v MG

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:28 pm

The collusion denial continues....

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:14 pm

........... but I'm not in denial .

+ lol

- Mitch v MG

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:14 pm

no aferguson is just steeped in wisdom..

ltcbj · Post by **ltcbj** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:03 pm

Steeped... like a cup of tea?

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:45 pm

steeped, like with knowledge and wisdom.

Small Scale Military Headquarters

FOV KV-1 pictures

? ? ? KV-2 ? ? ?

? ? ? KV-2 ? ? ?

? ? ? KV-2 ? ? ?

? ? ? KV-2 ? ? ?

? ? ? KV-2 ? ? ?

? ? ? KV-2 ? ? ?