KV tank

[Sayeret]

KV series of tanks were named after Klementi Voroshilov, the minister of defence in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The KV-1 was first used in the Russo-Finnish War in 1939. Armed with a 76.2mm gun of 30 calibers in length, weighed 46 tons, had a crew of five men, and was propelled by a 550hp diesel engine. Its frontal armour was 77mm and made the KV-1 resistant to most anti-tank weapons.

An improved model, KV-1A, that had a longer (40 calibers) 76mm gun, was introduced in 1940. The following year the KV-1B was developed and was given additional armour at the front and sides to give a thickness of 100mm.

The German Army found it difficult to cope with the KV tank during Operation Barbarossa. Even so, the Soviets continued to improve the vehicle and in 1942 the KV-1C was introduced. It had a new 600hp engine and its armour was now 130mm thick. The tracks were made wider to give better performances in mud and snow.

In 1943 the Red Army got the KV-85. These used the same chassis as the KV-1C but was fitted with a high-velocity 85mm anti-aircraft gun. The tank remained in service until the end of the war.

[GrimReaper]

Good work
The KV-2 should also be mentioned, It had a huge turret mounting a 155mm howitzer. A KV-8 also existed that mounted a flamethrower and 45mm gun instead of the 76 gun.

[GazB]

The KV-2 had a 152mm main gun. Apparantly the turret was hard to turn unless the vehicle was on level ground.

The KV-1 is a very underrated vehicle... it weighed about the same as a German Medium tank (Panther) but had armour as good as or better than the main German Heavy tank (Tiger I).

Its only problem was that it was always armed with the same gun as the standard medium tank (the T-34).

Led to the JS series tanks which introduced the huge 122mm long barrel gun... finally a big gun for the heavy...
(the choice was between a 100mm naval gun or the 122mm gun. The 122mm gun won in the end even although the 100mm gun had better penetration. Even if the 122mm round wouldn't penetrate a turret it had a tendancy to knock turrets off.... and it had a much larger and much more effective HE FRAG round... remember that less than 2,500 Tigers were made during WWII and less than 6,000 Panthers were made during WWII. The 122mm could penetrate the Panthers thickest armour at any range and there weren't many sightings of the rare Tigers so it wasn't a problem.)

[Ritter]

Its only problem was that it was always armed with the same gun as the standard medium tank (the T-34).

No... it was not the only one problem...
To weak and troublesome engine (it could work only 70-80 hours without breakdown and its real power was much below claimed on the paper...), very poor visiblity, breakdowns of power transmission system (gerbox, clutch, poor working bearings of side gears etc.), motor air intake filter which could work not more as 30 minutes in dusty enviroment (it was major problem in dusty roads during Barbarossa in June 1941) etc. etc.

Great tank on paper. In real world huge number of KV tanks were lost in 1941 during technicall problems.

In the same way - T-34 was also not so good tank and the slogan "the best tank of the World War II" is also much affected by post war propaganda.

But who cares... every child knows that these tanks where the best... ;)
-

[GazB]

It is true that the KV had some initial problems but then so did the T-34 as you point out, and so did the Tiger and the Panther too. The problems encountered with the Russian vehicles were less than those encountered on the much more complex and expensive German tanks.

I should also mention in addition to lack of extra range in firepower the other KV fault was lack of speed, so it had trouble keeping up with T-34s and often got left behind. An attempt to fix that led to the KV-1S which had its armour greatly reduced to improve speed. It was finally decided that extra armour and a more powerful gun was the better solution... hense the JS series.

[Ritter]

It is true that the KV had some initial problems but then so did the T-34 as you point out, and so did the Tiger and the Panther too.

The essence of the matter is that these problems where not only initial...
There where many construction flaws which where not easy to remove without serious intervention into tank design. And Russians knew it. But of course there where no time for that after beginning of the war in June 1941.
Add it up to the very low quality of Russian war production - very good "on the paper" tanks become a very average tanks in real world and where shot in thousands...


It was finally decided that extra armour and a more powerful gun was the better solution... hense the JS series.

Real history is never so easy... :)
But ok, I don't want to make month-long discussion about Russian WWII tanks developement here. We can approve such a simplification... ;)
-

[GazB]

Add it up to the very low quality of Russian war production - very good "on the paper" tanks become a very average tanks in real world and where shot in thousands...

That really depend upon your definition of low quality. Barrels were chrome lined and most things were made as soldier proof as possible. Even with small arms anything too complicated for the average conscript was not issued to the average conscript... hense tokarev rifles went mainly to snipers etc.

The T-34/76 had its faults... the commander was also the loader was a serious problem not corrected till the T-34/85 entered service. This vehicle itself wasn't perfect either... the gun was no more powerful than the 75mm gun in the Panther... but it was good enough and being produced in huge numbers... and most importantly it was much superior to the main German tank of the war... the panzer 4.

[Ritter]

First - this is a topic about KV, not T-34. But ok, I have mentioned about T-34 too.

Which gun was comparable to 7,5cm KwK42 L/70 gun from Panther tank?
I hope you are not talking about 76,2mm F-34 from T-34 or about ZIS-5 from KV. Because in case of real parameters these guns where more comparable to the short german 7,5cm KwK39 L/24 from old versions of PzKpfw IV.

Aaa... ok then - now I see: "T-34/85 entered service. This vehicle itself wasn't perfect either..." - you are talking about 85mm DT-5 and ZIS-53 from T-34/85. But this gun was not used in KV (excluding protoypes of KV-85 which never saw mass production).


Barrels were chrome lined and most things were made as soldier proof as possible.

In which guns barrels were chrome lined??
Are you sure, that you are talking about WWII Russian production?
Or maybe about barrel of post-war AK?


but it was good enough and being produced in huge numbers...

And that is the point. Quantity, not quality.
In this point of view you can show us that any small and cheap car in this world is better than Ferrari, because it is produced in huge number... ;)

It is not esspecialy strange, that average liftime of russian tankers on the frontline was estimated to about 3 weeks...
-

[Sibirskiy Volk]

While I generally agree with the overall view of the KV-1 as presented in the first post, I think that GazB has a point when he considers the KV as an underrated tank.
At the beginning of Barbarossa KV- tanks could and did do whatever they wanted to the Pz.Div. and even the short 7.5 cm PAK of the Pz. IV was simply not good enough for the Russian armour.
It is undoubtedly true that the KV- tank was not particularly reliable and at the end could not cope with the speed required for the attack tactics of the RKKA, but as a defensive tank it was an excellent weapon.
I think that its end as an effective weapon was due to a series of factors: reduced speed due to growing weight of the armour, impossibility of mounting a better weapon than the ZIS-5, poorer manufacturing due to extreme productivity increase, changed tactics in RKKA, more emphasis given to mobility and speed than protection.
But the KV- tank in itself was a very advanced design for 1939, and its misfortune was to be overshadowed by the fantastic T34 that stole most of the scene owing to its wider versatility and reliability.

[Ritter]

Only one little correction (and off-topic in one). ;)


short 7.5 cm PAK of the Pz. IV

This was not PAK just 7,5cm KwK39 L/24.
German WWII tank guns where always called KwK (Kampfwagenkanone), name PAK (Panzerabwehrkanonne) was reserved for standalone versions of anti-tank guns.
Tank hunters where exception from this rule - in these vehicles Germans used PAK guns (of course less or more modified).
-

[OldRecon]

First - this is a topic about KV, not T-34. But ok, I have mentioned about T-34 too.

Which gun was comparable to 7,5cm KwK42 L/70 gun from Panther tank?
I hope you are not talking about 76,2mm F-34 from T-34 or about ZIS-5 from KV. Because in case of real parameters these guns where more comparable to the short german 7,5cm KwK39 L/24 from old versions of PzKpfw IV.

I would rather say that the 7,62 cm guns of the KV-1/T-34-76 models were more comparable to the 75 mm used in US Shermans and British Cromwells (and actually of slightly superior performance to the US/British 7,5 cm's) than the shorth snub nosed German L/24 7,5 cm guns. As for the Soviet 85 mm tank guns, performance not as good as the German 7,5 cm L70 guns (who could punch 120 mm of sloped plate at around 1000 m). Performance rather more in line with the US 76 mm gun used in US Shermans from 1944, though a T-34/85 is known to have destroyed 3 German Tiger II's with side shots during the first deployment of Tiger II's on the Eastern front (in Poland 1944). Nearest comparable Allied tank gun in performance to the German 7,5 cm L/70 must have been the Sherman Firefly, who could defeat 118 mm of sloped plate at around 1000 m, and around 140 mm with APDS. Though accuracy of this round above 1000 m was reconed as "so, so".


Aaa... ok then - now I see: "T-34/85 entered service. This vehicle itself wasn't perfect either..." - you are talking about 85mm DT-5 and ZIS-53 from T-34/85. But this gun was not used in KV (excluding protoypes of KV-85 which never saw mass production).





Barrels were chrome lined and most things were made as soldier proof as possible.

In which guns barrels were chrome lined??
Are you sure, that you are talking about WWII Russian production?
Or maybe about barrel of post-war AK?


Don't know if Soviet tank gun barrels were also chrome lined, but small arms barrels certainly were, with exception of a period around the Battle at Stalingrad, where several shorcuts were introduced on the production lines in order to get weapons faster to the front. Tanks in that instance were sometimes not painted, 7,62 mm barrels intended for Monsin rifles were cut up and used in PPSH submachine guns instead - since these could be produced faster than the rifle -, and PPSH barrels were subsequently not chromed. Otherwise I think chamber and barrels of all russian small arms were chromed (originaly as counter to corrosive properties of the mercury fulminate base primers in cartridges used by Soviet forces I think).



but it was good enough and being produced in huge numbers...

And that is the point. Quantity, not quality.
In this point of view you can show us that any small and cheap car in this world is better than Ferrari, because it is produced in huge number... ;)

It is not esspecialy strange, that average liftime of russian tankers on the frontline was estimated to about 3 weeks...
-

Well as Lenin himself is reputed to once having remarked: "Quantity is a quality in itself"

The aptability of a design to mass production is also an aspect of the overall quality of that design or what?
From what I can recollect of sources at least 3-4 times as many T-34/85's were made during WW-2 for every Panther.
So if one Panther kills 3 T-34/85's but in return is knocked out by a 4th T-34/85, what does it help the Panther anyway however superior it looks on paper, with regards to comparison of performance tables?

[Sibirskiy Volk]

I definitely agree with the above post.
The relative crudeness of Soviet tanks (but armour was generally of good quality) was a deliberate choice in order to maximize production and feed the robust appetite of the RKKA for more and more tanks that could replenish the voids in their ranks due to the very aggressive tactics that were more and more employed.
For the main Soviet strategic and tactical procedures large bodies of uncomplicated tanks were definitely more useful than a pick of sophisticated, high-quality but quite complicated vehicles that Germany fielded.
The same applies but with less quality in gunnery (except 17pdr. Fireflies and 76mm variants) to the much maligned Sherman.
Regards

[Viktor_s]

Another point for the T-34 was it's serviceability. During the Battle of Kursk in one episode, Germans had 250 damaged tanks (Panthers, Tigers and the like) Russians had slightly more... within a couple of days, pretty much all Russian tanks were back in service, where Germans put only about 20.

For instance, to change a Gearbox in Tigers you need to take the turret off.

On the Armour front, Germans where lacking metals like copper and aluminium that were used to make armour stronger, therefore they had to make it thicker. Keep that in mind when comparing the weight.

[Ritter]

Well as Lenin himself is reputed to once having remarked: "Quantity is a quality in itself"

Yea. All is perfect until you only talk about history, papers and numbers - until you personally have to fight in one of such "quantity-is-quality" tanks. No, thank you... I would prefer real quality... :D
(above all personally I prefer peace... ;) )

Please read this interview (http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html) with Russian commander of lend-lease Shermans unit. It is very interesting to read opinions of Russian veteran about comparison between Sherman and T-34.

It is just always very astonishing to me when I read in western authors books how wrong the Sherman was and how good was T-34. When in fact they where very similar in their abilities...
For me it is only the proof how strong propaganda can be...


Another point for the T-34 was it's serviceability. During the Battle of Kursk in one episode, Germans had 250 damaged tanks (Panthers, Tigers and the like) Russians had slightly more...

Yea, but do not forget that Panther was introduced in great hurry with many childhood" flaws, without proper test. And T-34 was a construction produced from about 3 years (and it still had major flaws).
For comparison I can search in my books information about "technical losses" suffered by Soviets side during first months of war. They where very much heavier than German technical losses during Kursk battle.

Even in 1943 Russians have big problems with reliability of their tanks - especially when it comes to units which where equipped with recovered vehicles - you are talking about it bearing of problem too.
I remember information from book about T-34 - there where units which lost over half of its tanks before they arrive to frontline. Only during movement to forward positions. And it was in 1943, not 1941!


within a couple of days, pretty much all Russian tanks were back in service, where Germans put only about 20.

Interesting. I have a table (from book written by Russian authors about Kursk battle), where "pretty much tanks" lost in battle where completely destroyed and cannot be back in service in few days and without long general repair or rebuild in producers factory.
Maybe you should use more realistic sources than soviet propaganda? ;)


On the Armour front, Germans where lacking metals like copper and aluminium that were used to make armour stronger, therefore they had to make it thicker. Keep that in mind when comparing the weight.

Yeaaakk... ? :roll:
Sorry mate, check first what are you talking about...

In your point of view Russian armours where stronger and better quality than Germans?? This is the conclusion from your words...
You know, there are some interesting photos of T-34 with large, irregular holes beaten by German shots - the armour had inhomogeneous structure and low quality. I can even try to scan these photos and show here if you really want... ;)

Aluminum and copper where used to improve armour strength during WWII ??? :roll:
Veeeery interesting...
As I know Germans used molybdenum and vanadium metals in theirs armours. And the lack of the first from these metals by the end of the war caused that quality of German armours was lowered.

-

[Ritter]

double post...

-

[Kekkonen]

Well I don´t have much to add to the discussion, other than some pictures.
The KV-1 was captured in some numbers by the Finns, and put to use.


http://www.kevos4.com/images/Finnish%20Tank%202.jpg
A Soviet KV-1 model 1942 (that had sacrificed armour for increased speed),
soon after its capture by Finnish troops.

http://www.kevos4.com/images/Finnish%20Tank%208.jpg
KV-1B with the new owners

http://www.kevos4.com/images/Finnish%20Tank%205.jpg
Captured tanks used by Finnish Rask.Ps.K/I Ps.P, KV-1B (KV-1 model 1942, "Klimi")
followed by T-34A or B (T-34 model 40 or 41, "Sotka") on the left and T-34C (T-34
model 1943, "Sotka")

http://www.kevos4.com/images/tanks%20and%20troops.jpg
Some Finnish tanks in Äänislinna (that the Finns renamed the captured Petrozavodsk).
All of the tanks in the picture are captured (KV-1, T-34, T-26B and T-26C)
except the T-26E that was a "Finnish Vickers" upgunned with a captured 45 mm
gun and thus modified to a "Soviet T-26".

http://www.kevos4.com/images/tank.jpg
Graphic photo. Finnish soldier with SVT40 rifle sits on a captured
KV-1 (I think it is?). The dead crew lies in front of the tank. The soldiers
rifle is captured as well. The Soviet equipment was (despite what the Soviet
historians claim) superior to the Finnish one in many areas, and were thus used
by the Finns when captured.

http://www.kevos4.com/images/Russian%20tank%201.jpg
Finnish troops unloading shells from a captured Russian behemoth, a
KV-1 tank. Notice the missing wheel.

It can also be mentioned that when the Finns first encountered the 122 mm gunned
JS-2 they did not recognize it, but believed it to be some kind of upgunned KV-1.

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_24.jpg
Standard model of JS-2, note similarity to the KV-1, no wonder why the Finnish
infantrymen believed it to be a KV-1.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4406JosefStalin-TankkiKannaksella.jpg
A JS-2 destroyed (or attacking?) in the Karelian isthmus, summer 1944

[Ritter]

Cool pics! woot


Graphic photo. Finnish soldier with SVT40 rifle sits on a captured
KV-1 (I think it is?).

No, this is not KV. I think this photo shows T-28.


Standard model of JS-2, note similarity to the KV-1, no wonder why the Finnish infantrymen believed it to be a KV-1.

Yes, at first these two tanks looks like one family - but although the wheels and whole suspension look similar in fact this is completely another construction, with new hull, new turret and interiors.
But of course, who cares on such differences in fight...
-

[Kekkonen]

Cool pics! woot


Graphic photo. Finnish soldier with SVT40 rifle sits on a captured
KV-1 (I think it is?).

No, this is not KV. I think this photo shows T-28.

:oops: Yeah you are of course right. It was the back-firing MG that lured me. I´m sure the Finnish
intelligence knew about the JS-2 (probably the Germans informed them), but didn´t share
this information down to the soldiers. Probably didn´t want to spook them with "OK boys
now the Russians have a new tank that will kick your asses, have fun, I´m heading
back so I don´t miss the coffee at the HQ 400 km´s from here".

[Viktor_s]

Another point for the T-34 was it's serviceability. During the Battle of Kursk in one episode, Germans had 250 damaged tanks (Panthers, Tigers and the like) Russians had slightly more...

Yea, but do not forget that Panther was introduced in great hurry with many childhood" flaws, without proper test. And T-34 was a construction produced from about 3 years (and it still had major flaws).
For comparison I can search in my books information about "technical losses" suffered by Soviets side during first months of war. They where very much heavier than German technical losses during Kursk battle.

Even in 1943 Russians have big problems with reliability of their tanks - especially when it comes to units which where equipped with recovered vehicles - you are talking about it bearing of problem too.
I remember information from book about T-34 - there where units which lost over half of its tanks before they arrive to frontline. Only during movement to forward positions. And it was in 1943, not 1941!


within a couple of days, pretty much all Russian tanks were back in service, where Germans put only about 20.

Interesting. I have a table (from book written by Russian authors about Kursk battle), where "pretty much tanks" lost in battle where completely destroyed and cannot be back in service in few days and without long general repair or rebuild in producers factory.
Maybe you should use more realistic sources than soviet propaganda? ;)

Leaving aside your cheekiness, I was referring to tanks that can be repaired and introduced back into the battlefield. Judging by the preparation to the Kursk offensive, the repair units were equipped to the max with spares, plus don't forget that, that there was an ample supply of parts from the battlefields and other units that could be stripped for spares.



On the Armour front, Germans where lacking metals like copper and aluminium that were used to make armour stronger, therefore they had to make it thicker. Keep that in mind when comparing the weight.

Yeaaakk... ? :roll:
Sorry mate, check first what are you talking about...

In your point of view Russian armours where stronger and better quality than Germans?? This is the conclusion from your words...
You know, there are some interesting photos of T-34 with large, irregular holes beaten by German shots - the armour had inhomogeneous structure and low quality. I can even try to scan these photos and show here if you really want... ;)

Aluminum and copper where used to improve armour strength during WWII ??? :roll:
Veeeery interesting...
As I know Germans used molybdenum and vanadium metals in theirs armours. And the lack of the first from these metals by the end of the war caused that quality of German armours was lowered

Opps, my bad, I didn't mean aluminuim at all!! My mistake. However, don;t be too snobbish, at try not to get too excited when you see mistakes. I meant that Germans to compensate the shortage of metals used in armour production, had to make armour thicker to compensate. Therefore if to compare allied armour and Germans armour of the same thickness, allied is much stronger.

[GazB]

There where many construction flaws which where not easy to remove without serious intervention into tank design. And Russians knew it. But of course there where no time for that after beginning of the war in June 1941.


They were already under orders to not change designs radically as production numbers were considered rather more important than minor improvements... ie a bird in the hand is worth three or four hundred sitting in a factory somewhere.


Add it up to the very low quality of Russian war production - very good "on the paper" tanks become a very average tanks in real world and where shot in thousands...


The main problem with the T-34 and KV was the same as with most allied tanks. They had evolved from infantry support vehicles. For this reason the tank commander was often loader, the driver was often the radio operator. Even in an old tank like a Panzer IV the commanders job was searching for targets and handing them to his gunner to engage. The gunners job was to engage targets he was given and the loader just loaded, while the driver drove with information from his commander... who was much higher up and had a better view of the land and knew where they were supposed to be going too. It wasn't until the T-34/85 that the T-34 crews got that sort of arrangement.


Which gun was comparable to 7,5cm KwK42 L/70 gun from Panther tank?

The 85mm gun of the T-34/85.


Aaa... ok then - now I see: "T-34/85 entered service. This vehicle itself wasn't perfect either..." - you are talking about 85mm DT-5 and ZIS-53 from T-34/85. But this gun was not used in KV (excluding protoypes of KV-85 which never saw mass production).


If you read my paragraph again you will see I was talking about the T-34.


In which guns barrels were chrome lined??
Are you sure, that you are talking about WWII Russian production?
Or maybe about barrel of post-war AK?


My Mosin Nagant 1891/30 rifle made in 1942 has a chrome lined barrel, as does my MN 1938 carbine made in 1943 and my MN 1944 carbine made in 1944.

As many SMG of the time were made simply of MN barrels cut in half I would assume most SMGs were also chrome lined too.

It is not a complex operation... it is simply a type of electroplating.



In this point of view you can show us that any small and cheap car in this world is better than Ferrari, because it is produced in huge number...

Ferraris are crap... if only one type of car could be made it would look more like a Volkswagen than a Ferrai or Porche or any other over priced metal *****. You are suggesting that the choice is between the perfect or near perfect and rubbish. The T-34 might be a bit rough around the edges and might not have even been painted before it left the factory, but it was rather better than the average German tank. I have read lots of eyewitness reports by lower level german soldiers about how instead of wasting money on Panthers and Tigers that were wonderful on paper but spread so thin and ****e to breakdown or unable to cross ice covered lakes or even many of the bridges that they would have been better off with more Panzer IVs. For the cost of one panther they could probably have had 4 Panzer IVs and 6-7 for the cost of a Tiger.
It was the same in the air with stupid experiments withrocket planes that wasted money resources and men when what they needed was more fighters to take on bombers and Mustangs.


It is not esspecialy strange, that average liftime of russian tankers on the frontline was estimated to about 3 weeks...


That would have nothing to do with the fact that the Russian tank park of about 20,000 tanks at the start of the war were destroyed very quickly, or the fact that the Germans used superior tactics, and of course the Gemans had control of the air for most of the first half of the war.

As the Gemans showed in France... a weak tank like a Panzer III or early Panzer IV can defeat tanks that on paper are far superior... like the Char.

Frontal Armour of 75mm and a 75mm gun should have made a good tank, but the two man crew and low numbers of dispersed vehicles meant it would have little chance.


But the KV- tank in itself was a very advanced design for 1939, and its misfortune was to be overshadowed by the fantastic T34 that stole most of the scene owing to its wider versatility and reliability.

Compare it to contemporary German tanks and it was well armed and well armoured... just not well used. (Compared to British contemporary tanks and it was very well armed, reasonably well armoured and very mobile).


As for the Soviet 85 mm tank guns, performance not as good as the German 7,5 cm L70 guns (who could punch 120 mm of sloped plate at around 1000 m).

It was in a similar performance range... the advantage of the 75mm gun negated but the weak side turret armour of the panther which could be penetrated at any range you could hit it at with an 85mm gun.


Yea. All is perfect until you only talk about history, papers and numbers - until you personally have to fight in one of such "quantity-is-quality" tanks. No, thank you... I would prefer real quality...
(above all personally I prefer peace... )

Peace is certainly the best solution, but you need with quality the high level of training and crew performance to make that one tank able to take on large numbers of inferior (on paper) tanks and come out on top and also air superiority and good supply lines etc etc. That wasn't an option for any combatant during WWII... even the Germans suffered from their choice to go for technology.



It is just always very astonishing to me when I read in western authors books how wrong the Sherman was and how good was T-34. When in fact they where very similar in their abilities...

Who here said the Sherman was bad?


And T-34 was a construction produced from about 3 years (and it still had major flaws).


That is unfair in that its most major flaw was how it was used and how it was designed to be used. There was no chance the designers could have forseen what was to happen.


For comparison I can search in my books information about "technical losses" suffered by Soviets side during first months of war.

There were only a few thousand T-34s in service and only a few hundred anywhere near the front line in the first few months of the war. The vast majority of Soviet tanks "lost" lost in the first few months of the war were T-26s and othe light tanks and T-35s and other huge complicated bohemouths that were a huge waste of time and effort.
The conditions being fought in also accenuated the situation. Lots of mentioning not haivng the right kind of low temp oil or fuel as a cause of breakdowns but few mention the cost of rodents that entered nice warm tanks to get away from the cold and started eating the insulation in the electrical cables... shorting out the electrics is not good for any tank.


Maybe you should use more realistic sources than soviet propaganda?

Interesting that you can tell propaganda just by reading it. I guess if I wrote that the Russians were on the winning side during WWII you'd say it was too flattering and it therefore must be propaganda... perhaps it was the US or Britain that won and the Soviets just survived it?
At least it gives me a better understanding of the person I am discussing this with.

[Ritter]

All right then... To the facts.
The question of guns.
A few letters earlier I wrote that F-34 and very similar ZIS-5 tank guns where in their abilities similar to short KwK37. Why? Just look to the data:

Caliber (mm): 76,2mm (F34&ZIS-5), 75mm (KwK37).
Muzzle velocity: 680m/3 vs 450 m/s (385 m/s with KgrRotPz - AP full steel head ammunition)
Range (total): 11200 m vs 6500 m

But the armour penetrations:
F-34/ZIS-5 - AP ammunition: 50mm in the range of 1000m, angle 60 degrees.
KwK 37 - 35 mm with KgrRotPz but Germans used HEAT ammunition Gr38Hl - right from beginning of the war in the Russia.
This ammunition penetrated 70 to 100mm of armour under angle of 60 degrees.
Russians had not a good working HEAT ammunition for tank guns to the end of the war (fuses failures).
Moreover - hit probability in distance of 1000m was estimated for 50% in case of F-34/ZIS-5 and 73% for KwK 37.
So it was not too smart try to knock-out KW or T-34 with short KwK37 and old full steel head ammunition, but with HEAT grenades it was not big problem.
And still old, short German gun was more accurate than Russian F-34 and ZIS-5.

Very similar situation appears in the case of comparison 85mm S-53 or DT-5 with German 75mm long guns.



Leaving aside your cheekiness, I was referring to tanks that can be repaired and introduced back into the battlefield. Judging by the preparation to the Kursk offensive, the repair units were equipped to the max with spares, plus don't forget that, that there was an ample supply of parts from the battlefields and other units that could be stripped for spares.

I simply don't get you point of view. Have we talk about quality of production, yes? So do you mean that Russian tank production was better in this matter? And what is the proof? - one case from battle of Kursk, where a few tanks where quick (but how good?) repaired??
So of course I can also quote one fact from the battle of Kursk...
The losses of 5th Guard Tanks Army units in 11-15 July 1943. Battle around Prohovka. In the case of T-34 - introduced into the battle - bout 330. Lost in battle: about 185. Repaired short after the battle - only about 30.
And what it proves in the matter of quality??
Absolutely nothing - just the same like your example with "pretty much all Russian tanks back in service".
These facts could only estimate how good mechanics, workshops and spare parts stores each unit had... Nothing about tanks themselves.


Opps, my bad, I didn't mean aluminuim at all!! My mistake. However, don;t be too snobbish, at try not to get too excited when you see mistakes.

Sorry mate... For me it just proves, that you are not exactly sure what are you talking about.
This is not a matter of excitation, but the matter of knowledge.
I personally do not try to talk about something when I am not sure what I am talking... Apparently you have quite another point of view in this case...


I meant that Germans to compensate the shortage of metals used in armour production, had to make armour thicker to compensate.

Wrong again.
Do you want to say, that thick armour of Panther or Tigers where the matter of bad armour quality? Lack of metals?
When Tiger I was introduced into the service? In 1942.
When the Panther? In 1943.
How long they where developed?
First prototype of Tiger saw sunlight 20.04.1942 and the Panther prototype VK 3002 also in early 1942.
Do you think that in this time Germans "had problems with metals"??
It was the time of the highest military achievements of third Reich.
Do you really think that in this time hypothetical problem with "metals" where the reason of German armour thickness??
I can only say - bull**** my friend. ;)

Example from the second side of the front - American halftracks M2 and M3. I think, that we could approve that Yankees had not problems with industrial raw materials. America was the armoury of the free world.
But even they introduced into production M5 and M9 versions of earlier M2 and M3 halftracks with thicker (and worse in quality) armour.
Why have I wrote that - because in real world nothing is so easy and clear as we want. Simple equalling like "lack of metals = thick armour" is maybe good in mathematical but not in real world...


Therefore if to compare allied armour and Germans armour of the same thickness, allied is much stronger.

Allied don't mean Russian. And as I prove in the case of American halftracks - even not only Russian...
A quotation from book about T-34:

"It is rather matter of fact, that armour plates of T-34 produced in early 1945 where so bad as these from 1943. Hardness do not exceeds 250-280 Brinells. Overall endurance (e.g. thermal) was so bad, that on the west such armour will be probably rejected in the quality control."

and

"On the west armour plates with splits of the structure where rejected from tanks production process. On wartime produced T-34 preserved in Poland perforations of armour plates structure are quite often. During production these perforations where just only welded"

So again - please do not try to tell me, that Russian armour plates was of better quality than German and that bad quality was the cause of German armour thickness...
Sorry this is simply not true.


The main problem with the T-34 and KV was the same as with most allied tanks. They had evolved from infantry support vehicles

In the case of T-34 this is not true. It was not the tank which evolved from infantry support vehicles... BT tanks where fast tanks not infantry tanks.
But of course it is a topic about KV... ;)

By the way GazB - you are quoting not only my words, but I have impression that all of them you have attaching to me... Maybe I'm wrong…



Maybe you should use more realistic sources than soviet propaganda?
Interesting that you can tell propaganda just by reading it. I guess if I wrote that the Russians were on the winning side during WWII you'd say it was too flattering and it therefore must be propaganda... perhaps it was the US or Britain that won and the Soviets just survived it?


Please read more carefuly what and when I am writing, ok?
Did you have not noticed that my above quoted words where not attached to yours, but to the opinions from Victor_s?
Or maybe Victor_s and GazB is the same person?? :D



At least it gives me a better understanding of the person I am discussing this with.

Oh really? Even when you missing the context in which these word where used?? :roll:
Congratulations my Sherlock... ;)




In this point of view you can show us that any small and cheap car in this world is better than Ferrari, because it is produced in huge number...

Ferraris are crap... if only one type of car could be made it would look more like a Volkswagen than a Ferrai or Porche or any other over priced metal *****.

Acctually I personally have diesel VW Passat... Happy now? :D
It was only the allegorization.
Don't you understood it or just don't want to understood?


You are suggesting that the choice is between the perfect or near perfect and rubbish.

No. I'm just suggesting that for me quantity is not quality. Especially if this slogan was really created by Lenin... :D :D :D


The T-34 might be a bit rough around the edges and might not have even been painted before it left the factory, but it was rather better than the average German tank.

Yea, yea of course... "a bit rough" and "rather better"... sure man... ;)

Let me stay with other point of view ok?

For me the three main medium tanks of the World War II - T-34, PzKpfw IV and Sherman where pretty similar and comparable in they overall abilities. No one was especially better than other. T-34 was not the eight wonder of the military world. And KV the same.

And this is not the matter of accident that above I have not mentioned Panther - for me it is next generation tank and will be not so easy compared with them.

-

[GazB]

A few letters earlier I wrote that F-34 and very similar ZIS-5 tank guns where in their abilities similar to short KwK37. Why? Just look to the data:

I don't believe your figures.

I have read many reports of German units not being able to penetrate T-34s except at very close range from the rear with their new Tungsten rounds for their 50mm cannon. If they already had plenty of 76.2mm HEAT rounds that could do the job then why would they have to put 105mm artillery guns to use as anti tank guns until more powerful weapons could be developed?

The reality is that at the start of WWII the thicknesses of armour meant that there were two distinct types of guns for two distinct types of roles. Short 75-76mm weapons with relatively low mv but a large effective HE fragmentation round for infantry support roles and small calibre high velocity long barreled guns usually in the 30-50mm range to engage other tanks. The BT series was designed to battle other tanks and had 37mm and later 45mm high velocity anti tank guns. The increase in armour of the T-34 and the KV-1 was also a catalyst for a change in armament. Using a longer barrel 76.2mm gun than was previously fitted to Soviet tanks they were making a dual purpose gun for a new type of tank that was being developed for dual use. Before that there were tanks with small calibre guns with high velocity with guns like 37mm, 40mm Bofors, and 47mm and 50mm guns. In British service the 37mm and 40mm guns were often not even issued with anything but solid shot rounds making them useless against infantry or any soft targets. The Infantry support tanks were often armed either with Machineguns only or a very short barrel large calibre gun like a 75 or 76mm gun of very low velocity or anti armour capability but effective against soft battlefield targets like troops or trucks... or indeed horses.

What your figures do show is that with its standard rounds a T-34 could penetrate and destroy the standard german tank but with standard rounds the german tank could not do the same to a T-34. Quite a few T-34s were knocked out through shell shock to their crew from HE rounds hitting but not penetrating of course.


So it was not too smart try to knock-out KW or T-34 with short KwK37 and old full steel head ammunition, but with HEAT grenades it was not big problem.


Considering the problems they had dealing with them perhaps it was a big problem.


And still old, short German gun was more accurate than Russian F-34 and ZIS-5.

You didn't mention accuracy figures... are these your opinions or do you have facts to back this up.


In the case of T-34 this is not true. It was not the tank which evolved from infantry support vehicles... BT tanks where fast tanks not infantry tanks.


So if they weren't infantry tanks then they must have been in tank only brigades operating the same as the Germans operated them... which is rubbish. All Soviet tanks were infantry support tanks... they had no dedicated concentrated tank only units before the war... it was something they were given a harsh lesson in. It was Guderians idea to have armour operating as a seperate fist that wasn't dispersed in small packets amongst infantry units... not Stalins.


By the way GazB - you are quoting not only my words, but I have impression that all of them you have attaching to me... Maybe I'm wrong…

You are wrong. I attach the quote I am replying to with my reply... if it is not your words then it is not directed at you.


Please read more carefuly what and when I am writing, ok?

You assumed that because his views differ from yours they are the product of Soviet propaganda. It is my understanding that most of what we in the west know of what happened during WWII has less to do with Soviet propaganda and more to do with what the Germans have said or revealed. Most facts or info from the Russians is generally only accepted if it is negative about them or positive about the Germans, whereas most of what the Germans have said seems to have been accepted at face value. In this sort of state of affairs if there is any propaganda or misinformation in the west it is rather mor likely to be ex Nazi propaganda than commie propaganda.


Or maybe Victor_s and GazB is the same person??

No. I am not Schizophrenic.


Oh really? Even when you missing the context in which these word where used??
Congratulations my Sherlock...

Missing what context? It is a bit egotistical to assume I only read your posts and replies to me. I have read Victors posts and your comments to them too you know...
:roll:


No. I'm just suggesting that for me quantity is not quality. Especially if this slogan was really created by Lenin...

I hav mentioned the bird in the hand saying. The T-34 wasn't crap, and it wasn't inadequate... it was good enough for the job it was designed for. The Panther and Tiger on the other hand were over engineered and very poor actual tanks even if they, on paper looked like very good ones. The fact that a T-34/85 was not as good as a Panther was irrelevant... how many Panthers were there on the whole front? The vast majority of T-34s probably never even saw a Panther let alone a Tiger. If on the other hand the Germans had spend their time and effort and money on improving the Panzer IV by enlarging it slightly, fitting the long 75mm gun and thickening the frontal armour a bit they could have used existing production facilities and the German forces might actually have been receiving tanks instead of promises of a uber tank.


Yea, yea of course... "a bit rough" and "rather better"... sure man...

The average German tank was the Panzer IV. The T-34/85 was superior in most respects to that vehicle.


And this is not the matter of accident that above I have not mentioned Panther - for me it is next generation tank and will be not so easy compared with them.


It weighed more than a Russian heavy tank for a start. :P

[Ritter]

Please read this to the end before you start to answer.



A few letters earlier I wrote that F-34 and very similar ZIS-5 tank guns where in their abilities similar to short KwK37. Why? Just look to the data:

I don't believe your figures.


Oh really? What a pity… And may I know the reason? :)
What is wrong with these data? Maybe they don’t fit to your believes? ;)
You can check F-34 & ZIS-5 guns on the Russian site http://www.battlefield.ru , I think they will be identical to these quoted by me above. It will be also not so hard to find data of KwK37 in the net (e.g. http://www.achtungpanzer.com I think).



I have read many reports of German units not being able to penetrate T-34s except at very close range from the rear with their new Tungsten rounds for their 50mm cannon. If they already had plenty of 76.2mm HEAT rounds that could do the job then why would they have to put 105mm artillery guns to use as anti tank guns until more powerful weapons could be developed?

Are you sure, that are you talking about T-34 now? Or maybe like Germans you are mixing up T-34 with KV? (yes it was very common situation – this mistake is visible in many German documents, even in Guderians diaries). And about what gun used against them are you talking? Of course standard infantry anti-tank cannon 3,7cm PAK 35/36 was almost useless (almost, because in one book I found photo of early T-34 with L-11 gun probably destroyed by so “useless” gun – this vehicle has even holes from anti-tank rifles in the rear plate). But for the KwK37 Germans had Granate 38 HL (HEAT) since 1940 in use. And this is the fact, even if you don’t believe in it.
Yes it is well known true, that new Russian tanks where unpleasant surprise for Germans. I had not wrote, that Germans had only HEAT ammunition for KwK37 or had plenty of them in June 1941 (for great part of Russian tanks in 1941 the full steel KgrRotPz ammunition was enough). But from the beginning of the 1942 Granate 38 HL where already a standard in PzKpfw IV units.
Morevoer - short 7,5cm KwK37 was in use even at Kursk in 1943 and after it too. For example - in older versions of PzKpfw IV and last versions of PzKpfw III. Apparently with proper ammunition knocking out the T-34 was not so big deal as you want. Even KV was not so terrifying… For example – German III Battalion of 6 Tank Regiment (of course equipped with PzKpfw. IV with short gun) destroyed only in 10 days of May 1942: 5 KV tanks, 24 T-34 and 2 Matilda MkII. All with heat ammo. KV where immobilized, rest had penetrated amours – 29% from front and 71% from side.


I have read many reports of German units not being able to penetrate T-34s except at very close range from the rear with their new Tungsten rounds for their 50mm cannon.

And here is the proof, that T-34 was mixed up with KV...
I though that so great Russian stuff specialist like you will know, that T-34 had in fact even a little better armour on the rear than on the sides… ;)
Sides had – in lower part of the hull 45mm, vertical plates. Upper part of side armour – 40mm plate sloped under angle of 40 degrees. Rear – both, lower and upper parts had 45mm, angle for lower 45 degrees, upper – 42 degrees...
Maybe you do not believe in these figures too? ;)


The reality is that at the start of WWII the thicknesses of armour meant that there were two distinct types of guns for two distinct types of roles. Short 75-76mm weapons with relatively low mv but a large effective HE fragmentation round for infantry support roles and small calibre high velocity long barreled guns usually in the 30-50mm range to engage other tanks. The BT series was designed to battle other tanks and had 37mm and later 45mm high velocity anti tank guns.

Not exactly. First BT tanks had only machinegun in the turret. From the beginning it was a wheeled-tracked fast tank not “anti-tank tank” or infantry support tank. It was developed to fast break enemy lines and go forward as fast as possible - by the roads, because BT had driven road wheels and the tracks will be removed in such case. With tracks BT tanks achieved top speed above 50km/h (BT-7M even above 60km/h) and on the wheels - over 70km/h (BT-7M – 86km/h). They where direct predecessors of T-34 and they where not infantry support tanks.


The increase in armour of the T-34 and the KV-1 was also a catalyst for a change in armament.
(…)
The Infantry support tanks were often armed either with Machineguns only or a very short barrel large calibre gun like a 75 or 76mm gun of very low velocity or anti armour capability but effective against soft battlefield targets like troops or trucks... or indeed horses.

All right, but what for are you explaining here obvious facts? Where is there connection with our discussion? Previously you told that T-34 was evolved from infantry support vehicles. And it is still not true. It was evolved from fast BT tank and the gun had nothing to do here. BT and T-34 where just to fast to be effectively used in role of infantry support vehicles. It was not they presumed role and Soviets had problem with the coordination T-34 and infantry attacks right to the end of war. Of course they learned themselves and in the late war photos we cannot find so many T-34 lost in stupid way during half-blind charge as in the beginning…



What your figures do show is that with its standard rounds a T-34 could penetrate and destroy the standard german tank but with standard rounds the german tank could not do the same to a T-34.

But you do not belive in these figures, yes? :D
This is not so easy in real world. Again magical word – quality… In my above post we have estimated, theoretical armour piercing abilities of Russian 76,2mm tank guns. Problem lies in ammunition again. When the pre-war production of ammunition in Russia may hold some standards, the mass war production was just defective. The situation is the same as in the armour plates. The hardness of the full steel AP ammo (BR-350A) after beginning of the war was just low (and many units where armed only in HE ammo which is mentioned in documents). Germans used in their tanks surface hardened steel plates with hardness of 480-560 Brinell. As I wrote above Russian even in 1945 could not keep hardness of they plates on level of 300 Brinell - the same situation was with ammo. In moment of impact soft full steal head of BR-350A often was just smashed on much harder plate of armour. That why Russian introduced BR-350B with hardened “cap” on the top of shell in 1942.
So even if theoretically F-34 or ZIS-5 should penetrate 5 cm of steel plate on the range of 1000m it does not mean that it was always done in real fight (an there was a problem with clear hit on such range of course – as I say probability of hit was about 50% - this is not my imagination as you suggest...).




And still old, short German gun was more accurate than Russian F-34 and ZIS-5.
You didn't mention accuracy figures... are these your opinions or do you have facts to back this up.

No this are not my opinions. All what I am writing here is derived from book or net sources (and usually I don’t like to rely only on one source).
Hit probability at the range of 1000m for KwK37 and F-34 became from book “T-34 mythical weapon” and are official data from shooting tests performed by Russians and Germans. 50% for F-34 vs 73% for KwK37. Germans tested they guns with shooting to the target with dimensions of 2 x 2,5 m and Russians – 2,5 x 3m, so in fact the accuracy data are even better for German cannon.
Interesting information about various tank guns test you can find on the forum of previously mentioned http://www.battlefield.ru site. Pity that most of them are only theoretical estimations (in the case of AP abilities), but there are exceptions from that rule.




In the case of T-34 this is not true. It was not the tank which evolved from infantry support vehicles... BT tanks where fast tanks not infantry tanks.
So if they weren't infantry tanks then they must have been in tank only brigades operating the same as the Germans operated them... which is rubbish. All Soviet tanks were infantry support tanks... they had no dedicated concentrated tank only units before the war... it was something they were given a harsh lesson in. It was Guderians idea to have armour operating as a seperate fist that wasn't dispersed in small packets amongst infantry units... not Stalins.


Wow! What a interesting words. So many new knowledge for me… :D
Tell me mate… What are sources of above sensations? Let me guess… poor, peaceful country without big tank units before war… is this not soviet propaganda?? :D ;)

All Soviet tanks were infantry support tanks… oh yeah, with speed about 12-15 km/h on the second gear T-34 was just perfect infantry support tank! And BT with top speed above 70 km/h and poor gearbox was even better in that role… Come on man, go down to the earth or read a little before you will write something so brilliant next time… :D :petting:
Yes, of course Russians had infantry support tanks too. But definitely not only.

They had no big tank units before war?? Very interesting…
So then let go back to the topic. A list of some units which have KV tanks just before 22 June 1941. I have not full order of battle for Military Districts and Corps which had KVs, so I will write only these where you can find words Armoured Division

Baltic Special Military District
4 and 7 Armoured Division of 6 Mechanized Corps
29 and 33 Armoured Division of 11 Mechanized Corps

West Special Military District
32 and 4 Tank Division of 4 Mechanized Corps
34 Armoured Division of 8 Mechanized Corps
10 Armoured Division of 15 Mechanized Corps


I also have photos or documents about KV tanks from summer 1941 belonged to: 1 Armoured Divison, 2 Armoured Division, 3 Armoured Division, 5 Armoured Division , 43 Armoured Division

I have no time now to search full Soviet order of battle to the beginning of war, but believe me – Russians had big and strong Armoured Divisions a long before beginning of war in the 1941.
For example – 32 Armoured Division of 4 Mechanized Corps had 49 KW, 173 T-34, 31 BT-7, 70 T-26 and 38 T-27 tanks… This Corps had at least 2 such divisions… And as I remember only West Special Military District had 5 or 6 Mechanized Corps…

And please do not tell me that these Armoured Divisions where tiny and weak units ok?… ;)

For your information - Armoured Brigades system was introduced after the catastrophic losses suffered by the Russians in the first month of the war.

This is very interesting that you are fighting for “good name” of Russian tanks so strong, but have no idea about real strength and strategy or tactics (only infantry support tanks… heh…) of their units before war?
You know, such ideas like “red storm rolling over Europe” where not created during cold war… They where well-founded a long before II WW. Maybe someone who live not so close to mother Russia like I treat such slogans like fairy tale…

And to be precise. I am not anti-russian or pro-german. My family roots lies both in Russia (exactly east Ukraine, but in Russian society) and Germany - and only for that reason I am quite neutral... Moreover as a Pole I have no historical reason to especially love anyone from these two countries… Of course I also do not hate them. But I think I have a little closer view on some cases than someone from New Zealand…




Please read more carefuly what and when I am writing, ok?
You assumed that because his views differ from yours they are the product of Soviet propaganda.

No. These words where directly attached to the mentioned fact of "pretty much all Russian tanks back in service" from battle of Kursk, not to all views of Victor_s. Although his other opinions are also pretty inaccurate…



It is my understanding that most of what we in the west know of what happened during WWII has less to do with Soviet propaganda and more to do with what the Germans have said or revealed. Most facts or info from the Russians is generally only accepted if it is negative about them or positive about the Germans, whereas most of what the Germans have said seems to have been accepted at face value. In this sort of state of affairs if there is any propaganda or misinformation in the west it is rather more likely to be ex Nazi propaganda than commie propaganda.

Do not forget that I’m living in country, where a 15 years ago a commie propaganda was a official history (during 50 years). Believe me, I know something about propaganda... Show me the country in the world where are monuments sacred to the memory of tank, artillery or war airplanes, not to the humans. Yes, you win the main awawrd - it was in USRR…
And I’m also living in country which lost over 6 million of citizen because was attacked and almost completely destroyed by the Germans. We where "undermenschen" and as nation next to the extermination after Judes and Gipsies.
Believe or not - after such “historical preparation” I really do not rely on common stereotypes and propaganda products of both sides. I have this luck (or misfortune - depends on point of view) that I am living just in the middle between so called east and west. Right between Germany and USSR (of course not now - luckily we have a couple of countries between us and Russia now).
And unfortunately the great part of opinions about Russian tanks which are now so common and treated as dogmas, are just a product of soviets propaganda. If you want it or not…



Oh really? Even when you missing the context in which these word where used??
Congratulations my Sherlock...
Missing what context? It is a bit egotistical to assume I only read your posts and replies to me. I have read Victors posts and your comments to them too you know...

Read what I had wrote about this situation with Victor_s above. Maybe now it will be clear…




No. I'm just suggesting that for me quantity is not quality. Especially if this slogan was really created by Lenin...
I hav mentioned the bird in the hand saying. The T-34 wasn't crap, and it wasn't inadequate... it was good enough for the job it was designed for. The Panther and Tiger on the other hand were over engineered and very poor actual tanks even if they, on paper looked like very good ones.

Oh yes, of course… very bad and very poor tanks… The same as the T-34 and KV and IS…



The fact that a T-34/85 was not as good as a Panther was irrelevant... how many Panthers were there on the whole front? The vast majority of T-34s probably never even saw a Panther let alone a Tiger. If on the other hand the Germans had spend their time and effort and money on improving the Panzer IV by enlarging it slightly, fitting the long 75mm gun and thickening the frontal armour a bit they could have used existing production facilities and the German forces might actually have been receiving tanks instead of promises of a uber tank.

Maybe it will be shock for you, but in many documents Russians call late versions of PzKpfw. IV with long barrels and armoured skirts as a “heavy tanks”. Let me guess why… Maybe they where good enough to beat hard these brilliant Russian tanks?



The average German tank was the Panzer IV. The T-34/85 was superior in most respects to that vehicle.

In which aspects it was superior over late PzKpfw IV with long 75mm guns?
Armour thickness? Armour plates quality and hardness? Gun abilities? Ammo quality? Ergonomy of crew compartment? Visibility? Radio equipement? Location of main fuel tanks?
Again – both where very similar in their real abilities.
And please do not tell me to show you tables, documents etc. I really have no time to do homework for others…

In other words – the discussion is over to me. It just taking to much time for me. I will stay by my point of view and you probably will not change your. Nothing has changed as usual in such discussions…




And this is not the matter of accident that above I have not mentioned Panther - for me it is next generation tank and will be not so easy compared with them.
It weighed more than a Russian heavy tank for a start.

Oh really?? Again the question – do you really know what are you talking about? ;)
As I said - it was the new generation tank.
But tell me mate which Russians heavy tanks from the start (of war?) weighed less than Panther? Ok, I will do you homework for you… I hope the last time. Let see…

Ready-to-battle Panther – from 43 tons in version D2 to 45,5 tons in G.

Russian tanks:
T-35 – 50 tons
KV-1 – 47,5 tons
KV-1s – 42,5 tons
KV-85 – 46 tons
KV-2 – 52 tons
IS-1 – 44,16 tons
IS-2 – 46,08 tons
IS-3 – 46,5 tons

Only IS-1 is slightly lighter than heaviest version of late Panther. And of course KV-1s that had armour not much better than T-34…

Of course you can again not believe to these figures... But check it first somwhere. ;)

So thanks for discussion, but sorry - I really have no more time to continue it in this way. It is taking to much time to search and quote real data to someone who operates mainly in common truisms. :roll:

-