KV Tank
- Thread starter Lonestar Ranger
- Start date
Yes on that time only the latest 41 model of KV-1 and on later 42 model had better armor than S(skorostnoy/speed) model. Though yes those Pz-IIIs are most likely Ausf J SdKfz 141/1 model which are having longer gun than first J either H if you'r looking its appearance. Like someone said on Bondarevo those ranges are most likely so short that KV1s either T34 aren't invincible. But if those ranges would be 500+ they would be practically unhurtable. Though if those Pz-IIIs are using Pzgr39 instead of Pzgr40 shells they wouldn't have much chance against KV-1s even if it would be at less than 100 m. Since they could penetrate only max. 69 mm of 30 degree armor at 100 meter. Though Pzgr40 APCRs(Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) should do the trick with ease since they'r penetrating 130 mm at 100 meter, but after 500 m they wouldn't be anymore able to do much against KV-1s'.
About PzIVF1s penetration ability I cant say much since I've no idea which shells they'r using. K.Gr.rot Pz shell is able to penetrate just 41 mm at 100 m but Gr 38 H1/A to Gr 38 H1/C shells penetration is 70 mm to 100 mm at far as 2 km. So they'r most likely HEAT shells I think. Someone who knows brighten me plz.
About PzIVF1s penetration ability I cant say much since I've no idea which shells they'r using. K.Gr.rot Pz shell is able to penetrate just 41 mm at 100 m but Gr 38 H1/A to Gr 38 H1/C shells penetration is 70 mm to 100 mm at far as 2 km. So they'r most likely HEAT shells I think. Someone who knows brighten me plz.
There is a report from a German unit in Lithuania in June of '41 that notes all weapons up to 75mm unable to penetrate KV tanks. I would assume this includes the Pak-38's 50mm L/60 and low-velocity 75mm guns (as found on the early Pz IVs and infantry guns). KVs could only be disabled through fire on tracks, followed by direct fire from large caliber artillery or satchel charges. The report does not make it clear if they encountered both KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, or if this was just experience with KV-2.
Well, it is just a game and there is a lot to be desired with the tank modeling. The KVs really did prove troublesome to the Germans in 1942. However, it was not considered to be a very good tank by either the Russians or Germans. There were a lot of other factors than gun and armor thickness that made tanks unsuitable for combat. (Forget about the KV2. For all of its imposing size and gun, it was a total disaster as a tank and sort of a rarity on the battlefield). The KV1 had great armor and a decent gun but other factors made it a less than good tank. The turret was very cramped and the tank commander has to act as the loader while the third crewman manned the rear MG.-in effect making it a two man turret. Mechanically the tank was a nightmare with a very bad clutch that tended to break all the time. The safest way to shift gears without ruining the clutch was at a full stop which made the tank much slower than it supposed top speed. The tank had other mechanical problems as well. And, the gun sight was not very good.
Most important for Russian tanks prior to 1943 is that the bulk of them did not carry radios. This in itself made all Russian tanks inferior to the lesser armed German tanks as the radios in German tanks gave German tankers a tactical edge that allowed them to outmaneuver and outfight the better armored Russian tanks. Lastly, due to heavy losses and the expanding tank force, Russian tank crews were very undertrained in 1942.
It is difficult to model all of this in a game though.
Most important for Russian tanks prior to 1943 is that the bulk of them did not carry radios. This in itself made all Russian tanks inferior to the lesser armed German tanks as the radios in German tanks gave German tankers a tactical edge that allowed them to outmaneuver and outfight the better armored Russian tanks. Lastly, due to heavy losses and the expanding tank force, Russian tank crews were very undertrained in 1942.
It is difficult to model all of this in a game though.
stigmata said:
very well said. I have mentioned that before, and hoped for some kind of inclusion of factors such as the quality of the optics in the tanks of both sides, etc. but, like you said, very hard to implement in a FPS game.
Ok, since there are a bunch of tank nuts here I'm going OT and asking a question:
The Tiger uses an 88mm gun, right? From what I know(not much) it's a modified AA 88(flak18), fitted for a tank. Does it use the same shell? After all, it's the same gun.
The Tiger uses an 88mm gun, right? From what I know(not much) it's a modified AA 88(flak18), fitted for a tank. Does it use the same shell? After all, it's the same gun.
More or less, yes.
The Germans began using 88 Flaks in the direct fire support role early on in the war. There is a famous action in the Polish campaign where a heavy stone tower that was a strong point for Polish troops was taken out by Luftwaffe troops using the 88 for direct fire, and this is usually seen as the beginning of the employment in this respect.
The Germans began developing AP rounds for the 88 Flak in recognition of this role, using a APCBC, so the AP rounds used in the Tiger variant were similar. Keep in mind ballistics were similar as well due to identical barrel length, at least initially.
The main differences were that the Flak AP rounds had more HE material in them. The HE material was originally at 160 grams, and then over time, was reduced to 59 grams in the standard Panzergranate 39 variant, aiding further penetration. That is still a considerable HE charge though, when you consider that is a little over 2 oz, which is more explosive material than is in a F1 grenade, for instance, and comparable to the British No. 36 grenade filling.
The Germans began using 88 Flaks in the direct fire support role early on in the war. There is a famous action in the Polish campaign where a heavy stone tower that was a strong point for Polish troops was taken out by Luftwaffe troops using the 88 for direct fire, and this is usually seen as the beginning of the employment in this respect.
The Germans began developing AP rounds for the 88 Flak in recognition of this role, using a APCBC, so the AP rounds used in the Tiger variant were similar. Keep in mind ballistics were similar as well due to identical barrel length, at least initially.
The main differences were that the Flak AP rounds had more HE material in them. The HE material was originally at 160 grams, and then over time, was reduced to 59 grams in the standard Panzergranate 39 variant, aiding further penetration. That is still a considerable HE charge though, when you consider that is a little over 2 oz, which is more explosive material than is in a F1 grenade, for instance, and comparable to the British No. 36 grenade filling.
Yes, but again, ask yourself for what purpose. And it'd depend on the ammo in question I'd think. I mean, if you took the Flak18's AT ammo, sure. If you took the HE ammo, not quite as useful.
In an anti-infantry role or against open vehicles (IE: M10 Wolverine -- not in RO:OST), the HE rounds would work well. They'd probably be reasonably useful in an AT-role depending on the target, but against other vehicles they'd not be as effective.
They'd lack a reinforcing core which would help penetration. On the other hand, depending on the target's armor, you could still do some nasty work.
In an anti-infantry role or against open vehicles (IE: M10 Wolverine -- not in RO:OST), the HE rounds would work well. They'd probably be reasonably useful in an AT-role depending on the target, but against other vehicles they'd not be as effective.
They'd lack a reinforcing core which would help penetration. On the other hand, depending on the target's armor, you could still do some nasty work.
Tiger's 88mm cannon used a different firing method than the Flak 18 and 36, so no, the shells were not intherchangeable
Well we need to differentiate between "same shell" and "same catridge" then.
A Flak AP shell and a Pzgt. 39 Tiger shell may be similar, but are you saying the casings and primer are different?
This is something I am not clear on. Was the Tiger's gun electrically fired and the Flak percussion?
A Flak AP shell and a Pzgt. 39 Tiger shell may be similar, but are you saying the casings and primer are different?
This is something I am not clear on. Was the Tiger's gun electrically fired and the Flak percussion?
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV/KV_1scr/SZ64_KV_1scr.jpg
There is so many hit points but not much that got throgh!
SO I think Tank Vs Tank KV-1 was pretty good
Maybe not the tactics VS tactics
Anyway I whant my Caupola (kv-1S) HAd them but not in Game
There is so many hit points but not much that got throgh!
SO I think Tank Vs Tank KV-1 was pretty good
Maybe not the tactics VS tactics
Anyway I whant my Caupola (kv-1S) HAd them but not in Game
On Bondervo, which is the only map that the KV1 is on (at least extensivly... one in Ogledow or just the single T-34/76?)... the PZIIIs are 50mm L/60s. More importantly they're equiped with APCR. Composite Rigid, tungsten core round. At 500 meters (which is long range on Bonderevo), they're rated to penetrate 72mm of armor at 30 degrees pitch. The KV1-S has less armor than the standard KV1 - only 80mm at the thickest part of the front plate - the angled portion was only 50mm albeit at 70 degrees.
I find that I still bounce a fair number of rounds, especially when the KV1 is angled against me and at longer ranges. Fortunatly Bondarevo affords a fair amount of manuver oportunites and the PZIII is quite mobile. I worry more about a T-60 getting around behind me than I do about the KV1s =P
On the flip side... the KV1 is quite effective if used to potential. You have the KV1-S which is quite a bit more mobile than the KV1. You can use it to manuver pretty well too if you're willing to instead of just sitting back and slugging it out. It should be more effective against the short gunned PZIVs, but the APCR loaded PZIII is the real killer on that map... Again its the short ranges that almost all tank battles take place at in RO... anything under 500 meters is knife fight range for tank battles.
I find that I still bounce a fair number of rounds, especially when the KV1 is angled against me and at longer ranges. Fortunatly Bondarevo affords a fair amount of manuver oportunites and the PZIII is quite mobile. I worry more about a T-60 getting around behind me than I do about the KV1s =P
On the flip side... the KV1 is quite effective if used to potential. You have the KV1-S which is quite a bit more mobile than the KV1. You can use it to manuver pretty well too if you're willing to instead of just sitting back and slugging it out. It should be more effective against the short gunned PZIVs, but the APCR loaded PZIII is the real killer on that map... Again its the short ranges that almost all tank battles take place at in RO... anything under 500 meters is knife fight range for tank battles.
karl stiner said:in 2003 they found a kv 1 at the bottom of a river
Alot of great other pictures of the Nevskij Bridge-head also...
karl stiner said:in 2003 they found a kv 1 at the bottom of a river
A collector friend of mine found a Sdkfz. 251 in a river in Poland. It's been restored and he drives his kids to school in it sometimes.
Just FYI, the PzIII in our game has two types of ammo. AP (Which is strange because that's PzGr, which AFAIK wasn't very common mid-war), and APCR, which is PzGr40, which according to Guns vs Amor could penetrate 130 mm of armor at 100meters and 30 degrees. This drops off dramatically to only 72mm at 500 meters, but on Bonderevo, the engagement ranges are typically 200meters or less (which is pretty much point blank in the grand scheme of things).
If the PzIII player knew what he was doing and loaded the AP40 shells, he could EASILY penetrate the frontal armor of ANY tank the Russians field on that map.
If the PzIII player knew what he was doing and loaded the AP40 shells, he could EASILY penetrate the frontal armor of ANY tank the Russians field on that map.