Talk:Kliment Voroshilov tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk[edit]

Lots of info on this tank. I'll get back to working on this article when the weekend hits. Oberiko 01:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Why that russian tank on photo has Nazi sign on it ? :-O Wlcina (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "Nazi sign", but the swastika of Finland as it was captured by Finnish forces during the war with the Soviet Union and used against it's former owner. BP OMowe (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Sorry for copying and pasting from another website (even though proper credit was given), but I want to know the historical validity of the KV-VI tank. Darth Sidious 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke[edit]

The KV-6 is a joke we came up with over a few beers; I know the author. DMorpheus 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

KV-4 & 5 were proposed[edit]

KV-4 and KV-5 were real projects, though. Both were twin-turreted, and to be armed with the F-39 107mm and 45mm guns. KV-4 (Obiekt 224) was to be 92 tonnes, with up to 130mm armour. KV-5 (Obiekt 225) would be 150 tonnes and up to 180mm armour. However, the evactuation of the Kirovskiy plant in August 1941 meant that they only remained paper-projects. (Sourced from Steven Zaloga's "KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939-45") cougar1 (cougar1) 14:38, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Behemoth (text by Brian Fowler)[edit]

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, new facts have surfaced about the secret weapons developed by the Red Army during WWII. One of the most fascinating of these was the KV-VI Behemoth. In July 1941, Stalin learned of a single KV-II that had held off the entire 6th Panzer Division for more than a day. With the incredible success of this single tank, Stalin ordered a crash program for a land battleship based on the KV-II design. It was to have three turrets and be very heavily armed and armored and able to defend itself against all types of attack. The project was given to the joint team of Kotin/Barkov. When the designers complained to Stalin that the insistence on three turrets made the vehicle too long to have an acceptable turning radius, Stalin's answer was: "It doesn't need to turn, it will drive straight to Berlin." The final design became known as the KV-VI "Behemoth". The KV-VI was a multi-turreted tank using components of the KV-I and II, Bt-5, T-60, and T-38. The use of existing tank designs was necessary because of pressure from Stalin and the strains put on Soviet industry by the German invasion. Because of its massive weight, the tank was equipped with wading devices permitting it to traverse rivers up to 9 feet deep. The team also designed a removable observation tower that could be used to direct the fire of the howitzers and rockets while the tank was in a turret down position.

KV-VI Specifications

Crew: 15 men and one Commissar

Length: 51 feet, 4 inches

Height: 15 feet, 3 inches Width: 10 feet, 10 inches

Height/tower raised: 37 feet, 8 inches

Weight: 138 tons

Engine: 3 X V-2 at 600 horsepower each

Max Speed: 13 mph

Max Range: 98 miles road; 43 miles cross country

Armor: 160mm maximum; 7mm minimum

Armament: 2 X 152mm; 2 X 76.2mm; 1 X 45mm; 2 X 12.7mm DShK; 2 X 7.62mm Maxim; 14 X 7.62mm DT; 16 X BM-13 Rockets; 2 X Model 1933 Flamethrowers

Operational History

The first prototype was completed in December 1941 and was rushed into the defense of Moscow. In its first action during a dense winter fog, the rear turret accidentally fired into the center turret. The resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The second prototype was completed in January 1942, and was sent to the Leningrad front. This one had indicators installed to show whe another turret was in the line of fire. In its initial attack on the Germans, the tank broke in half when crossing a ravine. A spark ignited the leaking flamethrower fuel and the resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The third prototype, shown here, had a reinforced hull and was also sent to the Leningrad front in early 1942. It did manage to shoot down three German aircraft. In its first ground engagement, the KV-VI was firing on German positions when coincidentally all of the guns fired from the 3 O'Clock position a the same time. The tremendous recoil tipped the tank into a ditch and the severe jostling set off the 152mm ammunition, which completely destroyed the vehicle. After these failures, Stalin cancelled the project, and many of the design team members spent the rest of their lives in the Gulags of Sibera. The KV-VI was nicknamed "Stalin's Orchestra" by the few Germans that encountered it because of the variety of weapons it deployed.


Secret Soviet Armour of the Great Patriotic War Steven J. Zaloga; Arms and Armour Press, 1995 The Really Unknown War: A&E Presents: "Our Century"; Narrator: Burt Lancaster; Producer: Isaac Kleinerman

The Behemoths are Burning, Martin Cadin; Pinnacle Books, 1995

KV-VI in Action, Dan Egan and Paul Leray; Squadron/Signal Publications; Armor No. 41, 1996

Die Russischen Geheimnisseschwererpanzerkampfwagon, Walter J. Spielberger; Motobuch Verlag, 1996

Dreadful Din on the Eastern Front, Erich Maria Remarque Jr.; Podzun Verlag; 1951


"While the above makes an excellent story, worthy of the greatest examples of Soviet wartime propaganda (including the fascinating, but false story of the Stalingrad sniper duel between Zaitsev and the invented German "super-sniper" made famous in the movie Enemy at the Gates), the numbers just are not verifiable or believable."

I have no problem with the claim that the numbers are not believable but this sentence reads like a history text rather than an encyclopedia and is very POV. 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

-Sven Hassel's "Blitzfreeze" makes mention of 100-ton multi-turret 152mm armed Soviet tanks. It is a fiction, dramatized novel, but considering that Hassel is an Eastern Front veteran and that this book is quite old; i think there's something to it. (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not really. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Now, I'm not going to say that the Soviets don't lie. And before strategically placed propaganda, overclaiming (the honest mistake kind) on the tactical level is ubiquitous on all sides. But is there any particular source that contradicts the Soviet version? For example, the Soviet claims for Prokhorovka had the German loss records to contradict them. Is there a similar thing here?

The basic reason for discounting the Soviet account, other than a general presumption of propaganda (which violates NPOV), is that the claimed kills represent >20% of the German tank force, and the loss of 20% of combat capacity will incapacitate the division. This position has to be justified.

  • How much of a unit )as a rule) has to be blown away for it to lose combat effectiveness had been a point of debate. For example (according to FM 100-61), the Soviets figure loss of function to be at over 50% (called "annihilation"). A 30% loss rate is considered to only temporarily disrupt the enemy. A 20-30% loss is painful. IIRC, the Americans have different norms, but that supports the point that this measure is very iffy.
  • Furthermore, such norms are only very generally applicable and the actual loss of function no doubt depends on how it is destroyed (as well as many other factors such as morale, initiative of the men...etc). 30% losses to every battalion has a different effect versus 3 out of 10 battalions totally annihilated (the other 7 unharmed). This is part of the echelonment concept - the front battalions might be nearly annihilated, but the aft battalions are nearly untouched and can continue the advance without hindrance. Thus justifying the conclusion based on similar norms is weak at best. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The part was added by a random ip, and since itself does not have any sources it was removed. Nohelp 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it is added by a troll that serves no purpose but to spread disinformation on wikipedia. Tanksarethebest 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe he's genuinely motivated. He does have a point. The Soviets do exaggerate and 20% losses, while not crippling, ain't light on a division. But he needs to back it up, and w/ a stronger point, or it is OR + NPOV violation. Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The only ones who exggerated were the germans and they made it into an art, they also downplayed their own losses, a tank destroyed but later recovered and repaired was not counted as a lost in a battle but if they on the other hand damaged a tank then no matter what happened to it it was counted as a kill, this is just the resurection of german 1941 thinking were they could not believe that the untermenschen could build tanks better then their own. Also this has NO source and should be deleted. Anything added to wikipedia must have a source if not then it must be deleted this is just his own views with no sources to back it up what so ever. Tanksarethebest 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But you're not biased but strictly neutral, heh? Both sides overclaimed but usually the russians were better in this role. Just for info: a destroyed tank is destroyed and could not be repaired. A disabled tank could be repaired, disabling means either not movable due to mechanical damage or tank hit and crew killed but not burned/exploded. --Denniss 12:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
And you are not biased, by useing the term "russians" it is plain to see that you are extremly biased since there were no "russians" only Soviets. The germans always in every battle downplayed their onw losses and over played the enemy losses the germans always down played their onw losses by a factor of 10 this had 2 reasons, one their racist egos could not handle the truth 2 the evacuation of soldiers in 1940 from France was in part due to that Hitler confused damaged tanks with destroyed tanks so to avoid this the germans started downplaying their own tanks, even if a tank was completely disabled and had to spend 3 months in a repair shop it was not counted at all or only sometimes as damaged. So the only loss of a german tank would be if it was completely destroyed and unable to recover but if it was only damaged or if had spent 1 year in a repair shop then it was NOT counted at all but if an enemy tank was damaged destroyed or sometimes even just hit it was still couted as a kill that is how the germans counted. The germans always down played their own sides losses and over played the other side this plus the neo neazies stories of the 1970s has given history a very biased view of what actually happened. Where the ss who survived the war were free to write any books they pleased and make up any numbers they saw fit. And the fact that is pro german re write has not one single source is just more proof of trying to resurect the neo nazi propaganda of the 70s. In wikipedia you must give a source anything else is personal oppinion Tanksarethebest 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the need to source arguments. The rest of your confused piffle, however, is worthy of nothing more than outright scorn. --Agamemnon2 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I can bet all the tea in china that the random ips that put in this info can not give one source to support it, so lets wait for a few weeks and see what happenes I am certain that not one verifiable source in this specific case will be presented. Tanksarethebest 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've been playing this for a few weeks now, and I stand by what I said before. This may well be a case of Soviet propaganda, but no one has brought up hard evidence for such. General policy in this encylopedia seems to be to let claimants keep their claims unless there is evidence the claim is disproven (as can be seen in the fighter aces sections despite how air battles generally are overclaimed). Since there is no evidence, the reasoning is insufficient (not to mention technically OR), and it is clear that defenders of the section had time and chance to defend their statements (they clearly have enough time to revert), I'd support striking on Verifiability, NPOV and OR grounds. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt the overall story, but all (!) other internet sources (e.g. tell the story a bit different: Nowhere else are "5 well-disguised KV-1 tanks" mentioned. (So well disguised that only one other ever engaged the enemy, huh?) According to those other sources, Kolobanov has been the only tank asigned to that particular approach, with other KV-1's merely being "nearby" (guarding other roads / approaches). This renders most of the "fluff story" as questionable at best. Those other sources also state that 1) Kolobanov's KV-1 had its turret immobilized during the battle, forcing him out of his position because he had to aim with the whole tank; 2) he did not "run out of ammunition", but merely low on ammunition. On the technical side, there never was a long-barreled 3,7cm gun used on the Pz-III, and not to belittle the bravery of Kolobanov and his crew, but it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of that section that none of the opposing tanks had a chance of penetrating the KV-1's armor even at point-blanc. Doing so also allows to make the section much shorter by focussing on those parts that are important with regards to the KV-1 as such, instead of singing the high praise of the Valiant Soviet Tank Commande.
All that being said, I am generally opposed to such lengthy "hero stories" in the scope of Wikipedia articles on vehicles, aircraft etc. - either the person / battle in question qualifies for an individual article (which could be linked from the vehicle page), or it isn't really important enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Compare Tiger I and Battle of Villers-Bocage for a better example. DevSolar 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely 8th Panzer Division lost no Pz IIIs on that day because it had none, it was one of those divisions which had Pz 38(t)s in place of Pz IIIs. According to the operational status report for the 8th Panzer Division on 10 Sept. 1941 it had suffered from the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa 36 tanks as total loss, of which 20 were Pz 38(t)s and 6 Pz IVs and the number of repairable tanks was 33, of which 20 were Pz 38(t)s and 7 Pz IVs [Jentz: Panzer Truppen Vol 1 p. 206] According to the unit history, Werner Haupt: Die 8. Panzer-Division im Zweiten Weltkrieg, the division had 150 tanks on the 28 July 1941 [p.165], out of 223 with which it had begun the Operation Barbarossa. Nothing special on 14 August, but "erbitterten Widerstand...Erst in den Abendstunden zog sich der Gegner zurück." On 15 August "Die Kämpfe waren an diesem 15. August sehr hart und kosteten die Division ca. 200 Mann an Gefallen und Verwundeten." On 19 August a small recon patrol was ambushed and and lost its 2 tanks, the Panzer III was hit and the Panzer IV got stuck in a swamp [p. 168]. Heavy fighting continued and on some days human losses are mentioned, when they were extraordinary heavy. On 9 September division's Panzerregiment 8 lost 18 tanks, 4 to enemy fire and the rest because of engine and track damage in swamps. This happened South of Wyriza. [p. 172 ] So I would say that the German tank losses on 14 August were most probably significantly lower than mentioned in the text.VaidaXX (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition of tank[edit]

I first reverted the addition about "Equally important, it was the Soviet definition of "tank" in the 1930's, ..." because it lacks a reference, and is not a theory I've ever seen referred to in any publication. It also suffers from grammatical and spelling errors, but it's the lack of references which makes it a non-starter.

We can't call it an "excellent explanation" unless there's some evidence that it comes from one or more reliable, verifiable sources. Michael Z. 2007-05-01 13:49 Z

As well as being unreferenced, it is irrelevant to the article and simply incorrect. That's three strikes. DMorpheus 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Description of Raseiniaj episode is completly wrong

1. It is not known if the tank was KV-1 or KV-2 (there are some photos of damaged KV-2, but there is no evidence it is a Raseiniaj KV)
2. There is no evidence that the tank run out of ammunition
3. All the crew were killed. There is a witness who took part in burying them. There is also a monument on the their grave now. Some research was made into subject in last years.

I had already tried to edit this section once (KV-1 or KV-2, killed crew), but unknown reason my edit was reverted. Serg3d2 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. There's a research on it in one website, but only Lithuanian. (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

KV-1 and SMK[edit]

Just wondering, where did this tidbit of info come from:

When the Soviets entered the Winter War, the SMK, KV and a third design, the T-100, were sent to be tested in combat conditions. The heavy armour of the KV proved highly resistent to Finnish anti-tank weapons, making it more effective than the other designs. It was soon put into production, both as the original 76-mm-armed KV-1 Heavy Tank and the 152 mm howitzer-mounting assault gun, the KV-2 Heavy Artillery Tank.

Was that info in the book KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939–1945?

--MacroDaemon 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The KV-4[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

info box tank numbers[edit]

"about 5,219"

Seems a little too specific to be "about", is there a source supporting 5,219 tanks being built? If so the word "about" should really be removed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zaloga gives 4,749, which includes the KV-1, KV-2, and KV-1S plus prototypes and specialized variants such as the U-1 versions, KV-9, KV-8 flamethrower, etc. DMorpheus (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Zaloga ref via google books: [1], if that's helpful. Hohum (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Title "Kliment Voroshilov tank" change to "KV tank"?[edit]

I've seen very few references to the KV line of tanks being spelled out. I think the far most common name is just "KV" (in English, of course -- but this is the en.Wikipedia). Thoughts? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

KV is naturally the more common, just like UN and NATO instead of United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The title should always be the full name though. BP OMowe (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a MOS or some other guideline for this? We don't always use the full name: NASA, RAID, Laser, etc. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The one big problem with the present name is that the present inter-wiki scheme does not recorgnise that ru:КВ-1, ru:КВ-2, ru:КВ-85, ru: КВ-1К, etc. are the Russian language articles about this family of tanks. Apart from that, redirects from the various abbreviations are sufficient:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
My question still stands. What guideline (not opinion) covers when to use full names over common names? In this case, KV is well-known in military circles, but the full name is nearly unknown, so much less helpful. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

IS-3 in WW2[edit]

The IS-3 was finished too late to see action in WW2 against the Germans and there are only rumors that it seen action against the Japanese in China. I think that the part under 'Soviet heavies in WW2'should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly implicit forward reference[edit]

In the fourth paragraph of #Development history, it is stated that "One of the main competing designs was the SMK, which in its final form had two turrets, mounting the same combination of 76.2 mm and 45 mm weapons." Since, to this point, there has been no mention of a 45 mm weapon, secondary or otherwise, to what tank is this "same combination" referring?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is referring to the T-35, which is indeed mentioned at the very beginning of section "Development History". Cheers Irondome (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have clarified the sentence. Well spotted. Irondome (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Krasnogvardeysk copyright issue[edit]

The section on Krasnogvardeysk appears to be more or less word for word the same as the account on page 7-8 of Soviet Heavy Tanks: World War 2 Album, by Ray Merriam.[2] -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oddly, that section has been there in much the same form since at least 2013, and the book is copyright 2015. (Hohum @) 13:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Ray Merriam's book give references for this story? Graham.Fountain | Talk 09:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm fairly new here. The battle of Krasnogvardeysk always caught my attention. So I decided to have a closer look and to rewrite the section. Progress on my sandbox, feedback/improvements welcome. Link: Regards Kawinksy (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Your version refers to a "strongly fortified position". What were the fortifications? How were the fortifications relevant to the engagement?
  • Advise not using the plural form "KV-1s" as it can be misinterpreted by readers as meaning the S version of the KV-1.
  • Advise not using opinionated words and phrases like "puny" and "bloody nose". They convey no real meaning. The German tank guns were of the standard of their time. The KV was a useful heavy tank in part because its armour provided good protection against such guns.
  • The correct abbreviation is "PaK" not "Pak".
  • By "1941-vintage KV-1s", I assume you mean KV-1 (model 1941). It would be clearer to say the latter.
  • The word "barrage" has a specific military meaning. You are misusing the word to describe something else.
  • "there was little doubt that General Erich Brandenberger took another bloody nose in the ‘shoot ‘n scoot’ ambush tactics against well-prepared Soviets." This appears to be saying that the Germans were using shoot and scoot tactics against the Soviet Army, and that such tactics did not work very well. Did you really mean that? It would have been much more useful if the account gave cited examples of people using such tactics, and only gave commentary if the commentary was in the sources.
There need to be more citations for specific facts.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

KV-1S Photo?[edit]

The photo just added is very interesting. It looks to me like a KV-1S turret on a standard KV-1 hull. Note the rear deck does not slope downwards as on a true KV-1S. I'm glad to see a photo of the KV-1S in place of a second KV-2 photo, but I am wondering exactly what this vehicle is. Odd? Could it be a museum-constructed example? DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


The variants section is a mix of actual variants and derivatives, plus a bunch of prototypes and other insignificant 'variants' and uncited content. I suggest we rework it. Actual, production variants should be separate from derivative vehicles such as the SU-152, and prototypes may not belong here at all. If we include them they should be clearly labeled as such. The German beutepanzer KV with the 75mm KwK is not a 'variant' and probably only one existed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You reverted grammar correction[edit]

Moved from User talk:Toddy1

Hi, I think you may have made an error when you reverted my edit to the KV tank page: I changed "known to have to been" to "known to have to be", as the passive infinitive.

This is because "to been" is not any form of correct English, well not one that I am aware of. Whereas, the passive infinitive "to be" is correctly used when the person taking the action is unknown or unspecified, as in on medicine "to be taken twice a day", etc. So, in this case the person shifting the gears is not specified.

Anyway, if you still think that "known to have to be shifted" is a change in meaning, do you think it would be better in the perfect past tense "known to have been" – I'm not sure I know what you're thinking "known to have to been shifted" means.

It might be beet if you answer on the KV talk page, as I watch that.

Regards and Merry Christmas


Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are grammar problems, but your change introduced a significant change in meaning:
  • "was known to have to be shifted with a hammer" - this means that it was known that to shift it, you always had to use a hammer
  • "was known to have to been shifted with a hammer" - this means that sometimes a hammer was used to shift it.
Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to look at the original source, which was Armor, July-August 1998, page 24. This says:
"A KV-1 Model 1941 sent to the US in 1942 for evaluation was found to be using a 20-year-old American Holt (Caterpillar) transmission design. This transmission was the main stumbling block of the KV-1, and there was some truth to rumors of Soviet drivers having to shift gears with a hand sledge."
I think the best solution is to use a direct quotation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the quote is probably the best solution; though I don't agree that "was known to have to been shifted" implies any more occasionality, as I don't accept it as a valid gramatical construct. Perhaps "was known to have been shifted" might have more implication of that, and is a legitimate construct, but never ever "to been" - it's both the past tense and infinitve of the verb at the same time, and there just ain't no such animal.Graham.Fountain | Talk 20:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)