Why KV-2?
Why was the KV-2 built in the first place? Get Peter's book: IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com here. In this video Peter "Tank Archives" Samsonov and I talk about what led to the design and production of the Soviet KV-2 tank / bunker buster.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
#KV2 #RedArmy #SovietTanks
00:00 Intro
00:29 Why KV-2?
05:35 SU-152
07:06 Bigger guns who needs a seat anyway...
11:00 Turret not turn-able on uneven terrain?
12:34 Production KV-2
Everyone asks “Why the KV2?” And “What is KV2?” But no one cares to ask “How is KV2?”😢
we simply know that the answer for the 3rd question is "Very cool!"
KV Two is good. He is puzzles how he is supposed to build glorious Soviet Republic, when ruled by Dictators and lacking in ammo. Only YOU can build glorious Ammo for General Commisar KV2s plan to liberate Russia from Capitalist Dictator!
The real question is why not
Weight,armor thickness and cost.
@naamadossantossilva4736 yeah, but it fun to play on world of tank and war thunder, so checkmate
@@naamadossantossilva4736Stalin will see you in the back courtyard...
@@naamadossantossilva4736 tell that to the stavka
Based and KVpilled.
"for some reason they were reluctant to be liberated" I could fry something in all that sarcasm dripping off that.
As the video kindly explains - for the lack of breaching capability! ;p
"reluctant to be liberated" ah yes reluctant to be invaded and absorbed into the Soviet empire without a choice
I am fascinated by the Axis plan to invade Malta. Reading dirty little secrets of World War 2 it claimed that the amphibious portion of the assault intended to use KV2s captured on the Eastern Front to assault fortifications. It would be a one-shot operation so there was no concern for logistics. At the time the Commonwealth forces probably still had 2pdr anti-tank guns and maybe some 6pdrs. Consternation would have ensued if one of them crawled into town.
I am curious how they intended to smuggle 50 ton heavy tanks into defended harbours to attack the fortifications around the harbour they just sailed into to offload their tanks. Unless they intended them as deck guns, which would require the gunners to allow for the pitch and roll of the ship beneath them. Which would require more logistics to redress the ammo consumed by the training. I think the concept was a throwaway 'wouldn't this be great?' idea that wouldn't work in practice
Amphibious KV2 sounds very tempting.
Like Operation Sealion, thankfully Unternehmen Herkules never came to fruition. Rommel convinced Hitler he could take the Suez canal with one more push. All fuel reserves needed for the Malta invasion were redirected to North Africa and the rest is history. see Battle of Alam Halfa August 1942 for further details of Rommel's final push to take the Suez and ensure the fall of Malta by doing so.
When you play world of tanks, and you need a light, fast tank to scout for your TOG II platoon, KV-2 is the tank for you!😉
Ace tanker just for spotting damage
The speaker is very knowledgeable and made some interesting points about why the KV2 but I wish you expanded on the alternative Russian design requirements for the period
But it was very enjoyable! Thanks for arranging this interview!
Learned more about a tank I recognize but never really look into. A good interview.
You can't go wrong with big gun, until it goes wrong.
If it goes wrong you haven't picked a big enough gun
The Soviet answer to every problem is bigger guns. The American solution to every problem is more guns. That is why they will never be able to get along. Big guns means fewer guns overall, and more guns means smaller guns overall. We'll never be able to see eye to eye sadly.
Although it may have not had the most impact in combat. It certainly made for a good photo, many pictures in my collection of soldiers enjoying the KVs
you can kind of see what they were going for if you put it in terms of a howitzer in an armored box that happens to be ontop of a tank. an SPG has the gun integrated into the vehicle such that it usually sticks down into the hull
The turret is the most weird thing. I mean, a support tank, especially meant for tackling fortress and things like that, doesn't need a turret. It is meant for direct front attack. It's not supposed to fire at their sides. If the thing is being flanked by the enemy, that means it didn't get enough flank cover to achieve a breakthrough anyway.
A turret is still beneficial to the clvehicle's capabilities, even if not as necessary there. Looked at modern self-propelled howitzers like the PzH 2000 or M109. A turret provides you a much broader field of fire without moving the vehicle, allows firing while position to move in a direction other than straight at the enemy, and can allow firing is less idea terrain (such as where you have to point the vehicle in an odd direction to have a flat enough platform for firing). The higher and moveable gun barrel can also avoid getting it stuck in the ground. Also if you are slugging through the big enemy defensive line, even if you are not at the very front, you will likely at some point have to advance to where the remains of the line are at your flanks. And, finally, nothing ever goes perfectly. Even if there is no expectation for it to ever have an enemy to the side or behind, it will end up in such situations sometimes. Finally, while the cost and complexity of a turret makes it sound bad from the perspective of the vehicle being rushed into production, it has big benefits when starting with a turreted tank chassis. A simple drop in replacement turret means no significant modifications to the chassis. You set up turret production somewhere and when one is available you can just pull KV1 chassis off the line and drop the new turrets in.
@@88porpoise I disagree with your point. If turrets were that great, they wouldn't have modified the design as they did later in the war. The Soviet haven't seen any other KV 2 type of weapon after that, as far as I'm aware. The modern vehicles you're talking about are a completely different thing to what those from ww2 were back in their day. They have a different purpose. Assault guns were meant for direct fire at their enemy, providing fire cover to the infantry when attacking fortified positions, trenches and things like that. They were able take down some relatively weak spots like machine gun positions covered by sand bags and so forth. So, for that role, not having a turret meant a lower, way more discrete profile in the first place. Not only that, but the guns were supposed to hit from some distance. They were not meant to climb trenches and going into hand to hand combat. Their turning rate without turret is plentifully capable of still covering the flanks from a counter-attacks by turning the own vehicle itself. If wasn't so, the StuG wouldn't have been used into the tank hunter role later in the war, which is way more dependent on turning to the sides with a much higher possibility of being flanked somehow by the attacking tanks in combat. The vehicle was still able to perform in such conditions. Another point is that assault guns, in German service at least, were part of the artillery, and the volume of ammo artillery those pieces can carry is one of the most important things. Assault guns may have allowed for more ammunition room without the turret ring, but I don't know for sure. Chieftain may have the answer for that. The big turret of the KV 2 had some weight on itself, it was more complicated to handle when damaged as well, and its size made a great target for anti-tank weapons hidden in the defense.
@@TheStugbit All else being equal, having a 360 degree traverse is always an advantage. But all else is not equal. The added cost, complexity, and increased profile of a turreted design are disadvantages that you weigh against those advantages. In many cases, especially given technological limitations of WWII era the caremate gun makes more sense. In this specific case, the cost and complexity were likely offset due to the ability to drop the new turret into the existing chassis with minimal work to get it into the field faster.
churchills with the spigot mortar at least made a little sense because they were primarily heavy engineering vehicles that could be wheeled up to wreck something if you needed to
@@AsbestosMuffins and their turrets much smaller.
Su-152 wasn’t designed as tank destroyer. It was bunker buster. It was prototyped way before red army captured tigers. And it became ‘beast killer’ more for morale reasons than from its superior firepower. Loading time, velocity and trajectory of projectiles made hitting moving tank more like a luck than ability
In World Of Tanks we call it the Sh*t Barn. A killer if played right, but soooo hard to play right. Thanks! Checking out Peter’s new book. Appreciate the reference.
I assumed this was the tank you got when the only question you ask is, "how many can you deliver before Christmas?"
Unfortunately nothing was discussed regarding its performance. While it suffered with poor mobility, it was the most heavily armoured tank Russia fielded early on during the invasion of Barbarossa. It's 152 gun was highly effective against soft targets and it had 3 coaxial machine guns in the turret which gave it nearly 360 coverage, making it deadly against German infrastry. A unique design for sure.
German anti tank manual mentioned it was too clumsy. Haven’t see much about it in German sources, considering the state of the Red Army and low numbers, it’s impact likely was limited
On paper it looks scary in practice it was not. visibility was poor, turret traverse was abysmal, vehicle was slow and hard to steer, and turret jammed on slight slopes. The gun also took a long time to reload. All in all, it wouldn't have performed well outside of its intended role of just lobbing HE at stuff from a safe distance.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 It was employed as a defensive weapon more often than naught which capitalized on its strengths as a mobile bunker. Many german stories tell of their inability to defeat a lone KV-2 early on in the war and only when it decided to leave were they able to capture ground. Often, the Germans had to rely on air support, really well placed artillery or satchel charges to knock it out.
@@sargonassarg4356that’s like saying a bunker was really really effective because it was harder to kill than a not bunker This bunker just happened to have tracks, not that it helped, it was only remarkable because it was a tank and not a bunker despite serving the same purpose
@@looinrims Much like a bunker, it was effective at defense; multiple machine guns helped deter infantry and early German tanks would it difficult to penetrate the armour. There are accounts of KV-2s occuping areas like the outskirts of a town where the Germans couldn't touch it if airpower was not available and only when the KV-2 decided to leave did they finally move forward to capture the area.
I can see the leverage of a long caliber gun and all the weight out there overcoming even thoughtful engineers
According to Zaloga, the KVs were all made in the same factory, Kirovsky Zavod 100 in Leningrad. When the factory was moved to Chelyabinsk, the KV2 was dropped from production. By the end of 1940, 102 KV2s had been produced.
KV-2s were made at the Leningrad Kirov Factory. Zavod 100 was a completely different organization in Chelyabinsk, split from ChKZ to focus on experimental work. The KV-2 was dropped from production in June of 1941, before the evacuation. This was planned ahead of time and wasn't done because of the Germans.
An interesting Video again. Thx
Glad you enjoyed it
Any good videos on Luftwaffe activity versus French and English pilots during the time between the invasion of Poland up to Dunkirk?
Thanks
Why NOT KV-2? that is the real question
Thanks. I've been wondering how this could possibly have been a practical vehicle since '73.
Even if you're completely useless, you can still be a bad example.
It wasn't practical after 1973. It was obsolete by then. 😉
such a perfect title "just why?...😢"
Could you go over in heavy detail of a Schutzenkompanie in WW2
Everyone asks why KV2? But no one asks how is KV2.
lol great video men !!!
Big gun
A sledgehammer to go with the airborne sickle (IL2)
*State anthem of the Soviet Union intensifies*
I seem to remember the rumor back in the day was the turret couldn't rotate if it was on a slope more than 1 degree off of level. Though, that's probably not true.
A Like for "reluctant to be liberated" Finnish peasants; that made me laugh. ;)
Ah yes the Stalinium death refrigerator
What a Soviet solution
Finland...
Tank designer 60 ton KV? Can't be done! Wargamming : Say no more!
Posting this before watching. The KV2 just confuses me. KV1 worked. Decent heavy tank. Then they put a massive turret on it. Now the tank can't hide and the turret only rotates on level ground. You had a good tank and you broke it. Now sir, tell me why I am wrong.
KV-1 was never a good tank in the first place, too unreliable. T-34 was plenty enough shitty early turrets aside.
@@edward9674 Tiger 2 and Panther at the very beginning had many technical problems, uT34, KV1-2 as well. In the Forties, the T34 and KV were advanced, both in armor and firepower. kv2 this is an assault tank, in fact, he had no chance to prove himself in the war, due to the circumstances. If the Red Army had attacked at the very beginning of the war, kv1 and kv2, too, could have hacked the enemy's defenses, even if they broke down every 30 hours, they would have been enough to fight.
"Now sir, tell me why I am wrong." Because the KV-1 *could not* get the job done. That is why you are wrong. Heavy fortifications needed something with more punch than the 76 mm. Hilly terrain in a deep forest meant that more punch thing must come up close and personal to even see the target, so needs armour to survive long enough to take the shot. The road net being almost non-existent means the more punch thing with heavy armour has to be self-propelled. Oh, one more thing, it has to be delivered yesterday at the latest. Thus, you either build theKV-2, or you spend 50000-100000 casualties breaking through the enemy line anyway. (Well, trust Kremlin to do say "yes", and do both)
Because KV-2. Nothing else makes sense.
Ah yes, when tank building was in its infancy it was as creative as it will ever get
The Stalinists also promoted the slogan in 1932 in Germany "First Hitler, then us!" and allowed the Nazis to build a dictatorship after January 1933 without a shot being fired. During negotiations for the 1939 non-aggression pact Stalin even "I know how much the German people love their Führer." Operation Barbarossa, the largest land invasion in human history with 3+ million solders, came as a surprise to Stalin. The seeming idiocies of the Stalinist regime are completely comprehensible if you understand that they served the material interests of a bureaucracy that had usurped power in a workers' state and had to conceal its agenda under pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.
Perhaps it would have worked better with a 122 or a 107 mm gun🤔
Bunkers don't move, you don't need a turret.
The bunker *can* shoot at you while you try to drive into position though, and a turret allows you to use a lot more of those positions.
if velocity is more important why are most of the "assault guns" using howitzers/mortars like Kv-2, Brummbär, Churchill AVRE, and Sturmtiger? also if you can put a 152mm gun on a kv-2 why is it so hard to put a larger gun in say a Matilda II?
Matilda is pretty narrow because of the Railway Pact (I probably got the name wrong). A narrow tank means that it doesn't have much internal volume to begin with, which limits the ammo capacity and ease of loading.
@@friedyzostas9998 do you mean it's narrow for it's weight? because all the other British tanks are much wider but much lighter, if width for the Railway had anything to do with it all British tanks would be narrow like the Swedes and their short guns
Velocity is more important for anti-tank projectiles that use kinetic energy like AP, APDS, and APFSDS. Assault guns are usually used against fortifications or infantry so they load high explosive shells. They don’t need a high velocity as the target doesn’t move and it’s easier to manage the recoil of a slower projectile than a faster one. Then you make the shell wider for the same amount of recoil. Bigger shell=bigger boom per shell. Howitzers aren’t meant to be used against tanks, but some like the kv2 were kinda forced into it due to dire cicumstances like say I don’t know the largest land invasion in history
@@christophervanoster this kinda contradicts what was said in the video with higher velocity guns being more effective against hardened targets (bunkers) which is what most of these vehicles were designed to combat despite being equipped with low velocity high yield weapons
@@ScreamingSturmovik yes and no, thick walled bunkers require a faster velocity type of armor piercing round yes, but anything else a low velocity HE round can take care of. That’s why they use a higher velocity gun in future assault guns like the su152 and isu152. On one hand you’re right but on the other hand lower velocities aren’t required. Even the low velocity 152 is gonna be better against a thick bunker than the 76 on a normal kv
I hate interview videos. I’m sure this is great, but I just want to see and hear MHnV talk about this.
because DERP
Why not
It's funny
why not comrade
There were two different models of the KV-2. Model 1940 and Model 1941.
The breakthrough SPG just doesnt sound like a good idea. If you wanna go right through enemy lines, you wanna have something universal that can deal with whatever the enemy throws at you. Kinda like IS-2 (despite its shortcomings). And if you wanna have a MFing bigass gun, you wanna have enough space around it for the recoil, and ease of operating. Combining these two things together is weird at best, and laughable at worst.
It worked in ISU-152. They shouldnt have made a turreted assault gun in the first place.
I mean, we all joke about these failed designs but at the time every nation had their share of poor designs. People really couldn't agree where the future of tanks was going.
@@phunkracy Yeah, it kinda worked on ISU, Stupa IV, Stupa III (SiG 33) and maybe even SU-122, but many historians still think that making a regular tank instead would be more useful.
@@pavelslama5543 I'd say that the Sherman 105mm is a better take on this. It's has sufficient HE load to demolish fortification while still light enough to work on a turreted tank. The 2S9 Nona is pretty much a cold war take on the concept of the mechanized assault gun.
@@pavelslama5543 The Red Army *had* regular tanks that could deal with everything else. Red Army could not deal with heavy fortifications in a less-than-flat forest landscape. This is one of those instances where it doesn't matter how good a screwdriver you have, when what needed is a hammer.
Why the MAUS
Delusions.
Why? 🤔 MOAR DAKKA!😫
Tank cartoons are good bc of these "meme tanks"
What happend to channel? Retire?
twitter.com/MilHiVisualized/status/1697260047812976844
Too bad this """liberation""" was some 20 years late! Epic piece of steel nevertheless.
because TONK thats why
Because. That's why.
Everyone is asking why kv2? But no one is asking HOW is kv2?
WHY NOT!?!? DERP DERP IS STRONK.
I prefer the nickname "Soviet Fridge" when referring to this tank.
Почему не КВ-2
La Bamba music plays
because its funny
The White Finns defeated the Red Finns with the help of the Germans, and Moscow did nothing. For a decade, the Red Finns have been well worked on with the help of European values. Самсонов, ты своими политическими вставками, опускаешь, свой весь рассказ.
Kv2 is a trash, kw2 is a master piece
To balance decadent western capitalists comrade...balance, yes.
KV2 is famous because of Jingles. "Once you sent enough dissidents to the gulags, the hand of Stalin will rise out of the grave to guide your..." His finest work.
Well, if the leaders were growing the weed in the winter, the THC concentration of hydroponically grown Marijuana is quite high...explains much.
The Winter Weed War?
I think the KV-2 is the absolute worst looking Soviet tank. BTW of course the Fins wanted their freedom. Speaking from personal knowledge as I have family in Finland. Both of my grandparents emigrated from Finland to North America before Finland got their independence from Russia after WW1.
Because KV-2 STRONK TENK
i dont questioning Peter knowledge nor expertize he is competent for ww2 tank .but he puting too much efort in pathetic atempts to be sarcastic about Soviet and Russian.he has no bisnesses in this chanel.whether u like them or not ,expertize and personal opinions and biasses should be separated.Chiftain,Bernard,Wiley from Tank museum has nothing comonn with this dude.They do their jobs quite serios .no humor no sarcasam no biasses just the facts.Britain was in war with Germany but none from Bovington showing even bit of hate or sarcasam toward Germans tanks.nothing like this clown.Yes. we all know about Russian war against UkraineYes i know he is Russian.he has no place in MHNV chanel.Bernard is a serious tuber.this clown should go to CNN.
This man is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to soviet tanks and design. Having a bit of a light-hearted talk about a specific thing is fine. This really isn't much different how chieftain put some light-hearted sarcasm in his videos.
Dude, if can’t take a joke you clearly are on the wrong channel and all the other people you mentioned did plenty of jokes on and off camera.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Bernard i am not talking about jokes.u have my fully respect as someone who seriously doing his vids.from time to time u do some jokes but that is not out of context.its part of it.Chiftain too Wiley also.iis all part of context,not out of it.This one however making jokes and sarcastic comentary just for sake of jokes and sarcasam makin Soviets brainless idiots who thought that Fins were idiots waiting someone to show them way of life.Peter is realy competent as expert for ww2 era tanks no doubt about that ,i read some of it and they are quite good.he has mu respect.but wit cartoonish jokes and sarcasam about Soviets in vid that presenting kv 2 tank its way out of narative.thats not profesional.its my opinion of course and i am in RIGHT chanel.deaply respect for your work.all the best.
Can you please talk about more tactics like ww1 eastern front, the ruso jap war, ww1 and 1 in asia, combat in the Pacific Islands ect
can you tell me about the people and senate of Rome?
What if we put a 1000mm cannon on a go-cart and meme our way to victory