Kv 1 what kind of tank. Soviet heavy tanks of the KV series. Serial production kv
Thanks to the creation of KV tanks ("Kliment Voroshilov"), the Soviet Union became the only state that had mass quantities of heavy tanks with anti-ballistic armor. The Germans called the KV a monster.
Searches and experiments
The main disadvantage of most tanks of the second half of the 30s was weak armor, which was penetrated by fire against tank guns and heavy machine guns.
The KV-1 was different from them. It was created in 1939 under the leadership of J. Ya. Kotin. The tank had a 76 mm gun and three 7.62 mm. machine gun. The tank crew is 5 people.
The first HF passed military tests during the Soviet-Finnish War, which became the first conflict where heavy tanks with ballistic armor were used. At that time, Soviet heavy KV tanks and multi-turret SMK and T-100 tanks, operating as part of the 20th Tank Brigade, were tested at the front.
While the latest vehicles did not take part in tank battles, which were a rare occurrence in the Finnish War, they turned out to be indispensable in breaking through enemy fortifications. The KV-1 withstood hits from almost any anti-tank gun shell. At the same time, the 76-mm gun turned out to be insufficiently powerful to combat enemy pillboxes. Therefore, already during the war, development of a tank with an enlarged turret and an installed 152 mm began on the basis of the KV-1. howitzer (future KV-2). At the same time, based on the experience of the Soviet-Finnish War, it was decided to abandon the creation of heavy multi-turret tanks, which turned out to be expensive and difficult to operate. The choice was finally made in favor of the KV.
Unmatched
As of June 1941, the KV could be considered one of the strongest heavy tanks in the world. In total, at the beginning of June 1941, there were 412 KV-1s in the Red Army units, very unevenly distributed among the troops.
There is a known case in June 1941 in the Rasseney area, when one KV-1 constrained the actions of a German division for almost two days. This KV was part of the 2nd Panzer Division, which caused a lot of trouble to the German troops in the first days of the war. Apparently having used up its fuel supply, the tank took up a position on the road near a swampy meadow. One German document noted:
“There were practically no means to cope with the monster. The tank cannot be bypassed; the surrounding area is marshy. It was impossible to transport ammunition, the seriously wounded were dying, they could not be taken out. An attempt to destroy the tank with fire from a 50-mm anti-tank battery from a distance of 500 meters led to heavy losses in crews and guns. The tank was not damaged, despite the fact that, as it turned out, it received 14 direct hits. All that remained were dents in the armor. When the 88-mm gun was brought to a distance of 700 meters, the tank calmly waited until it was placed in position and destroyed it. Attempts by sappers to blow up the tank were unsuccessful. The charges were insufficient for the huge tracks. Finally he fell victim to the trick. 50 German tanks feigned an attack from all sides to divert attention. Under cover, they managed to move it forward and camouflage the 88-mm gun from the rear of the tank. Of the 12 direct hits, 3 penetrated the armor and destroyed the tank."
Unfortunately, most of the HF were lost not due to combat reasons, but due to breakdowns and lack of fuel.
KV-1s
In 1942, production began of a modernized version - the KV-1s (high-speed), which was put into service on August 20, 1942. The tank's weight decreased from 47 to 42.5 tons due to a reduction in the thickness of the hull armor plates and the size of the turret. The turret was cast, acquired a slightly different appearance and was equipped with a commander's cupola. The armament remained similar to the KV-1. As a result, speed and maneuverability increased, but the armor protection of the tank decreased. It was planned to install a more powerful 85-mm cannon on the KV-1s (a similar prototype was preserved in Kubinka), but this tank did not go into production. Subsequently, on the basis of the KV-1s with an 85 mm cannon, the KV-85 was created, which, however, did not become widespread due to the switching of production to IS tanks. The soldiers nicknamed the tank "kvasok".
End of the road
In tank battles, at least until mid-1942, German troops could do little to oppose the KV-1. However, during the fighting, the tank's shortcomings also emerged - relatively low speed and maneuverability compared to the T-34. Both tanks were armed with 76 mm guns. True, the KV had more massive armor compared to the “thirty-four”. KV also suffered from frequent breakdowns. When moving, the tank destroyed almost any road, and not every bridge could support a 47-ton tank. The Germans acquired the Tiger heavy tank at the end of 1942, surpassing any heavy tank at that time in the war. And the KV-1 turned out to be practically powerless against the Tiger, armed with a long-barreled 88-mm cannon. The "Tiger" could hit KB at enormous distances, and a direct hit from an 88-mm projectile would disable any tank of that time. So, on February 12, 1943, near Leningrad, three Tigers knocked out 10 KB without damage on their part.
Since mid-1943, the KV-1 has been seen less and less on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War - mainly near Leningrad. However, the KV-1 served as the basis for the creation of a number of Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns. Thus, on the basis of the KV, the SU-152 was created, armed with 152 howitzer guns. To this day, only a few KV-1 units have survived in Russia, which have become museum exhibits.
KV-1 - Soviet heavy tank from the Great Patriotic War. Usually called simply “KV”: the tank was created under this name, and only later, after the appearance of the KV-2 tank, the KV of the first model was retrospectively given a digital index. Produced from August 1939 to August 1942. He took part in the war with Finland and the Great Patriotic War. The abbreviation KV stands for Kliment Voroshilov.
Tank KV-1 - video
The need to create a heavy tank carrying projectile-proof armor was well understood in the USSR. According to Russian military theory, such tanks were necessary to break into the enemy’s front and organize a breakthrough or overcome fortified areas. Most armies of the developed countries of the world had their own theories and practices of overcoming powerful fortified enemy positions; experience in this was acquired during the First World War. Such modern fortified lines as, for example, the Maginot Line or the Siegfried Line were considered even theoretically insurmountable. There was a misconception that the tank was created during the Finnish campaign to break through Finnish long-term fortifications (the Mannerheim Line). In fact, the tank began to be designed at the end of 1938, when it finally became clear that the concept of a multi-turreted heavy tank like the T-35 was a dead end. It was obvious that having a large number of towers was not an advantage. And the gigantic dimensions of the tank only make it heavier and do not allow the use of thick enough armor. The initiator of the creation of the tank was the head of the ABTU of the Red Army, corps commander D. G. Pavlov.
At the beginning of V.O.V, not a single German anti-tank gun and not a single German tank could knock out the KV-1,The KV-1 could only be destroyed with the help of 105 mm howitzers and 88 mm anti-aircraft guns.
At the end of the 1930s, attempts were made to develop a tank of reduced size (compared to the T-35), but with thicker armor. However, the designers did not dare to abandon the use of several towers: it was believed that one gun would fight infantry and suppress firing points, and the second must be anti-tank - to combat armored vehicles. The new tanks created within the framework of this concept (SMK and T-100) had two turrets, armed with 76 mm and 45 mm guns. And only as an experiment, they also developed a smaller version of the QMS - with one tower. Due to this, the length of the vehicle was reduced (by two road wheels), which had a positive effect on the dynamic characteristics. Unlike its predecessor, the KV (as the experimental tank was called) received a diesel engine. The first copy of the tank was manufactured at the Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ) in August 1939. Initially, the leading designer of the tank was A. S. Ermolaev, then N. L. Dukhov.
On November 30, 1939, the Soviet-Finnish War began. The military did not miss the opportunity to test new heavy tanks. The day before the start of the war (November 29, 1939), the SMK, T-100 and KV went to the front. They were transferred to the 20th Heavy Tank Brigade, equipped with T-28 medium tanks.
KV crew in the first battle:
- Lieutenant Kachekhin (commander)
— I. Golovachev military technician 2nd rank (driver)
- Lieutenant Polyakov (gunner)
— K. Kovsh (driver mechanic, tester at the Kirov plant)
— A. I. Estratov (motor operator/loader, tester at the Kirov plant)
— P. I. Vasiliev (transmission operator/radio operator, tester at the Kirov plant)
The tank successfully passed combat tests: not a single enemy anti-tank gun could hit it. The only thing that upset the military was that the 76-mm L-11 gun was not strong enough to fight the bunkers. For this purpose, it was necessary to create a new KV-2 tank, armed with a 152 mm howitzer.
According to the proposal of the GABTU, by a joint resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated December 19, 1939 (the very day after the tests), the KV tank was adopted for service. As for the SMK and T-100 tanks, they also showed themselves in a rather favorable light (however, the SMK was blown up by a mine at the beginning of hostilities), but were not accepted for service, since with higher firepower they carried less thick armor , had larger sizes and weight, as well as worse dynamic characteristics.
Production
Serial production of KV tanks began in February 1940 at the Kirov plant. In accordance with the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated June 19, 1940, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (ChTZ) was also ordered to begin production of HF. On December 31, 1940, the first KV was assembled at ChTZ. At the same time, the plant began construction of a special building for the assembly of HF.
For 1941, it was planned to produce 1,200 KV tanks of all modifications. Of these, 1000 pieces are at the Kirov plant. (400 KV-1, 100 KV-2, 500 KV-3) and another 200 KV-1 at ChTZ. However, only a few tanks were assembled at ChTZ before the start of the war. A total of 139 KV-1 and 104 KV-2 were built in 1940, and 393 (including 100 KV-2) in the first half of 1941.
After the start of the war and the mobilization of industry, the production of tanks at the Kirov plant increased significantly. The production of KV tanks was given priority, so the Leningrad Izhora and Metal plants, as well as other plants, joined the production of many components and assemblies for heavy tanks. In addition, in October, the military accepted three experimental KVs: 1 T-150 and 2 T-220.
However, starting from July 1941, the evacuation of the LKZ to Chelyabinsk began. The plant is located on the territory of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. On October 6, 1941, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant was renamed the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant of the People's Commissariat of Tank Industry. This plant, which received the unofficial name "Tankograd", became the main manufacturer of heavy tanks and self-propelled guns during the Great Patriotic War.
Despite the difficulties associated with the evacuation and deployment of the plant in a new location, in the second half of 1941 the front received 933 KV tanks; in 1942, 2,553 of them were built (including the KV-1s and KV-8). In August 1942, the KV-1 was discontinued and replaced by a modernized version, the KV-1s. Some of the reasons for the modernization were the heavy weight of the tank and the unreliability of its transmission. In total, 1 experimental (U-0) and 3162 production tanks KV-1, 204 KV-2 and 102 KV-8, as well as 1 T-150 and 2 T-220 were produced. Total 3472 KV tanks.
Besides, in besieged Leningrad at plant No. 371 from November 1941 to 1943, at least 67 more KV-1s (No. S-001 - S-067), armed with both F-32 and ZIS guns, were assembled from unused reserves of hulls and turrets and units supplied from ChKZ -5. Since these vehicles were only supplied for the needs of the Leningrad Front, cut off from the “Mainland”, they were not included in the GABTU reports. The total production of KV tanks, therefore, today can be estimated at 3539 tanks.
Design
For 1940, the production KV-1 was a truly innovative design that embodied the most advanced ideas of the time: an individual torsion bar suspension, reliable ballistic armor, a diesel engine and one powerful universal weapon within the framework of a classic layout. Although individual solutions from this set have been repeatedly implemented previously in other foreign and domestic tanks The KV-1 was the first combat vehicle to embody their combination. Some experts consider it as a landmark vehicle in world tank construction, which had a significant influence on the development of subsequent heavy tanks in other countries. The classic layout on a serial Soviet heavy tank was used for the first time, which allowed the KV-1 to receive the highest level of security and great modernization potential within the framework of this concept compared to the previous production model of the T-35 heavy tank and the experimental SMK and T-100 vehicles (all - multi-tower type). The basis of the classic layout is the division of the armored hull from bow to stern, successively into a control compartment, a fighting compartment and an engine-transmission compartment. The driver and gunner-radio operator were located in the control compartment, three other crew members had jobs in the fighting compartment, which combined the middle part of the armored hull and the turret. The gun, its ammunition and part of the fuel tanks were also located there. The engine and transmission were installed at the rear of the vehicle.
Armored hull and turret
The armored body of the tank was welded from rolled armor plates with a thickness of 75, 40, 30 and 20 mm. The armor protection is equally strong (armor plates with a thickness other than 75 mm were used only for horizontal armoring of the vehicle), and is projectile-resistant. The armor plates of the frontal part of the vehicle were installed at rational angles of inclination. The serial HF turret was produced in three versions: cast, welded with a rectangular niche, and welded with a rounded niche. The thickness of the armor for welded turrets was 75 mm, for cast ones - 95 mm, since cast armor was less durable. In the second half of 1941, the welded turrets and side armor plates of some tanks were further strengthened - 25-mm armor screens were bolted onto them, and an air gap remained between the main armor and the screen, that is, this version of the KV-1 actually received spaced armor. This was done to enhance protection against German 88 mm anti-aircraft guns. The Germans began to develop heavy tanks only in 1941 (the heavy tank was not used in the German blitzkrieg theory), so for 1941 even the standard armor of the KV-1 was, in principle, redundant (the KV armor was not affected by the standard 37-mm and 50-mm anti-tank guns of the Wehrmacht , however, could be penetrated by 88 mm, 105 mm and 150 mm guns). Some sources erroneously indicate that the tanks were produced with rolled armor with a thickness of 100 mm or more - in fact, this figure corresponds to the sum of the thickness of the main armor of the tank and the screens.
The decision to install “screens” was made at the end of June 1941, after the first reports of fire losses German anti-aircraft guns, however, already in August this program was curtailed, since the chassis could not withstand the weight of the vehicle, which had increased to 50 tons. This problem was later partially overcome by installing reinforced cast road wheels. Shielded tanks were used on the North-Western and Leningrad fronts.
The front part of the turret with the embrasure for the gun, formed by the intersection of four spheres, was cast separately and welded with the rest of the armored parts of the turret. The gun mantlet was a cylindrical segment of bent rolled armor plate and had three holes - for a cannon, a coaxial machine gun and a sight. The turret was mounted on a shoulder strap with a diameter of 1535 mm in an armored roof fighting compartment and was fixed with grips to avoid stalling in the event of a strong roll or overturning of the tank. Inside, the turret shoulder straps were marked in thousandths for firing from closed positions.
The driver was located in the center in front of the armored hull of the tank, to the left of him was workplace gunner-radio operator. Three crew members were located in the turret: to the left of the gun were the workstations of the gunner and loader, and to the right was the tank commander. The crew entered and exited through two round hatches: one in the turret above the commander’s workplace and one on the roof of the hull above the gunner-radio operator’s workplace. The hull also had a bottom hatch for emergency escape by the crew of the tank and a number of hatches, hatches and technological openings for loading ammunition, access to the necks of fuel tanks, and other components and assemblies of the vehicle.
Shot down near the Venev prison soviet tank KV-1. The tank belonged to the 32nd Tank Brigade and was destroyed on November 27, 1941 during the battle for the city. At least 20 hits of various calibers are visible on the right side of the turret, and the gun barrel is also shot through. The barrel was specially pierced by tanker German Bix, apparently from the 37-mm cannon of the Pz III tank, due to the fact that there was no other way to stop the tank. The fate of the tank crew is unknown.
Armament
The first production tanks were equipped with a 76.2 mm L-11 cannon with 111 rounds of ammunition (according to other sources - 135 or 116). It is interesting that the original project also included a coaxial 45-mm 20K cannon, although the armor penetration of the 76-mm L-11 tank gun was practically not inferior to the 20K anti-tank gun. Apparently, strong stereotypes about the need to have a 45-mm anti-tank gun along with a 76-mm were explained by its higher rate of fire and larger ammunition load. But already on the prototype, aimed at the Karelian Isthmus, the 45-mm cannon was removed and a DT-29 machine gun was installed instead. Subsequently, the L-11 gun was replaced by a 76-mm F-32 gun with similar ballistics, and in the fall of 1941 - by a ZIS-5 gun with a longer barrel length of 41.6 calibers.
The ZIS-5 gun was mounted on axles in the turret and was completely balanced. The turret itself with the ZIS-5 gun was also balanced: its center of mass was located on the geometric axis of rotation. The ZIS-5 gun had vertical aiming angles from −5 to +25°; with a fixed turret position, it could be aimed in a small sector of horizontal aiming (the so-called “jewelry” aiming). The shot was fired using a manual mechanical trigger.
The gun's ammunition capacity was 111 rounds of unitary loading. The shots were placed in the turret and along both sides of the fighting compartment.
The KV-1 tank was equipped with three 7.62-mm DT-29 machine guns: coaxial with a gun, as well as a forward and aft one in ball mounts. The ammunition load for all diesel engines was 2772 rounds. These machine guns were mounted in such a way that, if necessary, they could be removed from the mounts and used outside the tank. Also, for self-defense, the crew had several hand grenades F-1 and was sometimes equipped with a pistol for firing signal flares. Every fifth KV was equipped with an anti-aircraft turret for DT, but in practice anti-aircraft machine guns were rarely installed.
Attack of Soviet KV-1 tanks of the Stalingrad Front with infantry support
Engine
The KV-1 was equipped with a four-stroke V-shaped 12-cylinder diesel engine V-2K with a power of 500 hp. With. (382 kW) at 1800 rpm, subsequently, due to the general increase in the mass of the tank after installing heavier cast turrets, screens and canceling the planing of armor plate edges, the engine power was increased to 600 hp. With. (441 kW). Starting the engine was ensured by an ST-700 starter with a power of 15 hp. With. (11 kW) or compressed air from two 5-liter tanks in the fighting compartment of the vehicle. The KV-1 had a dense layout, in which the main fuel tanks with a volume of 600-615 liters were located in both the combat and engine compartments. In the second half of 1941, due to a shortage of V-2K diesel engines, which were then produced only at plant No. 75 in Kharkov (in the fall of that year, the process of evacuating the plant to the Urals began), KV-1 tanks were produced with four-stroke V-shaped 12- M-17T cylinder carburetor engines with a power of 500 hp. With. In the spring of 1942, a decree was issued to convert all KV-1 tanks in service with M-17T engines back to V-2K diesel engines - the evacuated plant No. 75 established their production in sufficient quantities at the new location.
Transmission
The KV-1 tank was equipped with a mechanical transmission, which included:
— multi-disc main clutch of dry friction “steel on ferodo”;
— five-speed tractor-type gearbox;
— two multi-disc onboard clutches with “steel on steel” friction;
— two onboard planetary gearboxes;
— band floating brakes.
All transmission control drives are mechanical. When used by the troops, the greatest number of complaints and complaints to the manufacturer were caused by defects and extremely unreliable operation of the transmission group, especially in overloaded wartime KV tanks. Almost all authoritative printed sources recognize that one of the most significant shortcomings of the KV series tanks and vehicles based on it is the low reliability of the transmission as a whole.
A unit of Soviet machine gunners before the battle. Behind the line of soldiers are two Soviet heavy tanks KV-1, project 1942, late production series. Author's title of the photo: “Penal Battalion.”
Chassis
The vehicle's suspension is individual torsion bar with internal shock absorption for each of the 6 stamped gable support rollers of small diameter on each side. Opposite each road wheel, travel limiters of the suspension balancers were welded to the armored body. The drive wheels with removable pinion gears were located at the rear, and the sloth wheels were located at the front. The upper branch of the caterpillar was supported by three small rubberized stamped support rollers on each side. In 1941, the technology for manufacturing support and support rollers was transferred to casting; the latter lost rubber tires due to the general shortage of rubber at that time. The caterpillar tension mechanism is screw; each caterpillar consisted of 86-90 single-ridge tracks with a width of 700 mm and a pitch of 160 mm.
Electrical equipment
The electrical wiring in the KV-1 tank was single-wire, the second wire being the armored hull of the vehicle. The exception was the emergency lighting circuit, which was two-wire. The sources of electricity (operating voltage 24 V) were a GT-4563A generator with a RPA-24 relay-regulator with a power of 1 kW and four series-connected 6-STE-128 batteries with a total capacity of 256 Ah. Electricity consumers included:
— electric motor for turning the tower;
— external and internal lighting of the vehicle, illumination devices for sights and scales of measuring instruments;
— external sound signal and alarm circuit from the landing force to the vehicle crew;
— instrumentation (ammeter and voltmeter);
— means of communication - radio station and tank intercom;
- electrician of the motor group - starter ST-700, starting relay RS-371 or RS-400, etc.
Soviet tank KV-1 moves in the forest
Surveillance equipment and sights
The general visibility of the KV-1 tank back in 1940 was assessed in a memo to L. Mehlis from military engineer Kalivoda as extremely unsatisfactory. The commander of the vehicle had a viewing device in the turret - a PTK panorama, which had a 2.5-fold magnification and a field of view of 26 degrees, an onboard periscope and a viewing slit.
In combat, the driver conducted observation through a viewing device with a triplex, which was protected by an armored flap. This viewing device was installed in an armored hatch on the front armor plate along the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, as well as a periscope. In a quiet environment, this plug hatch could be pulled forward, providing the driver with a more convenient direct view from his workplace.
For firing, the KV-1 was equipped with two gun sights - the telescopic TOD-6 for direct fire and the periscopic PT-6 for firing from closed positions. The head of the periscope sight was protected by a special armored cap. To ensure the possibility of fire in the dark, the sight scales had illumination devices. The forward and stern DT machine guns could be equipped with a PU sight from a sniper rifle with a threefold magnification.
Means of communication
Communications included the radio station 71-TK-3, later 10R or 10RK-26. Due to shortages, a number of tanks were equipped with 9P aviation radios. The KV-1 tank was equipped with an internal intercom TPU-4-Bis for 4 subscribers. Radio stations 10Р or 10РК were a set of a transmitter, receiver and umformers (single-armature motor-generators) for their power supply, connected to an on-board 24 V power supply.
10P was a simplex tube shortwave radio station operating in the frequency range from 3.75 to 6 MHz (wavelengths from 80 to 50 m, respectively). When parked, the communication range in telephone (voice) mode reached 20-25 km, while on the move it decreased somewhat. A greater communication range could be obtained in telegraph mode, when information was transmitted by a telegraph key using Morse code or another discrete coding system. Frequency stabilization was carried out by a removable quartz resonator; there was no smooth frequency adjustment. 10P allowed communication on two fixed frequencies; to change them, another quartz resonator of 15 pairs included in the radio set was used.
The 10RK radio station was a technological improvement of the previous 10P model; it became simpler and cheaper to manufacture. This model now has the ability to smoothly select the operating frequency; the number of quartz resonators has been reduced to 16. The communication range characteristics have not undergone significant changes.
The TPU-4-Bis tank intercom made it possible to negotiate between members of the tank crew even in a very noisy environment and connect a headset (headphones and laryngophones) to a radio station for external communication.
Modifications of the KV tank
The KV became the founder of a whole series of heavy tanks. The first “descendant” of the KV was the KV-2 tank, armed with a 152-mm M-10 howitzer mounted in a high turret. The KV-2 tanks were intended to be heavy self-propelled guns, as they were intended to fight bunkers, but the battles of 1941 showed that they were an excellent means of fighting German tanks - their frontal armor was not pierced by shells from any German tank, but by the KV-2 shell , as soon as it hit any German tank, it was almost guaranteed to destroy it. The KV-2 could only fire from a standing position. They began to be produced in 1940, and soon after the start of the Great Patriotic War their production was curtailed.
In 1940, it was planned to put other KV series tanks into production. As an experiment, by the end of the year they produced one KV (T-150) with 90 mm armor (with a 76 mm F-32 cannon) and two more (T-220) with 100 mm armor (one with a 76 mm F-32 cannon , the other with an 85-mm F-30 cannon). But things did not go further than the production of prototypes. In October 1941, all of them were equipped with standard KV-1 turrets with an F-32 cannon and departed for the front.
In September 1941, 4 KV-1 tanks (including one after repair) were equipped with a flamethrower. It was placed in the frontal part of the hull in a small annex instead of a front-facing machine gun. The rest of the weapons remained unchanged. In April 1942, the KV-8 flamethrower tank was created on the basis of the KV. The hull remained unchanged; a flamethrower (ATO-41 or ATO-42) was installed in the turret. Instead of a 76-mm cannon, it was necessary to install a 45-mm cannon mod. 1934 with a camouflage casing that reproduces the external contours of a 76-mm cannon (the 76-mm cannon and flamethrower did not fit in the turret).
In August 1942, it was decided to begin production of the KV-1s (“s” means “high-speed”). The leading designer of the new tank is N. F. Shamshurin. The tank was made lighter, including by thinning the armor (for example, the sides and rear of the hull were thinned to 60 mm, the front of the cast turret was thinned to 82 mm). It still remained impenetrable to German guns. But on the other hand, the mass of the tank decreased to 42.5 tons, and the speed and cross-country ability increased significantly.
In 1941-1942, a missile modification of the tank was developed - the KV-1K, equipped with the KARST-1 system (short tank artillery missile system).
The KV series also includes the KV-85 tank and the SU-152 (KV-14) self-propelled gun, however, they were created on the basis of the KV-1s and therefore are not considered here.
German sappers are building a bridge over a failed Soviet KV-1 tank. Vehicle manufactured in May 1941 from the 27th Tank Regiment of the 14th Tank Division of the 7th Mechanized Corps of the Western Front. Initially, this tank in May 1941 he was sent to the Kharkov Armored School, and with the outbreak of war, as part of the tank battalion of the Kharkov BTU, he arrived in the 14th Tank Division. According to the “Report on the movement of the material part of the 27th TP of the 14th TD” on July 15, 1941, “ KV-M tank the first tank battalion, en route from repairs to the Vitebsk area along the Vitebsk highway, failed with the bridge.”
Combat use experience
Apart from the essentially experimental use of the KV in the Finnish campaign, the tank went into battle for the first time after the German attack on the USSR. The very first meetings German tank crews with KV they were put into a state of shock. The tank was practically not penetrated by German tank guns (for example, a German sub-caliber projectile from a 50-mm tank gun penetrated the vertical side of the KV from a distance of 300 m, and the inclined forehead only from a distance of 40 m). Anti-tank artillery was also ineffective: for example, an armor-piercing 50-mm anti-tank shell Pak guns 38 made it possible to hit KVs in favorable conditions at a distance of only less than 500 m. Fire from 105 mm howitzers and 88 mm anti-aircraft guns was more effective.
However, the tank was “raw”: the novelty of the design and the haste of introduction into production affected it. The transmission, which could not withstand the loads of a heavy tank, caused a lot of trouble - it often broke down. And if in open battle the KV really had no equal, then in conditions of retreat many KVs, even with minor damage, had to be abandoned or destroyed. There was no way to repair or evacuate them.
Several KVs - abandoned or damaged - were recovered by the Germans. However, captured HFs were used for a short time - the lack of spare parts affected them and the same frequent breakdowns occurred.
The HF caused conflicting assessments by the military. On the one hand - invulnerability, on the other - insufficient reliability. And with cross-country ability, not everything is so simple: the tank had difficulty negotiating steep slopes, and many bridges could not support it. In addition, it destroyed any road - wheeled vehicles could no longer move behind it, which is why the KV was always placed at the end of the column. On the other hand, the tank performed excellently on the battlefield, when organizing tank ambushes and counterattacks of German mechanized columns.
In general, according to some contemporaries, the KV did not have any special advantages over the T-34. The tanks were equal in firepower, both were slightly vulnerable to anti-tank artillery. At the same time, the T-34 had better dynamic characteristics, was cheaper and easier to produce, which is important in wartime.
In order to eliminate numerous complaints, the tank was modernized in the summer of 1942. By reducing the thickness of the armor, the weight of the vehicle was reduced. Various major and minor deficiencies were eliminated, including “blindness” (a commander’s cupola was installed). The new version was named KV-1s.
The creation of the KV-1s was a justified step in the difficult first stage of the war. However, this step only brought the KV closer to medium tanks. The army never received a full-fledged (by later standards) heavy tank, which would differ sharply from the average in terms of combat power. Such a step could be arming the tank with an 85 mm cannon. But things did not go further than experiments, since conventional 76-mm tank guns in 1941-1942 easily fought any German armored vehicles, and there was no reason to strengthen the weapons.
However, after the appearance of the Pz. in the German army. VI (“Tiger”) with an 88-mm cannon, all KVs became obsolete overnight: they were unable to fight German heavy tanks on equal terms. So, for example, on February 12, 1943, during one of the battles to break the blockade of Leningrad, three Tigers of the 1st company of the 502nd heavy tank battalion destroyed 10 KV. At the same time, the Germans had no losses - they could shoot the KV from a safe distance. The situation in the summer of 1941 was repeated exactly the opposite.
KVs of all modifications were used until the very end of the war. But they were gradually replaced by more advanced heavy IS tanks. Ironically, the last operation in which HFs were used in large numbers was the breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line in 1944. The commander of the Karelian Front, K. A. Meretskov, personally insisted that his front receive the KV (Meretskov commanded the army in the Winter War and then literally fell in love with this tank). The surviving KVs were collected literally one at a time and sent to Karelia - where the career of this machine once began.
By that time, a small number of KVs were still used as tanks. Basically, after the turret was dismantled, they served as recovery vehicles in units equipped with the new heavy IS tanks.
At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the KV-1 heavy tank was the most powerful and most advanced design vehicle in the world. Strong weapons and thick armor helped it emerge victorious in clashes with German tanks, for which the meeting with the KV-1 was an unpleasant surprise.
It is difficult to overestimate the contribution that our heavy tanks made to the victory, taking on the enemy’s blow in the most difficult year for our country, the first year of the war. The design of the “kavashka” served as the basis for the design and creation of IS tanks, which, taking over the baton from the KV-1, triumphantly entered Berlin.
STRUCTURE OF THE KV-1 TANK
STRUCTURE OF THE KV-1 TANK
The body of the KV-1 tank was divided into four sections: control, combat, engine and transmission. In the center of the fighting compartment, located in the front part, was the driver, and to his left was the gunner-radio operator (radio telegraph operator). In the frontal plate of the hull, in front of the driver, there was a plug hatch, closed by an armored cover with an inspection slot and a “Triplex” device. To the right of the driver in the roof of the hull there was a mirror viewing device. Behind the driver's seat, in the bottom of the hull, there was an emergency hatch for the crew to exit.
In front of the gunner-radio operator's position in the front plate of the hull there was a hole for firing from a DT machine gun, closed by an armored plug. The machine gun did not have a special installation when firing, as a result of which firing from it was ineffective. From the second half of October 1940 (starting with tank No. 3706), the hole was replaced with a DT ball mount. A total of 102 KV-1s (including the first U-0 vehicle) were produced without permanently installing diesel fuel in the front plate.
Above the gunner-radio operator's position there was a hatch for crew embarkation and disembarkation, closed by a lid with a handle and three locking bars. A radio station was installed along the left side of the control compartment, a fuel tank and part of the ammunition stowage along the right side, and batteries behind the driver's seat. Also in the control compartment were cylinders with compressed air for emergency engine starting, a control panel, tank control levers and pedals, and a fuel tap.
The fighting compartment was located in the center of the hull. Above it, on a ball chase, was mounted a turret with weapons - a twin installation of a 76-mm cannon and a DT machine gun, and another DT in the rear plate of the turret. In the fighting compartment to the left of the gun there was a gunner (turret commander), to the right was the tank commander, and behind him was the loader (junior driver). The seats were attached with special brackets to the grips of the turret shoulder strap and rotated with it. In the roof of the turret, in the middle part, there was a hatch for landing the crew, on which was mounted a turret for installing a DT anti-aircraft machine gun. In front of the hatch there are armored sight caps, on the sides and in the rear part of the roof there are armored visors for mirror viewing devices, and in the front part of the roof there is an armored fan cap. On the right and left sides of the turret there were viewing slots with Triplex devices and openings for firing from personal weapons, closed with armor plugs.
The turret housed a switchboard, a TPU device, and part of the artillery rounds and machine-gun disks. Oil and fuel tanks were located along the sides of the fighting compartment hull, and a rotating contact device and part of the ammunition were located on the bottom.
Behind the fighting compartment was the engine compartment. In it, a sub-engine frame was attached to the bottom of the tank, on which the engine was mounted; to the right and left of it along the sides of the hull were water radiators of the cooling system. The oil cooler and air filter were also located here.
The engine compartment was separated from the combat compartment by a special partition with two opening flaps for access to the engine from the fighting compartment; the upper flap had windows for observing the engine. In the upper part of the partition there were blinds for ventilation of the fighting compartment, and along the sides there were doors for dismantling fuel and oil tanks.
The transmission compartment was located in the rear part of the hull, and was separated from the engine by a partition to which the fan casing was attached. The partition had two doors with latches. A frame was welded to the bottom of the transmission compartment, on which the gearbox was mounted. The final drive housings were attached along the sides.
The tank hull was assembled from armor plates with a thickness of 75, 40 and 30 mm. The sheets were connected to each other by welding, and in some places they were reinforced by installing goujons and squares.
In the upper frontal sheet of the hull there were cutouts for the driver's hatch-plug, and in the upper front sheet - for the armor cup of the antenna input. On the lower frontal sheet, two towing eyes were attached using goujons, followed by welding. The junction of the lower frontal and upper front sheets was reinforced from the outside with an armored square mounted on goujons. At first there were 34 of them (17 at the top and 17 at the bottom; at the end of August 1940 their number was reduced to 22 (11 at the top and 11 at the bottom), and from mid-July 1941 - to 16 (8 at the top and 8 at the bottom). Subsequently, in the fall of 1941 years, the number of goujons was reduced to six, and they were installed only at the bottom - they were abolished at the top.
The side of the hull was made of one 75-mm armor plate, in which holes were cut for the axles of the suspension balancers, the axle of the guide wheel and the installation of the final drive.
The stern was assembled from two bent 75-mm armor plates, between which there was a pocket for releasing cooling air from the engine, covered with a mesh. Two towing eyes were attached to the lower part of the stern sheet.
The roof of the hull was made of armor 40 mm thick. Above the control and combat compartments, it was welded to the side and front plates of the hull. In its front part, holes were cut for the gunner-radio operator's hatch and a mirror viewing device, in the middle there was a cutout for installing the lower shoulder strap of the turret, and behind it there were holes for the necks of the fuel tanks.
The roof of the engine compartment was removable and installed with bolts. It had a hole for the hatch above the engine, closed by an armored cover with a semicircular stamping, behind it there were two holes for exhaust pipes, and along the sides there were two holes for the entrance of cooling air, covered with meshes. On the KV installation batch, these meshes were protected on top by armored casings, but starting with the U-11 tank, the casings were abandoned, which made it possible to increase the angle of descent of the L-11 gun by 2 degrees when firing aft.
The roof over the transmission compartment was also bolted and removable. It had two round hatches for access to the transmission, closed with covers. The design of the latter was the same as that of the radio operator's hatch and on the turret.
During production in 1940–1942, the hull design did not undergo any major changes. Mainly improvements were made to simplify its production.
So, at the end of the summer - beginning of the fall of 1940, they abandoned the planing of the upper bent stern plate of the hull: before that, its upper part was “cut off”. In July 1941, instead of stamping, the driver's hatch began to be made from a flat sheet and mounted almost flush with the roof. This was due to the fact that during shelling, the stamped hatch often jammed. In addition, at the end of July - beginning of August 1941, the shape of the engine compartment cover changed - instead of convex, it became flat - this was due to the abolition of stamping and simplification of the design.
Changes and screening concerned. At first, in Chelyabinsk it was produced in the same way as in Leningrad: additional 30 mm armor was installed on the upper and lower frontal plates, V-shaped strips were welded on the roof in front of the turret, and two small rectangular armor plates were welded on the sides to protect the shoulder straps. Around the end of November 1941, on some vehicles the height of the screen on the upper front plate was increased - this was done to protect the turret ring. With this taller screen, there were no V-shaped roof bars.
At the end of 1941, another change was introduced to the hull design - the upper stern plate, which had previously been made bent, began to be made of two parts welded together. This measure was taken due to a shortage of bending equipment. However, it should be said that both versions were produced until the end of production.
Initially, the turret of the KV-1 tank was made of rolled armor 75 mm thick. The tanks of the pilot batch were equipped with so-called round stamped turrets, assembled from several stamped parts using goujons and welding. They were quite complex and labor-intensive, so already on July 1, 1941, a turret of a simplified design, called faceted in documents, went into production. Without significant changes in appearance, it was in production for more than a year. As for the round turrets, 14 tanks of the pilot batch received them (U-0, U-5, U-6, U-7, U-8, U-9, U-10, U-11, U-12, U -13, U-14, U-15, U-16, U-17). Starting with the U-18, a faceted turret went into production.
But there was one exception. During testing of the first sample of a large lowered turret for the KV-2 in October 1940, it was installed on a U-7 vehicle. At the same time, the U-7 round turret (with the L-11 cannon) was mounted on one of the production tanks produced in October, which already had a ball machine gun mount in the front hull. While it has not been possible to establish the number of this vehicle, all that is known is that it was sent to the Kiev Special Military District. Subsequently, a faceted turret with an L-11 was installed on the U-7.
At the beginning of February 1941, the armor of the machine gun mount in the rear plate of the turret was changed - now it was the same as in the front plate of the hull. In mid-March 1941, the armor protection of the observation devices on the turret roof was changed. Starting with tank No. M-4551, they began to be installed with bolts - due to welding, cracks often appeared in the roof armor.
At the same time, the bracket for the cable of the engine compartment cover was moved (to hold it in the raised position). Now the bracket was located in front of the armor of the on-board viewing device on the roof.
In May 1941, in connection with the upcoming introduction of shielding, the turret assembly technology was changed. Before this, the front and rear sheets were connected to the side sheets “in a lock”, followed by welding. With this technology, the weld was located at the edge of the joint of the sheets. By new technology The front and rear sheets were attached to the side sheets at the joint, using goujons (6 at the front and 5 at the rear) and welding. The weld seam was located on the sides, at a distance of 75 mm (thickness of the front and rear sheets) from the edge.
In the second half of July 1941, instead of shielding, a turret made of 90 mm armor went into production. Externally, it can be distinguished from the 75 mm by the on-board viewing devices: there was a cutout in the armor in front of them and a bullet choke strip was welded on.
In August 1941, Plant No. 371 began producing simplified turrets also made of 90 mm armor. To install viewing devices, they also had a cutout in the armor and a bullet choke.
The KV-1s produced in Chelyabinsk from the fall of 1941 were equipped with faceted welded turrets, structurally similar to the turrets produced by the Izhora plant in May - June 1941. Later, the turret was remade according to the type of simplified turret of plant No. 371. And starting from October 1941, KV-1 tanks began to be equipped with cast turrets, and their share compared to welded ones was constantly increasing. It should be noted interesting design feature parts of turrets manufactured by factories No. 200 and Uralmash: there was a rather massive armor ring around the machine gun mount in the rear. This element appeared no earlier than mid-September, but did not last long.
Initially, the armament of the KV-1 tank consisted of a 76.2 mm L-11 cannon, coaxial with a 7.62 mm DT machine gun, another DT in a ball mount in the turret niche, and two spare machine guns. One of them could be used for firing by the radio operator through a hole in the front hull, and by the loader from the anti-aircraft turret on the turret hatch.
The L-11 gun had a barrel length of 30.5 calibers, a vertical wedge semi-automatic bolt and a recoil device, in which the liquid in the compressor communicated with the air of the reel through a special valve (this solution was the “calling card” of most artillery systems developed at the Kirov Plant design bureau under leadership of I. Makhanov).
For firing from the L-11 cannon, shots with an armor-piercing tracer projectile BR-350 with an MD-5 fuse, a high-explosive long-range steel grenade with a KTM-1 fuse, high-explosive long-range grenades (steel OF-350 and steel cast iron ShchF-350A ) with a KTM-1 fuse, a high-explosive grenade of the so-called “old Russian model” F-354 (issued during the First World War) with KT-3, KTM-3 and ZGT fuses, as well as Sh-354 bullet shrapnel with a 22-second tube T-6. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 612 m/s, armor penetration was 52 mm of homogeneous armor mounted vertically at a range of 1000 m.
The twin installation of the L-11 cannon and the DT machine gun had vertical guidance angles from -7 to +25 degrees. Firing from the twin installation was carried out using two sights - periscope and telescopic: the installation batch vehicles were equipped with PT-3 and TOD-3, respectively, which were later replaced by PT-6 and TOD-6.
The weapon was aimed horizontally using a turret rotation mechanism, the rotation of which was driven by an electric motor. There was also a backup manual drive. The maximum rotation speed of the tower was 12 degrees per second. To fire a shot from a cannon, there were foot and manual trigger mechanisms.
In 1940, there were two options for armoring the L-11 gun mantlet. On the early one there was no bar under the gun barrel, there was a groove for the middle fastening bolt (on the right side along the direction) and a bolt on top. It was not possible to establish exactly until what period such masks were installed. With a high degree of probability we can say that they were canceled no later than the end of September 1940. On a later version of the L-11 mask there was a jumper bar under the barrel, but there was no groove along with the middle bolt and the bolt on top. In the second half of October 1940 (from tank No. 3706), a ball mount for a course machine gun appeared in the front hull plate. It provided a horizontal firing angle of up to 30 degrees, and a vertical angle of -5 to +15 degrees. At the same time, the number of spare machine guns was reduced to one. In January 1941, the design of the machine gun mount in the front hull and rear turret was unified. Now it had a horizontal firing angle of 30 degrees, and the same amount vertically.
From the beginning of January 1941, the KV-1 artillery armament was replaced - instead of the L-11 cannon, they began to install a 76.2-mm F-32 gun designed by plant No. 92 in Gorky. The new artillery system had a barrel length of 31.5 calibers and a wedge breech with semi-automatic copy type. To fire the cannon and the coaxial DT machine gun, the PT-6 periscope sight and the TOD-6 telescopic sight were first used, and from March 1941 - the PT-8 and TOD-8. The vertical gun pointing angles ranged from -5 to +25 degrees. The F-32 was fired with the same ammunition as the L-11. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 612 m/s, armor penetration - 52 mm of homogeneous armor installed vertically at a range of 1000 m.
On KV-1 tanks from the pilot batch of vehicles that underwent modernization at the Kirov plant in May - July 1941, the F-32 was mounted instead of the L-11 cannon. Thus, the result was a kind of hybrid: a round turret and a mantlet with an F-32 gun. There were 11 such tanks.
In September 1941, due to the lack of the F-32, the KV-1 tanks produced in Chelyabinsk began to be equipped with the 76.2 mm ZIS-5 gun, developed by the design bureau of plant No. 92 in Gorky. This weapon, developed on the basis of the F-34 artillery system, differed from it in some changes in the cradle and a number of small details. The ZIS-5 had a barrel length of 41.5 caliber and a semi-automatic breech-type bolt. Thanks to the installation of a new hydraulic recoil brake, the length of the latter during firing was 320–370 mm. To fire from a coaxial cannon and machine gun installation, the TMFD-7 telescopic sight and the PT-4-7 periscopic sight were used. Telescopic 9T-7, 10T-7, 10T-13 and periscopic PT4-13 were also used.
At the end of 1941, on parts of the KV-1, a modified viewing device armor was installed in the turret roof above the gunner's position. It was not conical, but rectangular, and judging by the wide viewing window in the front, there was a regular periscope viewing device inside, and not a PT-4-7. This device could have the same design as the viewing devices in the tower roof, and did not have magnification. Most likely, the device with rectangular armor above the gunner’s position did not rotate (unlike the PT-4-7) and allowed observation only forward.
The ZIS-5 gun used the same ammunition as the L-11 and F-32, and could also use shots with armor-piercing tracer shells BR-350A, BR-350B and BR-350 SP, equipped with an MD-5 fuse, as well as introduced in June 1942 with the BP-353A cumulative projectile and BM fuse. The initial speed of the ZIS-5 armor-piercing tracer projectile was 680 m/s, armor penetration at 1000 m was 61 mm.
The transportable ammunition load of tanks with the L-11 cannon was 103 rounds, which were placed as follows: 10 along the sides of the turret niche, 21 in vertical stacking in the control compartment along the front fuel tank, and 72 in special suitcase boxes (three per each), placed on the bottom of the hull in the fighting compartment. At the end of 1941, the ammunition load was increased to 111 pieces due to the introduction of two additional suitcases and the addition of two-shot stowage.
In July 1941, to simplify production and make it easier for the crew to load ammunition, they introduced a “suitcase” for two shots instead of three, and revised their stowage, which made it possible to increase the ammunition load to 135 pieces. However, precise data on whether the ammunition supply was increased so much due to the introduction of new suitcases could not be found. If this was accomplished, it was only on the KV-1 of Leningrad production.
With the introduction of the 76-mm ZIS-5 cannon, the stowage of artillery rounds was also revised: the vertical stowage was canceled, and most of the ammunition (104 pieces) was placed in suitcases on the floor of the fighting compartment (two shots each), and another 10 in the turret niche. As for the ammunition for the DT machine guns, their quantity remained the same all the time: 3024 rounds (48 disks) stored in the turret and control compartment. In addition, the KV-1 tank had a bag for 25 F-1 grenades.
The power plant for the KV-1 tanks was a 12-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine V-2K, the operating power of which was 500 hp. at 1900 rpm, and maximum - 600 hp. at 2000 rpm. It was installed in the engine compartment along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle body. To start the engine, two electric starters SMT-4628 with a power of 6 hp were used. every. In addition, there was an option to start using compressed air, from two 5-liter cylinders located in the control compartment. In the fall of 1941, instead of two starters, they began to install one - ST-700 with a power of 14 hp.
The engine air cleaning system consisted of a centrifugal air cleaner with an oil bath and a wire filter (gimp).
The engine fuel system included a fuel priming pump BNK-5G-6, a coarse filter, a fine filter, a high-pressure pump NK-1, a fuel filter, pipelines, a fuel valve, a pressure gauge, a fuel gauge and three internal fuel tanks with a capacity of 600–615 l . One of them (230–235 liters) was located on the starboard side in the control compartment, followed by another in the fighting compartment (235–240 liters) and the third, also in the fighting compartment on the left side (140 liters). Each tank was equipped with a hydrostatic fuel meter, the shield of which was located to the right of the driver’s seat. Since the fall of 1941, fuel meters have not been installed on the KV-1 due to their lack. Also in the control compartment there was an Alveyer hand pump for pumping fuel from the tanks when starting the engine.
Around August 1941, additional rectangular fuel tanks (three to six) with a capacity of 60 liters each began to be installed on the KV-1 fenders of the Leningrad Kirov Plant. Around the same time, additional cylindrical tanks appeared on the KV-1 tanks of the Chelyabinsk plant - there were five of them each with a capacity of 90 liters. In this case, one of the tanks was used for oil. Additional tanks were removed from the KV-1 at the end of February 1942 on the basis of a GKO decree to lighten the weight of the KV-1 tank. The cruising range on the main tanks was 225 km on highways and 150 km on dirt roads.
The engine lubrication system consisted of a gear pump, an oil filter, two oil radiators with shut-off valves, a pressure gauge, a thermometer, a drain valve, oil lines and an oil tank with a capacity of 60 liters, located on the left side in the fighting compartment immediately behind the fuel tank.
The liquid engine cooling system with a capacity of 55–60 liters included two water radiators, a water pump, a filler tank, engine cylinder jackets, pipelines, a fan and two aerotherm thermometers. The radiators were installed along the sides of the body on special brackets, each of them consisted of two stamped steel manifolds (front and rear) and a package of 41 aluminum cooling tubes. Additional aluminum plates were placed on the tubes to increase the cooling surface. In the fall of 1941, due to a shortage of aluminum, they switched to making radiators from steel tubes. These radiators were designed under the guidance of turbine designer N. Sinev.
Due to the lack of V-2 diesel engines, in the fall of 1941, M-17T carburetor engines were installed on a small number of KV-1 tanks. They were equipped with two K-17T carburetors; an ST-61 electric starter with a power of 3.5 hp was used for starting. In addition, there was a backup compressed air starting system. In connection with the installation of a carburetor engine, its cooling and lubrication system was slightly redesigned.
The transmission of the KV-1 tank consisted of a main clutch, a gearbox, side clutches with brakes and final drives.
The main clutch is a dry, three-disc clutch with steel-on-ferodo friction. It included driving and driven parts, and an activation mechanism. The driving parts consisted of a fan disk, a driving drum, a pressure drum, a support drum and two driving disks. The driven parts included a driven drum and three driven disks. The release mechanism consisted of release levers, a clutch, a fork, a shaft and a release lever.
The gearbox of the KV-1 tank had five gears for moving forward and one in reverse. It consisted of a crankcase cast from an aluminum alloy (silumin), in which all the shafts and gears, drive, main and intermediate shafts, a block of reverse gears and control drives were mounted.
In the fall of 1941, we switched to a simplified heat treatment of gears and the manufacture of gearbox housings from steel. As a result, the reliability of the unit sharply decreased, which led to tank accidents. In the spring of 1942, by introducing additional stiffeners on the crankcase, changing gear materials and more stringent control over manufacturing quality, this problem was solved, but only partially.
The multi-disc onboard dry friction steel-on-steel clutch consisted of driving and driven parts and a shutdown mechanism. The driving parts - the drive shaft, the inner drum, 16 steel, pressure and release disks - were connected to the main shaft of the gearbox. The driven parts were connected to the final drive and consisted of an outer drum and 16 driven disks. To turn off the side clutches, two control levers were used, which were located in the control compartment to the right and left of the driver’s seat.
Belt floating brakes were intended to stop the tank, turn it while moving and hold it on ascents and descents. Each brake consisted of a brake band, a brake lever and brackets. The tape was made of steel and consisted of two parts connected by an overlay. Ferodo linings were riveted onto the inner surface of the belt to increase its friction force against the outer drum of the side clutch.
The final drives were single-stage reduction planetary gearboxes, reducing the speed of the drive wheels compared to the speed of the main shaft of the gearbox. Each final drive consisted of a cast steel housing that housed the drive shaft, two constant-mesh spur gears, and a planetary unit.
The chassis of the KV-1 tank, for one side, consisted of six road wheels and three support rollers, drive and idler wheels and a caterpillar track.
The track rollers had internal shock absorption. They consisted of a steel hub on which discs were secured with keys, between which rubber shock absorbers were sandwiched.
The KV-1 independent torsion bar suspension consisted of twelve balancers and twelve torsion bar shafts. The balancer pipe rotated in two bronze bushings mounted in the tank hull brackets. From the end of November 1941, bronze bushings were replaced by cast iron ones. The maximum twist angle of the torsion bar was 26 degrees; they provided an average dynamic roller stroke of 162 mm.
On the vehicles of the installation batch, the July batch, and, possibly, some of the tanks produced in August 1940, road wheels with stamped disks were installed, in which there were eight holes that served to ventilate the rubber shock absorbers. In August 1940, the number of holes in the disk was reduced to six. The rollers were produced in this form until June 1941, when they needed to be strengthened due to the shielding of the KV and the increased weight of the vehicle. To reduce the deformation of the roller rim, the outer row of holes was abandoned (there were 12 of them). However, this design has not become widespread - HFs without holes in the disks of the road wheels are not very common.
From mid-July 1941, a support roller went into production, the rim and disk of which were made of cast parts. This was due, first of all, to the unloading of scarce pressing equipment and an increase in the production of tanks. Externally, the roller made of cast parts was distinguished by the presence of 12 ribs on the rim, located between the holes. They served to strengthen the structure and also facilitate the casting process. There was another version of the skating rink with ribs - there were only six of the latter, and they were significantly smaller in size. Most likely, such rollers were manufactured at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant in July-August 1941, but production was stopped quite quickly - there are few photos of KV-1 tanks with such rollers.
From the second half of November 1941, ChKZ switched to the production of solid steel rollers without internal shock absorption. There were several options for rollers - solid and with holes in the disk, with stiffeners of various lengths, etc.
Support rollers on Leningrad KV-1s come in two types: cast, with six stiffeners, and stamped, without ribs. The latter were installed on tanks from March 1941. Moreover, on cast ones there are two types of covers: hexagonal, with rounded corners (approximately on machines produced before October 1940), and round.
As for the cars produced in Chelyabinsk, they were equipped with cast support rollers with stiffening ribs on the disk, and probably did not switch to a stamped disk. From the second half of November 1941, ChKZ switched to producing support rollers without external rubber shock absorption.
The KV-1 drive wheel consisted of a cast hub and two cast rims (16 teeth each), made of special steel. At first, the outer cap of the drive wheel was secured with 16 bolts, and in August 1941, on Leningrad-made vehicles, their number was reduced to 12 (three every other). In Chelyabinsk, until the end of 1941, the drive wheel was made with a cap attached to 16 bolts, and then their number was reduced to eight.
On the KV-1 produced in 1940, the drive wheel cleaner (mud cleaner) was bolted together from two parts, which led to its breakdown when the tank moved on heavy soils. At the beginning of 1941, its design was strengthened, and now it was cast in one piece.
The guide wheel was mounted on two tapered roller bearings on the crank axis of the screw track tension mechanism. Its body was reinforced with stiffening ribs for strength.
The caterpillar track consisted of 87–90 tracks, connected to each other by fingers inserted into the track eyes. The finger was fixed with a washer and a spring ring. The width of the track was 700 mm; initially they were made by stamping from steel 35ХГ2. Starting with the KV-1 vehicle No. U-10, tracks with reinforced, higher jumpers were introduced. In July 1941, on the KV-1 produced by LKZ, the tracks were once again strengthened, in particular, additional ribs appeared on the outside of the recess under the fang. At the end of August 1941, some of the vehicles received a track made of combined tracks with a ridge - without a ridge. Such an event was associated with simplifying the design and manufacturing technology of KV tanks.
In Chelyabinsk, until about the end of 1941, tracks were made with higher crossbars. Then, in order to unload the pressing equipment, a stamped track made of two halves and a small ridge went into production. When installed on tanks, such tracks alternated with conventional ones. Until the end of production, KV-1 tanks were equipped with both types of tracks.
The electrical equipment of the KV-1 was carried out according to a single-wire circuit, the onboard voltage was 24 V. The main source of electricity was the GT-4563A generator with a power of 1 kW, and the auxiliary source was four 6-STE-144 batteries. The main consumers of electricity were the starter, the MB-20 electric motor for the turret rotation mechanism, communications equipment, an electrical signal, and internal and external lighting devices. The main part of the electrical wiring in the tank body was laid in steel tubes, which protected the wires from mechanical damage.
For external communications, the tank was equipped with a short-wave telephone and telegraph radio station 71-TK-Z, which consisted of a receiver and transmitter with an umformer and batteries. Since the autumn of 1941, due to the lack of 71-TK-Z, the KV-1 began to be equipped with a 10-R radio station, consisting of a transmitter, receiver, power supply and a box for spare parts. However, since the fall of 1941, due to a shortage of communications equipment, not all KV-1 radio stations received them.
To communicate with each other, the KV-1 crew members had a TPU-4 tank intercom, and then a TPU-4BIS for four subscribers.
On KV-1 tanks produced in 1940, spare parts were placed in three boxes on the fenders: one on the right and two on the left, while the box lids did not have handles. Since the beginning of the new year, 1941, the placement of drawers has changed: now there was one on the left shelf, and two on the right. In addition, the shape of the sidewalls of the lids has changed slightly, and handles have appeared on the latter. This arrangement and design of the boxes remained until the end of KV-1 production in Leningrad.
On the right shelf there was a cylindrical pencil case, in which there was a banner for cleaning the gun and a spark gap (for removing a projectile when it gets stuck in the barrel) with covers for them, as well as covers for the muzzle and breech of the gun and a can of gun lard. On the right shelf in front, a tarpaulin was laid to cover the tank, which was held in the stowed position by two tarpaulin straps.
The placement of the two-handed saw was changed several times during production. At first it was located on the left fender and was placed in a special wooden case. In March 1941, the saw moved to the inside of the rear drawer lid on the right side. At the same time, there were two ways of fastening it: with special metal clamps and in a wooden case (similar in design to what was previously placed on the left fender). In July 1941, the saw was moved to the left side of the box lid. It was fastened with metal clamps.
Around August 1941, KV-1 tanks produced in Chelyabinsk began to be equipped with only two spare parts boxes (on the right and left fenders). At the same time, the placement of the pencil case for the arrester banner was eliminated.
From the beginning of 1942, the box on the left side was removed, and a little later - on the right side. Instead, one small rectangular spare parts box appeared on the starboard side. In addition, stowage of spare tracks on the fenders was introduced.
A. Left wing box: 1. Bag for the warning lamp. 2. Box with undercarriage tools (solid oil syringe, double-sided wrench S = 32x36, wrench S = 41, special socket wrench S = 22x27, grease gun hose, scraper for cleaning tracks, machine cleaning brush, scissors, syringe for oil and gasoline, hose for lubrication of onboard clutches, screw for removing the cover of the road wheels, semicircular file, round file, special wrench S = 36, wrench S = 22 x 27, double-sided socket wrench S = 14 X 17, wrench S = 46, wrench with a diameter of 12 mm, socket wrench to the torsion shaft cover S = 19). 3. Box of motor spare parts (copper-asbestos gasket - 4, tip assembly, adapter sleeve, pin - 2, spring sleeve, special nut, union nut, clamp - 2, gasket - 4, clamp - 2, hemp fatty packing, durite hose) . 4. A box of electrical and radio spare parts (microphone with cord and plug, Avio type telephone, signal lamp for TPU 6 V - 5, electric lamp 23 V, 10 W, control lamp 24 V, 10 W, indicator lamp 1 V - 5, glass from the rear light of a GAZ car - 2). 5. Keys to fuel tanks and plugs.
B. Place for storing the saw.
B. Case for banner and spark gap: 1. Banner and discharger with extension cord. 2. A 1 kg jar of cannon lard. 3. Cover for the muzzle of the gun. 4. Cover for the breech of the gun. 5. Covers for the bath brush and the discharge head.
D. Rear box of the right wing:
1. Box for transportable spare parts (durite hose, adjusting bolt - 3, nut - 3, bushing - 3, roller with bushing assembly - 2, ring gear bolt - 10, castle nut - 10, spring ring - 3, plug - 2 , stopper - 2, bolt - 6, locking strip - 6, retaining spring ring - 30, track pin washer - 30, insulating tape, asbestos cord with a diameter of 5 mm - 10 meters, sheet klingerite, leather, sandpaper 300x400 - 2, cork hexagonal - 10, plug with collar - 2, fiber gasket 30, leather gasket - 8, Grover washer - 90, adjustable cotter pin - 110, semi-clean nut - 50, semi-clean bolt - 27, countersunk screw - 10). 2. Bag with chemical equipment - 2 pcs. 3. Syringe filling. 4. Engine air filter impeller. 5. Engine air filter cover.
1. Tracks - 4 pcs. 2. Track fingers - 6 pcs. 3. Lower roller nut. 4. Oil seals for lower rollers - 4 pcs. 5. Underlay tarpaulin. 6. Key S = 85 for the track tensioning mechanism. 7. Pipe to key. 8. Axe. 9. Crowbar. 10. Sledgehammer. 11. Box with NZ products. 12. Funnel for fuel and water. 13. Oil funnel. 14. Funnel for pouring oil into the gearbox. 15. Wire with a diameter of 1 mm - 1 kg. 16. Jar of shellac - 200 g. 17. Hose for draining fuel. 18. Oil drain hose. 19. Hose for draining water from the water pump. 20. Punching out the track fingers. 21. Mandrel for cotter pins of track fingers. 22. Cable for tensioning tracks. 23. Bag for rags, it contains 1 kg of rags for wiping. 24. Shovel. 25. Crowbar. 26. Asbestos cardboard. 27. Oil can. 28. Oil can for 4 kg. 29. Silk fabric or flannel for filtering fuel. 30. Metal bucket. 31. Metal bucket. 32. Canvas bucket. 33. Daily bag - 5 pcs.
The KV-1 tanks had two types of towing cables - with braided and cast thimbles. Cast ones were installed from May 1941 on vehicles produced by the Leningrad Kirov Plant, and from September on tanks produced by the Chelyabinsk plant.
HISTORY OF CREATION
The KV-1 heavy tank is on display at the military museum at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA.
The history of the creation of the KV heavy tank is not entirely ordinary. Unlike most other combat vehicles, including the same age as the KV - T-34, designed for the military, this tank was developed exclusively on its own initiative. Here is how it was…
In August 1938, the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution “On the tank weapons system.” This document contained a requirement in less than a year - by July 1939 - to develop new models of tanks whose armament, armor, speed and maneuverability would develop comprehensively and fully meet the conditions of a future war. Leningrad factories were involved in the creation of heavy tanks - Kirovsky and No. 185 named after. S. M. Kirov. The SMK tank was developed at the first, and the T-100 at the second (see “Armor Collection” No. 1 for 2002). Until August 1938, the factories, having no contracts for the production of new machines, carried out only preliminary design. The work began in full swing only after the adoption of the above-mentioned resolution, since it determined the tactical and technical requirements and set the production time (according to the QMS - by May 1, 1939).
In October 1938, a group of students from the Military Academy of Motorization and Mechanization of the Red Army arrived at SKB-2 of the Kirov Plant to work on their graduation project. As the topic of their diploma, they were tasked with developing a preliminary design for a vehicle with one turret, but within the framework of the TTT for the SMK tank.
The overall design management was headed by SKB-2 engineers L. E. Sychev and A. S. Ermolaev. Some work was led by Slutsman (control drives), K. E. Kuzmin (hull), N. F. Shashmurin (transmission), S. V. Fedorenko (weapons). Responsibilities were distributed among graduate students as follows: B. P. Pavlov and V. K. Sinozersky were in charge of the general layout and armament, chassis- G. A. Turchaninov, servos and motor group - L. N. Pereverzev, planetary transmission - S. M. Krasavin and Shpuntov.
The latter, by the way, even had to engage in a kind of industrial espionage during the design process. The fact is that during the work on the planetary transmission it turned out that SKB-2 did not have any initial materials for design. Therefore, in November 1938, Krasavin and Shpuntov were sent to the NIBT Test Site in Kubinka, where at that time the Czechoslovak tank S-II-a (LT-35) was being tested.
With the help of the training ground command and a dedicated group of workers, they secretly familiarized themselves with the combat vehicle while it was parked in the park at night (during the day it was tested with a Czech crew). As a result, when designing a heavy tank, the S-II-a planetary transmission scheme was partially borrowed - a six-speed gearbox with reverse.
On December 9, 1938, at a meeting of the Defense Committee, the design of the SMK tank was considered, which was approved for production in a two-turret version. It was planned to build two copies for testing. But the head of SKB-2, Zh. Ya. Kotin, and the director of the Kirov plant, I. M. Zaltsman, who were present at this meeting, proposed to design and manufacture a single-turret heavy tank instead of the second copy of the SMK. After a comprehensive discussion, they decided to “design and manufacture a single-turret heavy tank, corresponding in terms of tactical and technical characteristics to the double-turret SMK tank.”
A prototype of the SMK heavy tank.
The tactical and technical requirements for the new vehicle and the permit for its production were approved by decision of the Defense Committee of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 45ss dated February 27, 1939.
Compared to the SMK, the new tank was supposed to increase the thickness of the armor on the sides and rear of the hull and turret by reducing the overall length of the vehicle. The design of the power plant was supposed to be carried out for two types of engines - a gasoline M-17F with a power of 660 hp. and diesel V-2F with a power of 580 hp. The gearbox was also developed in two versions - planetary and conventional. The armament of the new combat vehicle, despite the presence of only one turret, was supposed to be like that of the SMK tank: 76-mm and 45-mm cannons, two DT machine guns and a large-caliber DK.
The Kirov Plant began designing the tank, called the KV (“Klim Voroshilov”), on February 1, 1939, without waiting for TTT approval. N.L. Dukhov was appointed lead designer of the project. In addition to him, the group included design engineers E. P. Dedov, V. A. Kozlovsky, P. S. Tarapatin, V. I. Torotko, A. S. Shneidman. Dukhov’s group completed the technical project within a month, making extensive use of design solutions for the hull, turret, armament, suspension and much more that was included in the diploma project of VAMM students, who, after defending their diploma in March 1939, were sent to work at SKB- 2, where they took an active part in the design of the HF.
In general, the new tank turned out to be shorter than the SMK by 2 m and lower by 0.5 m. According to preliminary calculations, its mass should have been 47 tons, that is, 8 tons less than that of the SMK.
The first prototype of the KV tank before being sent to the NIBT Test Site. September 1939.
The tank hull was developed with the participation of the oldest designer of the Kirov plant K. E. Kuzmin and design engineer S. V. Mitskevich. The body was planned to be welded. In the most critical places, the welds were reinforced with goujons.
Particular difficulties were encountered when designing the engine cooling system. I had to turn to the experienced turbine engineer N.M. Sinev, who was in charge of the SKB-1 turbine at the Kirov Plant. Under his leadership, with the participation of engineers E.P. Dedov, G.A. Mikhailov, A.N. Sterkin, a rather successful design of a finned radiator was created. Its production was organized right there, in the pilot workshop.
It was not easy to ensure the necessary traction properties of a heavy tank. Leading designer F.A. Marishkin with a group of engineers, which included N.T. Fedorchuk, A.D. Gladkov, V.A. Kozlovsky, M.I. Kreslavsky, G.A. Turchaninov, managed to create enough efficient transmission. During the design of the most loaded transmission unit - the final drive - A. D. Gladkov used a planetary gear set for the first time in domestic tank construction, ensuring the compactness of this unit and its reliable operation.
The individual torsion bar suspension of the KV, which was developed by the designers G. A. Seregin, N. V. Tseits and L. E. Sychev, was improved in comparison with the SMK tank. In the process of developing it, it was possible to solve a number of complex problems in selecting the necessary materials and organizing the technological process for manufacturing torsion shafts. If the torsion bars for the SMK tank, for example, were made from forged blanks, then for the KV they were made by rolling.
Thanks to the wide fine-linked track chain, the ground pressure of the heavy KV tank was reduced to 0.77 kgf/cm 2, and it was lower than, for example, that of the BT-7 (0.86) and T-35 (0.83) tanks. .
The weapons group, which included G. N. Moskvin, G. Ya. Andandonsky, F. G. Korobko and A. S. Shneidman, installed a new 76.2 mm L-11 cannon on the tank. A 45-mm 20K cannon was paired with it. Both guns were installed in a common mantlet. As additional weapons, a DT machine gun mounted in a ball joint at the rear of the turret and a DT anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on the turret at the base of the turret hatch were used. The vehicle did not have a directional machine gun. The tank's ammunition consisted of 118 76 mm rounds, 50 45 mm rounds and 1008 machine gun rounds.
KV tank manufactured in April 1940 (vehicle No. U-7). Noteworthy are the wings of the so-called “aviation” type and the protective covers over the air intake windows to the engine.
In general, the KV tank was reduced in length by two SMK road wheels with one turret.
Considering the high degree of borrowing of components and assemblies from the SMK, the design of the HF proceeded quite quickly - already on April 7, 1939, the technical design and a full-size wooden model were approved by a commission chaired by the deputy head of the ABTU, military engineer 1st rank B. M. Korobkov. In May, the production of components and parts began at the Kirov plant, and at the Izhora plant - hulls and turrets.
During the production of the first prototype, technologists and production workers began to produce new grades of steel for tracks and complex castings of heavily loaded chassis parts. Metallurgists at the Izhora plant developed a technology for the production of cast armor turrets and other complex parts, and also proposed a new type of high-tempered chromium-nickel-molybdenum armor (instead of high-hardness armor), which had increased resistance to artillery shells.
Tank KV No. U-7. Characteristic features The vehicles of the pilot batch had no ball mount for the course machine gun and the presence of a “combat light” headlight on the front hull.
On June 5, 1939, ABTU, taking into account the positive experience of operating V-2 diesel engines on BT-7M tanks, set SKB-2 the task of “installing only the V-2 diesel engine in the tank, and refusing to install the M-17 engine.” This machine also had other deviations from the approved TTT. So, instead of the planetary gearbox recommended by ABTU, a conventional one was installed. I had to refuse heavy machine gun DK - due to the placement of two guns in the turret, there was absolutely no room left for it.
The assembly of the first HF, which received the factory index U-0 (installation batch, zero sample), was completed on the night of August 31 to September 1. In the morning the tank made its first run through the factory yard. And already on September 5, after minor defects were eliminated, a prototype of the KV was sent to Moscow to be shown to members of the government and the command of the Red Army.
The show took place on September 23–25, 1939 at the NIBT Test Site in Kubinka, near Moscow, in the presence of members of the government commission chaired by the People's Commissar of Defense K. E. Voroshilov. Among the members of the commission were A. I. Mikoyan, N. A. Voznesensky, A. A. Zhdanov, head of the ABTU corps commander D. G. Pavlov, head of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the ABTU brigade engineer I. A. Lebedev, head of the testing department of the test site E. A. Kulchitsky and others. From the Kirov Plant, director I.M. Zaltsman, chief designer Zh.Ya. Kotin, leading designers A.S. Ermolaev and N.L. Dukhov were invited to the show.
The route along which the experienced cars had to go was quite difficult: wide ditches, scarps, counter-scarps, steep climbs, slopes, descents. Tanks prepared for testing were lined up on the site. The commission members climbed to the observation tower, and the crews, who had previously been standing near the cars, took their places. The roar of starting engines was heard - and the tanks began to move to the starting line.
The first to enter the testing track was the 55-ton double-turret tank SMK. Waddled and swaying with high towers, he headed first towards the obstacles - the scarp. Overcame. Then it passed the ditch just as easily, and lingered a bit on the craters... This machine did not receive a very high score from the commission. KV moved after the SMK. He overcame the ditch much easier and, despite his 47.5 tons, took the next obstacle without visible effort, then easily passed the funnels, which caused approval and even applause from the observation tower.
The driver-mechanic of the KV at this show, P.I. Petrov, recalled:
“On the test track there was a SMK tank ahead of me. First we had to go through an obstacle course. It seemed to me that the SMK, going ahead, overcame these obstacles easily, but I had difficulty passing them on the KV: my car is shorter, and at the moment of overcoming a ditch and other obstacles this matters. And the engine also turned out to be unreliable - its regulator worked intermittently. And when we went across the Moscow River, I was flooded with water through the cracks, but the engine was working, and I managed to get out on the tank to the opposite bank. There, while performing the show program, I broke several pine trees with a tank (I still feel sorry for them) and climbed up the mountain with great difficulty. The engine worked at the limit of its capabilities, gear shifting was not always possible. I climbed ashore on the side clutches, jerkily. Then I walked along the tracks and finally went into the forest.”
Tank KV No. U-3. Kirov plant, February 1940. A cover is mounted on the gun to protect it from bullets and shrapnel getting inside the barrel.
In general, the tank made a favorable impression on the management. On October 8, 1939, the vehicle returned to Leningrad, and on November 10, after eliminating the deficiencies identified during the display and testing at the NIBT Test Site, the KV was transferred to the site for factory testing. During the latter, until the end of November, the tank covered 485 km (260 km on the highway, 100 km on country roads and 125 km on rough terrain). About 20 different defects were identified, mainly in the design of the transmission and engine.
On November 30, 1939, the Soviet-Finnish war began. By decision of the military council of the Leningrad military district experienced tanks SMK, T-100 and KV were removed from testing and sent to the front to test them in a real combat situation. They formed a company of heavy tanks and included it in the 91st tank battalion of the 20th heavy tank brigade. At the same time, the crews of the vehicles consisted partly of military personnel, and partly of factory specialists.
By this time, it became completely clear that the twin installation of two guns hampered the crew’s actions. Therefore, on the eve of sending the KV to the Karelian Isthmus, the 45-mm cannon was removed from it, and a 7.62-mm DT machine gun was installed instead. The vehicle's ammunition load also changed accordingly - it now consisted of 116 artillery rounds and 1,890 rounds of ammunition.
To test the combat qualities of the new vehicles, a rather difficult section of the front was chosen. The tanks advanced towards it through Terijoki (now Zelenogorsk), then passed Raivola and reached the Boboshino area, not far from the Perkiyarvi station (now Kirillovskoye). The enemy position was between Lake Summayarvi and the ice-free Sunasuo swamp. Finnish pillboxes on high-rise buildings were armed with Swedish 37-mm Bofors anti-tank guns and machine guns. Granite pillars stood in front of them. Heavy tanks were to attack these fortifications.
In its first battle on December 18, 1939, the KV tank performed well. Despite numerous hits, it had no obvious damage to its armor. True, the barrel of a tank gun was shot through by a shot from an anti-tank gun. In addition, traces of 43 shell hits were found on the hull. The fuel pump, secured with two bolts, was disconnected due to the shocks. In general, the tank remained quite operational. The shot through gun was replaced the next day with a new one brought from the Kirov plant. Coincidentally, it was on this day - December 19, 1939 - in Moscow that the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V. M. Molotov signed the resolution of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 44Zss, according to which the KV tank was adopted by the Red Army. At the same time, the prototype covered only 550 km, which is negligible for testing the reliability of the new combat vehicle. However, it was believed that some of the components and assemblies of the tank (suspension, chassis, transmission elements, etc.) were tested on the SMK tank.
On December 30, 1939, People's Commissar of Heavy Engineering V.A. Malyshev signed an order that prescribed:
"1. To the director of the Kirov plant, comrade. I.M. Zaltsman organized the production of KV tanks at the Kirov Plant, having previously eliminated all the defects discovered during testing.
The KV prototype was on the front line until early January 1940. True, the tank no longer participated in battles. On January 2, the car was returned to the factory for use as a sample in the production of an installation batch of 20 units. Moreover, the first four vehicles were to be armed with 152-mm howitzers to combat Finnish pillboxes and destroy anti-tank obstacles. This was the demand of the Military Council of the North-Western Front.
Tank KV No. U-3. At the rear of the turret, the armored hatch cover for mounting and dismantling the gun is clearly visible.
The project for installing a 152-mm howitzer in a tank was developed jointly by SKB-2 and the artillery experimental design department - AOKO (plant No. 172 named after Molotov) headed by N.V. Kurin. The leading engineers were N.N. Ilyin and G.N. Rybin. In total this team consisted of about 20 people. They gave me little time to work - only a few days. Therefore, the designers who participated in it were transferred to a barracks position and placed on the fourth floor of the plant administration. Initially, it was planned to install a howitzer of the 1909/30 model in the KV turret. However, preference was given to the more powerful and modern artillery system M-10 - the 152-mm howitzer of the 1938 model. To install it in the tank, it was necessary to develop a new turret, which was done at SKB- 2 according to the sizes issued by the artillerymen. The height of the tower with the periscope was increased to 1790 mm. The tower had inclined frontal and vertical side plates. The rear part of the turret was made of two armor plates welded at an angle to each other; it was equipped with a hatch for mounting and dismantling the howitzer in the field, which was closed with an armor cover fastened with bolts. At the same time, the new turret (together with the gun it received the designation MT-1) had the same ring diameter as the turret with a 76-mm cannon. It should be noted that the designations KV-1 and KV-2 appeared only in 1941, and before that the names “tanks with a small turret” and “tanks with a large turret” were used.
The first MT-1 installation was mounted on the first prototype of the KV U-0 instead of a turret with a 76-mm gun, the second - on the first tank of the U-1 pilot batch. On February 17, both vehicles departed for the Karelian Isthmus. A characteristic feature of the U-1 was the presence of a special cover on the muzzle, protecting the barrel bore from bullets and shrapnel. Before firing, this cover had to be opened using a special rod and then closed again. However, at the very first shot at the shooting range, the cover was torn off, and it was dismantled before being sent to the front. To protect the howitzer barrel from bullets and shrapnel, special armor rings 10 mm thick were put on it (later the gun barrels of all KV-2 tanks were equipped with such rings).
The U-2 tank with the turret of the U-0 vehicle with a 76-mm gun was sent to the front on February 22, and on the 29th the U-3 tank with the MT-1 installation was sent. The U-4 tank with MT-1 was ready by March 13, 1940, but they did not have time to send it to combat positions - the Soviet-Finnish war was over.
At the front, all KVs and a prototype of the T-100 tank were brought together into a separate company, attached to the 13th light tank and 20th heavy tank brigades. True, it was not possible to test the KV in a combat situation by firing at pillboxes: the main line of Finnish defense had already been broken through. Therefore, the tanks were tested by firing at pillboxes and gouges after the end of hostilities. At the same time we received good results. Recalling these events, the commander of the KV tank “with a big turret,” junior lieutenant Z. F. Glushak from the 20th Tank Brigade, said:
“The obstacles on the Mannerheim Line were made thoroughly. Huge granite pillars stood in three rows. To make a passage 6–8 m wide, we only needed five shots of concrete-piercing shells. While we were breaking into the holes, the enemy was continuously firing at us. We quickly spotted the pillbox, and then completely destroyed it with two shots. When we left the battle, we counted 48 dents on the armor, but not a single hole.”
Mention should be made of two projects based on the KV tank, developed for the needs of the front. The first - object 212 - was a 35-ton tractor for evacuating damaged tanks. Engineer N.V. Halkiopov was appointed lead engineer of the project. At the end of February 1940, the draft tractor and its life-size wooden model were reviewed by representatives of the ABTU. But despite the fact that this machine was highly praised by the military, the go-ahead for its production in metal was never received.
Object 218 was a remote installation for detonating mines with high frequency currents. The current generator and other equipment were supposed to be mounted in the body of the KV-2 tank. Field tests of the generator installed on the chassis of the T-28 tank took place in February 1940 and showed good results. At the same time, it became clear that the installation needed improvement.
Layout and operating diagram of the equipment of the minesweeper tank object 218 (left and below).
The design of the “218th” continued until the summer of 1941, but was stopped after the start of the Great Patriotic War.
The remaining six vehicles of the pilot batch (U-5 - U-10) were manufactured in April - May 1940. All of them had turrets with 76 mm cannons. By this time, the original annual production plan for the KV - 50 tanks - had been sharply increased. Starting from July and until the end of the year, the plant was supposed to produce 230 KV tanks, of which 130 with a “small turret” and 100 with a “large turret”. ABTU of the Red Army, concerned that the tank had not undergone field tests, and many defects were found in previously produced vehicles, proposed conducting full-scale tests of the KV. Thus, two vehicles - U-4 and U-7 - arrived at the test site in Kubinka near Moscow in June for testing. However, then the testing was entrusted to the Kirov plant, and both cars were returned. On June 10, 1940, factory tests of the U-1 tank began in the Leningrad area, during which the vehicle covered 2,648 km. In the second half of July, the U-21 tank with a 152 mm howitzer was tested, and in August, the U-7 tank with a 76 mm cannon was tested. The mileage of the U-21 and U-7 was 1631 and 2050 km, respectively. As a result, significant deficiencies were identified in the KV tanks in the transmission, chassis and engine.
U-7 tank with the first sample of the “lowered” turret before testing. September 1940.
There were especially many shortcomings in the design of the transmission, in particular in the gearbox, the reliability of which left much to be desired. During the tests, increased wear of gear teeth and their breakage were observed, and difficulties arose in changing gears while driving. In addition, it turned out that when the tank moved for a long time in fourth gear, it and the second gear associated with it failed. To eliminate this defect, starting with the 31st car, a special lock was introduced into the gearbox design.
In addition, the unreliability of the turret turning mechanism was noted, the design of which was mainly borrowed from the turning mechanism of the large turret of the T-28 tank weighing about 3 tons. The mass of the KV-1 turret was 7 tons, KV-2 - 12 tons, and the towers became more unbalanced. As a result, problems arose related to the large forces on the handles of manual mechanisms, the power of electric motors for turning the turrets, as well as the speed and smoothness of pointing the guns. Thus, when KV tanks moved along slopes, turning the KV-1 turret to the side was practically impossible, not to mention the KV-2 turret.
Based on the test results of the U-1, U-21 and U-7 tanks, the Kirov plant was given a list of changes that needed to be made to the KV design. However, the plant was in no hurry to eliminate the identified deficiencies.
Serial tank KV-2. Autumn 1940.
Outraged by this, the representative of military acceptance at the Kirov plant, military engineer 3rd rank Kalivoda, sent a letter to the People's Commissar of State Control L.Z. Mehlis on August 12, 1940, which, in particular, said:
“I think that the KV machine is unfinished and requires urgent and serious modifications. Most of the alterations cannot be carried out in the process of large-scale production, which is already in full swing at the Kirov plant. Such a situation will delay the development of the machine in production for at least 1.5–2 years and will introduce great confusion, unnecessary costs and will not provide the slightest savings in time. The quality of the produced car will be low within 1.5–2 years. It would be more expedient to reduce the program by the end of 1940 to 5–8 vehicles per month and transfer all factory forces to finalize the vehicle. Currently, the main efforts are devoted to the implementation of the program, and very little is thought about the quality of the machine. I believe that at the moment the vehicle cannot be called combat-ready due to the above-mentioned defects. It can only be sent to the army for training, not combat.”
Serial tank KV-1 produced in October - December 1940 in the courtyard of the Kirov plant.
Serial tank KV-1. The rubberized support rollers typical of pre-war tanks are clearly visible.
The issues raised in this letter were so serious that the People's Commissariat of State Control sent a special commission to the Kirov Plant, which worked at the plant from October 1 to October 10, 1940 and basically confirmed the conclusions of the military representative. On November 1, L. Z. Mehlis sent a letter directly to I. V. Stalin and K. E. Voroshilov:
Serial tank KV-1 produced in 1941 with an F-32 cannon. Judging by the rectangular additional tanks on the fender, this vehicle was manufactured after the start of the war.
KV-1 military release 1941. The applied armor on the front plate of the hull is clearly visible.
Judging by this letter, a paradoxical situation was created: the plant, trying to fulfill the plan, presented tanks that were practically not combat-ready for military acceptance, and the military, well aware of this, accepted them. No corrective measures were taken. SKB-2 was enthusiastically designing new supertanks KV-3, KV-4, KV-5, KV-220 and others. Already in the summer of 1940, the issue of developing tanks with more powerful armor and armament than the KV was discussed. The Kirov plant received the task to produce such tanks in November 1940. Was this before the improvement of serial HFs?
True, in November, a “large lowered turret” for the KV-2 tank was put into production, which differed from the previous one in its smaller dimensions, weight and relative ease of production. At the same time, a reinforced design of the rotating mechanism and a new ammunition rack for artillery rounds and machine gun discs were introduced on all KV tanks. However, the engine and gearbox have not undergone any changes.
In total, by the end of 1940, the Kirov Plant produced 139 KV-1 and 104 KV-2 (24 of them with the MT-1 installation), thus fulfilling the planned target.
The production plan for 1941 provided for the production of 1,200 KV tanks. Of these, 1000 are at the Kirov Plant (400 KV-1, 100 KV-2 and 500 KV-3) and 200 KV-1 are at ChTZ. In the future, it was planned to leave production of only the KV-3 at the Kirov plant, and transfer the KV-1 and KV-2 to ChTZ.
Such an extensive production plan required a radical restructuring and expansion of the production base. At the Kirov plant, new special tank workshops were put into operation - assembly SB-2 and commissioning SD-2. The MX-2 workshop, which was the main one in tank production, was rebuilt. Procurement shops were also expanded - foundry, forging, thermal, cold stamping and others. In February, by order of the People's Commissar of Heavy Engineering A. Efremov, the nearby Molotov Mechanical Plant was transferred to the Kirov Plant.
The main innovation of the vehicles produced in 1941, compared to tanks manufactured in 1940, was their armament with a 76-mm F-32 cannon instead of the L-11. The L-11 gun, developed at the artillery design bureau of the Kirov plant, had a number of design flaws, and its installation in tanks was considered only as a temporary measure. The F-32 gun, created in the design bureau of plant No. 92 (Gorky) under the leadership of V. G. Grabin, differed from the L-11 in its ease of manufacture and reliability in operation. The Kirov plant was supposed to produce a batch of 30 F-32 guns in the first half of 1940 and launch full production of these systems from August 1, 1940.
One of the KV tanks of the pilot batch with an experimental sample of the 76-mm F-27 cannon. Gorky, spring 1941.
But the plant did not comply with this decision, continuing to defend its L-11 gun, trying to improve and simplify its design. In April, the Kirov residents enlisted the support of V. A. Malyshev, who spoke positively about the L-11 in a letter to the chairman of the Defense Committee, but it was all in vain. In May 1940, the head of the ABTU, D. G. Pavlov, reported to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks:
“As a result of testing the F-32 and L-11, it was established that the F-32 in a tank has a number of advantages over the L-11.”
According to the plan, the Kirov Plant was to produce and deliver 130 F-32 guns by the end of the year. However, in 1940, only 50 guns were produced, and they began to be installed in the KV in January 1941.
It should be noted that already in 1940, many military personnel criticized the KV for its insufficiently powerful weapons. After all, the heavy KV-1 and medium T-34 were equipped with the same L-11 guns. And after F-34 guns began to be installed on the T-34 from the beginning of 1941, the KV-1’s armament became weaker than that of a medium tank!
New powerful 85-mm and 95-mm tank guns began to be developed in the summer of 1940 at the design bureau of plant No. 92. In the fall of the same year, they were tested in the turret of the T-28 tank. At the end of 1940, the same design bureau designed a 76-mm F-27 tank gun, which had the ballistics of a 76-mm 3K anti-aircraft gun (initial speed 813 m/s). The F-27 gun successfully passed tests, however, due to the development of work on the KV-3 tank, all work on this artillery system was stopped.
KV-1 tank with an F-32 cannon and armored screens on the turret. Leningrad Front, 1941.
In addition to the modernization of artillery weapons, the work plan for 1941 provided for improving the design of a number of KV components and assemblies. In the documents of the Kirov plant, this project is referred to as object 222. It was a KV-1 tank with 90 mm armor of the hull and turret, a commander’s cupola, a new driver’s viewing device and a turret rotation mechanism, a planetary gearbox, a 10-R radio station and other modernized units. Some of these new products were installed and tested in the standard hull of the KV-1 tank at the end of April 1941. The launch of new units was expected in May - August. But already on May 25, the chief engineer of the Kirov plant reported to the People's Commissariat of Heavy Engineering that “in connection with the transition of tank production ... to a new type of KV-3 vehicle, we ask you to exclude from the defense work plan you proposed for 1941 the following related to the KV tank, which After three months it will be discontinued from production at our plant:
1. commander's observation turret with all-round visibility;
2. viewing device for the driver of the KV tank with a horizontal view of 120° and a vertical view of 250°, with mechanical snow removal;
3. the rotating mechanism of the turret of the KV tank, which ensures rotation of the turret from the motor when the tank rolls up to 20° and rotation by hand with a force of no more than 10 kg. The turret rotation speed is 2 rpm (when rotating from the motor);
4. planetary transmission within the existing dimensions of the tank with a warranty period of up to 3000 km.”
Thus, a month before the start of the war, all work related to eliminating the shortcomings of the KV tanks was curtailed without even starting. This is how the KV-3 supertank, which failed and, by and large, was completely unnecessary for the Red Army, “moved over” the much-needed modernization of serial KVs.
KV-1 tank with a 76-mm F-34 cannon during testing. February 1941.
As for the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, back in June 1940 the Kirov Plant was supposed to transfer there one KV tank and technical documentation for it, and by August - all the technological documentation. In addition, the Kirov residents were obliged to provide assistance with specialists, as well as organize the production of armored hulls at plant No. 78 in Chelyabinsk. All this was completed only by the beginning of October, and therefore the production of HF at ChTZ was not launched until the end of 1940. The first experimental assembly of the KV tank at ChTZ was carried out on December 31 of the same year. At the same time, construction of a special tank workshop began, which was not completed before the start of the war. Largely for this reason, by June 1, 1941, ChTZ had produced only 25 KV tanks. In total, through the efforts of two factories, by this date 423 KV-1 and 213 KV-2 tanks were produced (46 of them with a “big turret”).
Just four days after Germany’s attack on the USSR, on June 26, 1941, order No. 25Zss was issued by the People’s Commissariat of Heavy Engineering, which stated:
Increase the production of tanks and put into effect the mobilization plan for the 2nd half of 1941.
KV tanks will be produced with a screen. The frontal plates of the hull and turret of the KV tank are subject to shielding. The thickness of the screen for the frontal plate of the tank hull is 25 mm, the thickness of the screen for the frontal sheet of the turret is 90–100 mm.
It is allowed to make changes to the drawings to reduce labor intensity without reducing the combat qualities of the tank...
From July 1, preparation for production of the KV-3 at the Kirov plant will be removed and transferred to Chelyabinsk at ChTZ, where a team of designers, technologists, documentation, materials and a sample tank will be sent.
To transfer the Kirov Plant, in accordance with the decision of the Council of People's Commissars of the Union and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, from the People's Commissariat of Heavy Engineering to the People's Commissariat of Medium Engineering as of July 1, 1941."
Tank KV-1 produced in 1941. This machine was manufactured at ChTZ, which can be judged, for example, by two cylindrical fuel tanks on the fender.
On July 1, production of the KV-2 tank ceased; in the same month, reinforced road wheels and a simplified turret for the KV-1 went into production. The design of the latter was revised, some of the bent parts were replaced with straight ones, and the overall length of the tower was reduced. Stamped road wheels were replaced with cast ones, and road wheels with internal shock absorption were replaced with solid ones due to an acute shortage of rubber. Torsion shafts were made from rolled billets. The abolition of forging in the production of torsion shafts made it possible to increase their production by 4–5 times using existing equipment.
To staff SKB-2 with engineers, the management of the Kirov Plant transferred to its staff SKB-1 specialists (80 people in total), who before the war were engaged in the design of gas turbines. All this made it possible to Peaceful time, solve many problems, and by mid-July increase the production of KV tanks to 10 vehicles per day.
In July 1941, supplies of the V-2K diesel engine from the Kharkov Engine Plant No. 75, which began evacuation to the Urals, ceased. IN within three 24 hours, SKB-2 designers worked on the possibility of installing M-17T carburetor engines, which were available in the warehouses of the Leningrad Front, in KV-1 tanks. A prototype of the tank was produced in the MX-2 mechanical assembly shop, which successfully passed factory tests. In September 1941, 37 tanks with carburetor engines were produced at LKZ.
At the end of July and beginning of August 1941, due to severe overload of the plant's forge shops and the impossibility of ensuring the production of a sufficient number of forged tracks, LKZ began work on the production and testing of cast tracks. In October 1941, due to the need to evacuate forging equipment to the Urals, cast tracks for the KV-1 tank were put into mass production.
KV-1 tank with a simplified turret, manufactured at the Kirov plant in Leningrad in the fall of 1941.
In addition to serial production, the plant continued to conduct some experimental work. So, at the end of July, the installation of a flamethrower in the KV tank was designed. This machine was listed in the factory documents as the KV-6. Engineers from Plant No. 174 named after. took part in its development. Voroshilova I. A. Aristov, Elagin and others. The flamethrower on the KV-6 was installed to the right of the driver in the front hull plate in special armor. The range of the jet reached 40–50 m, the number of shots was 10–12. The KV-6 was tested directly on the front line, which by this time had approached the suburbs of Leningrad. The number of tanks produced is unknown; according to various sources, their number ranges from one to several.
Tank KV-1 with a cast turret and hull, produced by plant No. 200. Spring 1942.
After the Germans captured Krasnoye Selo, German artillery was able to fire at the Kirov plant. Artillery raids were carried out regularly on one workshop or another. The enterprise turned into a front plant, only a few kilometers separated it from the front line of German troops. For strategic reasons, tank production was transferred to a safer place - to the Vyborg side, to plant No. 371 named after. Stalin, where repairs and restoration of damaged tanks were carried out. Part of the equipment is also transported there, engineers and tank builders are sent to begin assembling and repairing the vehicles. During the repair, part of the KV-1 was equipped with additional armor plates (or, as they were called at that time, screens). Armor plates 25–35 mm thick were attached to bonks welded on the sides of the hull and turret using bolts.
The production of tanks in Leningrad is becoming increasingly difficult. At the end of September, the Izhora plant stops supplying new armored hulls and turrets, since the front line comes close to the plant’s territory. Plant named after Stalin, as the supply of hulls, turrets and engines was used up, switched only to the repair of combat vehicles. On October 18, the last KV tank was assembled in the city on the Neva. In total, starting from July 1941, 444 KV tanks were manufactured at LKZ.
After Leningrad found itself surrounded by a blockade in early September, a decision was made to speed up the evacuation of the Kirov plant to the Urals. At the beginning of July, all the design and technological documentation was taken there, and a team of designers and technologists headed by N.L. Dukhov was sent there. People believed that they were going on a business trip to help establish the production of heavy tanks and return. They didn’t even take winter clothes, thinking that the enemy would certainly be defeated before the fall. During July - August, 12,313 wagons with machine tools, tools and equipment were sent to the Urals. With the last trains until August 29, when the railway connection with Leningrad was interrupted, 525 machines were sent. Later, the removal of equipment and plant workers was carried out by ships on Lake Ladoga and by plane. Until November, at least 11 thousand people were taken out in this way.
Tank KV-1 with a cast turret manufactured by UZTM. Manezhnaya Square in Moscow. January 1942.
KV-1 tank with KRAST-1 (short tank artillery missile system) installations. Chelyabinsk, plant No. 100, summer 1942. An 82-mm rocket is visible on the guide mounted on the fender.
By Decree of the State Defense Committee No. 734 of October 4, 1941, the Ural Plant for the production of heavy KV tanks was created as part of the People's Commissariat of Tank Industry, which included ChTZ, UZTM, the Ural Turbine Plant and Plant No. 75, evacuated from Kharkov. By the same decree, ChTZ was renamed Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant (ChKZ). However, the name “Ural Plant for the Production of Heavy KV Tanks” did not catch on; soon the huge plant received the unofficial name “Tankograd”.
Assembly shop of the Chelyabinsk Kirov plant, spring 1942. It is clearly visible that in the assembly process there are tanks with both cast turrets and welded turrets of a simplified form. Most vehicles also have a simplified rear part of the hull.
Thanks to measures taken in the fall of 1941 in Chelyabinsk it was possible to deploy mass release KV tanks. At the end of October, due to the lack of F-32 guns, the production of which at the Kirov plant in Leningrad was discontinued, tanks began to be armed with a 76-mm ZIS-5 gun. This was a version of the F-34 cannon, adapted for installation in the KV. The ZIS-5 differed from the F-34 in the design of the cradle elements and the armored mask.
To expand the production of armored hulls for KV tanks, by decree of the State Defense Committee of November 13, 1941, on the basis of the workshops of plant No. 78 named after. Ordzhonikidze in Chelyabinsk, an “armor plant was created, assigned number 200 and included heavy tanks in the plant.” M. Popov, who had previously headed the Izhora plant in Leningrad, was appointed its director. All this made it possible to give the front 110 KV tanks in November, and 213 in December.
In order to save rentals and reduce welding work After successful tests by shelling of prototypes, tank turrets began to be made cast. The projectile resistance of such towers was lower than that of welded ones. Therefore, the thickness of the walls of the cast tower was 110 mm, and not 75 mm - like the welded one. Providing combat vehicles with stamped tracks, of which hundreds of thousands were now required, faced enormous difficulties - there were not enough high-power hammers. As a result of studying this problem and conducting tests, it was decided to assemble tracks from two types of tracks - solid with ridges and composite - from two halves, which were installed in each track alternately. Later it was possible to master the production of cast tracks, which were not inferior in quality to stamped ones. Due to the lack of ferodo friction material, steel discs began to be used for the main clutch. Such clutches were not a full replacement, but, nevertheless, they, albeit with some difficulties, ensured the operation of the tank’s transmission. After measures were taken to organize the production of discs with Ferodo linings, main clutches again began to be produced with these discs instead of steel ones. During the period of mastering the production of the V-2 diesel engine at ChKZ, in November - December 1941, 130 KV-1 tanks with an M-17 carburetor engine were produced.
At the end of 1941, SKB-2, based on the KV-1 tank, developed the KV-8 flamethrower tank, the KV-12 chemical tank, and also, together with the UZTM design bureau, an artillery self-propelled gun KV-7 and KV-9 tank. The KV-8 tank was mass-produced, the KV-12 chemical tank and the KV-7 self-propelled gun remained in prototypes.
Chemical tank KV-12 (object 232). Chelyabinsk, plant number 100, spring 1942. Reservoirs for toxic substances mounted on the fenders are clearly visible.
From the book Equipment and Weapons 2001 04 author Magazine "Equipment and Weapons"History of creation The development of an infantry fighting vehicle began in the USSR in 1960. By that time, not only tracked, but also wheeled versions of the all-terrain chassis had been sufficiently developed. In addition, the wheeled version was favored by the high operational efficiency
From the book B-25 Mitchell Bomber author Kotelnikov Vladimir RostislavovichHistory of creation In the 70s, work began on creating a vehicle to develop the BMP-1 - it was supposed to make changes to the armament complex and the deployment of the BMP crew. The emphasis was on the possibility of destroying equal vehicles, light defensive structures, and manpower
From the book R-51 "Mustang" author Ivanov S.V.History of creation In March 1938, the US Army Air Corps sent out technical specification 38-385 to various aircraft manufacturing companies for a twin-engine attack bomber. A competition was announced for the best design, promising large orders. Firm "North"
From the book Aviation and Cosmonautics 2013 05 by the authorHistory of creation “One of the “miracles” of the war was the appearance in the skies of Germany of a long-range escort fighter (Mustang) at the very moment when it was most needed” - General “Hap” Arnold, Commander-in-Chief of the US Air Force. "In my opinion. P-51 played
From the book Yak-1/3/7/9 in the Second World War Part 1 author Ivanov S.V.Su-27 history of creation When talking about the progress of work on the design of the future Su-27 fighter, one cannot fail to mention some “intermediate” options that had a huge impact on the layout and final appearance of the aircraft. We remind readers that in 1971 in the design bureau
From book Medium tank T-28 author Moshchansky Ilya BorisovichHistory of creation By the beginning of 1939, the issue of creating a modern fighter. Potential adversaries acquired new Bf 109 and A6M Zero aircraft, while the Soviet Air Force continued to fly donkeys and seagulls. More and more
From the book Hitler's Slavic Armor author Baryatinsky MikhailHISTORY OF CREATION Screened T-28 tanks pass through Red Square. Moscow, November 7, 1940. At the end of the 20s, tank building developed most actively in three countries- in Great Britain, Germany and France. At the same time, English firms carried out work on a broad front,
From the book Aviation and Cosmonautics 2013 10 authorHISTORY OF CREATION Only four copies of the LT vz.35 light tank have survived to this day - in Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and the USA. In the worst condition is the vehicle from the Military Museum in Sofia - it has no weapons at all, in the best condition is the tank in the Military Museum in
From the book Aviation and Cosmonautics 2013 11 authorHISTORY OF CREATION Tank Pz.38 (t) Ausf.S, located in the Museum of the Slovak National Uprising in Banska Bystrica. On October 23, 1937, a meeting was held at the Ministry of Defense of Czechoslovakia with the participation of representatives of the ministry, the general staff, and the Military Institute
From the book Armor Collection 1996 No. 05 (8) Light tank BT-7 author Baryatinsky MikhailSu-27 history of creation Durability When designing the Su-27 aircraft, OKB P.O. Sukhoi was for the first time faced with an integral aircraft layout, in which not only the wing, but also the fuselage had load-bearing properties. This imposed certain conditions on the structural power
From the book Armor Collection 1999 No. 01 (22) Sherman medium tank author Baryatinsky MikhailSu-27 history of creation Photo and StadnikCombat survivabilityEven during the period of creation of Su-2 and Su-6 combat aircraft in the pre-war years and during the Great Patriotic War, OKB P.O. Sukhoi has accumulated significant experience in ensuring the combat survivability of aircraft from fire
From the book Medium Tank "Chi-ha" author Fedoseev Semyon LeonidovichHistory of creation In January 1933, Kharkov plant No. 183 received the task of developing a new machine, which was supposed to eliminate all the shortcomings of its predecessors - BT-2 and BT-5. The tactical and technical conditions for the new tank provided for the installation on it
From the book Heavy Tank IS-2 author Baryatinsky MikhailHistory of creation The only medium tank adopted by the US Army between the two world wars was the M2. This unremarkable combat vehicle, however, became a milestone for American tank building. Unlike all previous samples, the main
From the book Medium Tank T-34-85 author Baryatinsky MikhailHistory of creation Japanese tank building began with medium tanks. In 1927, the Osaka Arsenal ("Osaka Rikugun Zoheisho") built an experimental double-turret tank No. 1 and a single-turret No. 2, which was later called the "Type 87". In 1929, based on the English “Vickers MkS” and
From the author's bookThe history of creation Dedicated to those burned alive in tanks... IS-2 tank from the 7th Guards Heavy Tank Brigade at the Brandenburg Gate. Berlin, May 1945. Without exaggeration, it can be said that the IS-2 heavy tank traces its ancestry to the KV-1 and KV-13 tanks: the first tank
From the author's bookThe history of the creation of the T-34-85 with the D-5T cannon. 38th separate tank regiment. The tank column "Dimitri Donskoy" was built with funds from the Russian Orthodox Church. Ironically, one of greatest victories The Red Army was defeated at Kursk in the Great Patriotic War
Modern battle tanks of Russia and the world photos, videos, pictures watch online. This article gives an idea of the modern tank fleet. It is based on the principle of classification used in the most authoritative reference book to date, but in a slightly modified and improved form. And if the latter in its original form can still be found in the armies of a number of countries, then others have already become museum pieces. And just for 10 years! Follow in the footsteps of Jane's Guide and skip this one combat vehicle(very interesting in design and fiercely discussed at one time), which formed the basis of the tank fleet of the last quarter of the 20th century, was considered unfair by the authors.
Films about tanks where there is still no alternative to this type of weapon for the ground forces. The tank was and will probably remain for a long time modern weapons thanks to the ability to combine such seemingly contradictory qualities as high mobility, powerful weapons and reliable crew protection. These unique qualities of tanks continue to be constantly improved, and the experience and technology accumulated over decades predetermine new frontiers in combat properties and achievements of the military-technical level. In the eternal confrontation between “projectile and armor”, as practice shows, protection against projectiles is increasingly being improved, acquiring new qualities: activity, multi-layeredness, self-defense. At the same time, the projectile becomes more accurate and powerful.
Russian tanks are specific in that they allow you to destroy the enemy from a safe distance, have the ability to make quick maneuvers on off-road, contaminated terrain, can “walk” through territory occupied by the enemy, seize a decisive bridgehead, cause panic in the rear and suppress the enemy with fire and tracks . The war of 1939-1945 became the most difficult test for all humanity, since almost all countries of the world were involved in it. It was a clash of the titans - the most unique period that theorists debated in the early 1930s and during which tanks were used in large numbers by almost all belligerents. At this time, a “lice test” and a deep reform of the first theories of the use of tank forces took place. And it is the Soviet tank forces that are most affected by all this.
Tanks in battle have become a symbol of the past war, the backbone of the Soviet armored forces? Who created them and under what conditions? How did the USSR, having lost most their European territories and having difficulty recruiting tanks for the defense of Moscow, was able to release powerful tank formations onto the battlefields already in 1943? This book, which tells about the development of Soviet tanks “during the days of testing,” from 1937 to the beginning of 1943, is intended to answer these questions When writing the book, materials from Russian archives and private collections of tank builders were used. There was a period in our history that remained in my memory with some kind of depressing feeling. It began with the return of our first military advisers from Spain, and only stopped at the beginning of forty-three,” said former general designer of self-propelled guns L. Gorlitsky, “some kind of pre-storm state was felt.
Tanks of the Second World War It was M. Koshkin, almost underground (but, of course, with the support of “the wisest of the wise leaders of all nations”), who was able to create the tank that a few years later would shock the German tank generals. And not only that, he not only created it, the designer managed to prove to these military fools that it was his T-34 that they needed, and not just another wheeled-tracked "motor vehicle." The author is in slightly different positions, which formed in him after meeting the pre-war documents of the RGVA and RGEA. Therefore, working on this segment of the history of the Soviet tank, the author will inevitably contradict something “generally accepted.” This work describes the history of Soviet tank building in the most difficult years - from the beginning of a radical restructuring of the entire activity of design bureaus and people's commissariats in general, during the frantic race to equip new tank formations of the Red Army, transfer industry to wartime rails and evacuation.
Tanks Wikipedia the author would like to express his special gratitude to M. Kolomiets for his help in selecting and processing materials, and also thank A. Solyankin, I. Zheltov and M. Pavlov, the authors of the reference publication “Domestic armored vehicles. XX century 1905 - 1941", since this book helped to understand the fate of some projects, which was unclear before. I would also like to remember with gratitude those conversations with Lev Izraelevich Gorlitsky, the former chief designer of UZTM, which helped to take a fresh look at the entire history of the Soviet tank during the Great Patriotic War Soviet Union. For some reason today it is customary for us to talk about 1937 -1938 only from the point of view of repressions, but few people remember that it was during this period that those tanks were born that became legends of the wartime...” From the memoirs of L.I. . Gorlinkogo.
Soviet tanks detailed assessment they were heard from many lips at that time. Many old people recalled that it was from the events in Spain that it became clear to everyone that the war was getting closer and closer to the threshold and it was Hitler who would have to fight. In 1937, mass purges and repressions began in the USSR, and against the backdrop of these difficult events, the Soviet tank began to transform from “mechanized cavalry” (in which one of its combat qualities was emphasized at the expense of others) into a balanced combat vehicle, simultaneously possessing powerful weapons, sufficient to suppress most targets, good maneuverability and mobility with armor protection capable of maintaining its combat effectiveness when fired upon by the most massive anti-tank weapons of a potential enemy.
It was recommended to add large tanks only special tanks– floating, chemical. The brigade now had 4 individual battalions 54 tanks each and was strengthened by the transition from three-tank platoons to five-tank ones. In addition, D. Pavlov justified the refusal to form three additional mechanized corps in addition to the four existing mechanized corps in 1938, believing that these formations were immobile and difficult to control, and most importantly, they required a different rear organization. The tactical and technical requirements for promising tanks, as expected, were adjusted. In particular, in a letter dated December 23 to the head of the design bureau of plant No. 185 named after. CM. Kirov, the new boss demanded that the armor of the new tanks be strengthened so that at a distance of 600-800 meters (effective range).
The newest tanks in the world, when designing new tanks, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of increasing the level of armor protection during modernization by at least one stage...” This problem could be solved in two ways: Firstly, by increasing the thickness of the armor plates and, secondly, by “using increased armor resistance." It is not difficult to guess that the second way was considered more promising, since the use of specially strengthened armor plates, or even two-layer armor, could, while maintaining the same thickness (and the mass of the tank as a whole), increase its durability by 1.2-1.5 It was this path (the use of especially hardened armor) that was chosen at that moment to create new types of tanks.
Tanks of the USSR at the dawn of tank production, armor was most widely used, the properties of which were identical in all areas. Such armor was called homogeneous (homogeneous), and from the very beginning of armor making, craftsmen sought to create just such armor, because homogeneity ensured stability of characteristics and simplified processing. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was noticed that when the surface of an armor plate was saturated (to a depth of several tenths to several millimeters) with carbon and silicon, its surface strength increased sharply, while the rest of the plate remained viscous. This is how heterogeneous (non-uniform) armor came into use.
For military tanks, the use of heterogeneous armor was very important, since an increase in the hardness of the entire thickness of the armor plate led to a decrease in its elasticity and (as a consequence) to an increase in fragility. Thus, the most durable armor, all other things being equal, turned out to be very fragile and often chipped even from explosions high-explosive fragmentation shells. Therefore, at the dawn of armor production, when producing homogeneous sheets, the task of the metallurgist was to achieve the maximum possible hardness of the armor, but at the same time not to lose its elasticity. Surface-hardened armor with carbon and silicon saturation was called cemented (cemented) and was considered at that time a panacea for many ills. But cementation is a complex, harmful process (for example, treating a hot plate with a jet of illuminating gas) and relatively expensive, and therefore its development in a series required large expenses and improved production standards.
Wartime tanks, even in operation, these hulls were less successful than homogeneous ones, since for no apparent reason cracks formed in them (mainly in loaded seams), and it was very difficult to put patches on holes in cemented slabs during repairs. But it was still expected that a tank protected by 15-20 mm cemented armor would be equivalent in level of protection to the same one, but covered with 22-30 mm sheets, without a significant increase in weight.
Also, by the mid-1930s, tank building had learned to harden the surface of relatively thin armor plates by uneven hardening, known since the end of the 19th century in shipbuilding as the “Krupp method.” Surface hardening led to a significant increase in the hardness of the front side of the sheet, leaving the main thickness of the armor viscous.
How tanks fire video up to half the thickness of the slab, which was, of course, worse than cementation, since while the hardness of the surface layer was higher than with cementation, the elasticity of the hull sheets was significantly reduced. So the “Krupp method” in tank building made it possible to increase the strength of armor even slightly more than cementation. But the hardening technology that was used for thick naval armor was no longer suitable for relatively thin tank armor. Before the war, this method was almost not used in our serial tank building due to technological difficulties and relatively high cost.
Combat use of tanks The most proven tank gun was the 45-mm tank gun model 1932/34. (20K), and before the event in Spain it was believed that its power was quite sufficient to perform most tank tasks. But the battles in Spain showed that a 45-mm gun can only satisfy the task of fighting enemy tanks, since even shelling of manpower in the mountains and forests turned out to be ineffective, and it was only possible to disable a dug-in enemy firing point in the event of a direct hit . Firing at shelters and bunkers was ineffective due to the low high-explosive effect of a projectile weighing only about two kg.
Types of tanks photos so that even one shell hit can reliably disable an anti-tank gun or machine gun; and thirdly, to increase the penetrating effect of a tank gun on the armor of a potential enemy, since using the example of French tanks (which already had an armor thickness of about 40-42 mm), it became clear that the armor protection of foreign combat vehicles tends to be significantly strengthened. There was a sure way for this - increasing the caliber of tank guns and simultaneously increasing the length of their barrel, since a long gun of a larger caliber fires heavier projectiles with a higher initial velocity over a greater distance without correcting the aiming.
The best tanks in the world had a large-caliber cannon, and also had big sizes breech, significantly more weight and increased recoil response. And this required an increase in the mass of the entire tank as a whole. In addition, placing large-sized rounds in a closed tank volume led to a decrease in transportable ammunition.
The situation was aggravated by the fact that at the beginning of 1938 it suddenly turned out that there was simply no one to give the order for the design of a new, more powerful tank gun. P. Syachintov and his entire design team were repressed, as well as the core of the Bolshevik design bureau under the leadership of G. Magdesiev. Only the group of S. Makhanov remained in the wild, who, since the beginning of 1935, had been trying to develop his new 76.2-mm semi-automatic single gun L-10, and the staff of Plant No. 8 was slowly finishing the “forty-five”.
Photos of tanks with names The number of developments is large, but mass production in the period 1933-1937. not a single one has been accepted..." In fact, none of the five air-cooled tank diesel engines, work on which was carried out in 1933-1937 in the engine department of plant No. 185, was brought to series. Moreover, despite the decisions At the very top levels of the transition in tank building exclusively to diesel engines, this process was restrained by a number of factors. Of course, diesel had significant efficiency. It consumed less fuel per unit of power per hour. Diesel fuel less susceptible to fire, since the flash point of its vapor was very high.
New tanks video, even the most advanced of them, the MT-5 tank engine, required a reorganization of engine production for serial production, which was expressed in the construction of new workshops, the supply of advanced foreign equipment (they did not yet have their own machines of the required accuracy), financial investments and strengthening of personnel. It was planned that in 1939 this diesel would produce 180 hp. will go to serial tanks and artillery tractors, but due to investigative work to determine the causes of tank engine failures, which lasted from April to November 1938, these plans were not implemented. The development of a slightly increased six-cylinder gasoline engine No. 745 with a power of 130-150 hp was also started.
Brands of tanks had specific indicators that suited tank builders quite well. The tanks were tested using a new method, specially developed at the insistence of the new head of the ABTU, D. Pavlov, in relation to combat service in wartime. The basis of the tests was a run of 3-4 days (at least 10-12 hours of daily non-stop movement) with a one-day break for technical inspection and restoration work. Moreover, repairs were allowed to be carried out only by field workshops without the involvement of factory specialists. This was followed by a “platform” with obstacles, “swimming” in water with an additional load that simulated an infantry landing, after which the tank was sent for inspection.
Super tanks online, after improvement work, seemed to remove all claims from the tanks. And the general progress of the tests confirmed the fundamental correctness of the main design changes - an increase in displacement by 450-600 kg, the use of the GAZ-M1 engine, as well as the Komsomolets transmission and suspension. But during testing, numerous minor defects again appeared in the tanks. Chief designer N. Astrov was removed from work and was under arrest and investigation for several months. In addition, the tank received a new turret with improved protection. The modified layout made it possible to place on the tank more ammunition for a machine gun and two small fire extinguishers (previously there were no fire extinguishers on small tanks of the Red Army).
US tanks as part of modernization work, on one production model of the tank in 1938-1939. The torsion bar suspension developed by the designer of the design bureau of plant No. 185 V. Kulikov was tested. It was distinguished by the design of a composite short coaxial torsion bar (long monotorsion bars could not be used coaxially). However, such a short torsion bar did not show good enough results in tests, and therefore the torsion bar suspension did not immediately pave the way for itself in the course of further work. Obstacles to be overcome: climbs of at least 40 degrees, vertical wall 0.7 m, covered ditch 2-2.5 m."
YouTube about tanks, work on the production of prototypes of D-180 and D-200 engines for reconnaissance tanks are not being carried out, jeopardizing the production of prototypes." Justifying his choice, N. Astrov said that a wheeled-tracked non-floating reconnaissance aircraft (factory designation 101 or 10-1), as well as a variant of an amphibious tank (factory designation 102 or 10-1 2), are a compromise solution, since it is not possible to fully satisfy the requirements of the ABTU. Option 101 was a tank weighing 7.5 tons with a hull-like hull, but with vertical side sheets of cemented armor 10-13 mm thick, since : “The inclined sides, causing serious weighting of the suspension and hull, require a significant (up to 300 mm) widening of the hull, not to mention the complication of the tank.
Video reviews of tanks in which the tank’s power unit was planned to be based on the 250-horsepower MG-31F aircraft engine, which was being developed by industry for agricultural aircraft and gyroplanes. 1st grade gasoline was placed in the tank under the floor of the fighting compartment and in additional onboard gas tanks. The armament fully corresponded to the task and consisted of coaxial machine guns DK 12.7 mm caliber and DT (in the second version of the project even ShKAS is listed) 7.62 mm caliber. The combat weight of the tank with torsion bar suspension was 5.2 tons, with spring suspension - 5.26 tons. Tests took place from July 9 to August 21 according to the methodology approved in 1938, and Special attention was given to tanks.