KV Tank With Three Turrets-Fact or Fiction?

[rexford]

The Albany, NY Hobbytown has a scale model of a KV tank that Stalin supposedly had built after panzers were delayed by individual KV-1 and KV-2 behemoths.

This is the story that goes with the model:

The Stalin concept tank had two KV hulls welded together and three KV turrets. One turret had two 152mm guns, one had a flamethrower and two 76.2mm guns and the third had rockets on top and some guns in the turret. Three of these were built.

The first saw combat and one of the turrets fired into another turret. One super KV down.

The second super KV hull cracked as it went over a depression and burned. Two down.

The third super KV had all three guns simultaneously fire at flank targets on the same side, the tank rolled over and burned.

Super KV designers spent rest of war in Siberian camps. They forgot normal devices that do not allow turrets to fire into each other or to all fire broadsides at same time.

Is this real or make believe, you decide.

[Guest Michael emrys]

This anecdote, combined with similar ones about Hitler's pet mega-tank schemes just goes to show how much autocratic dictators have in common with certain kinds of wargamers who find similar hypertrophic designs irresistable. A pox on the lot of them!

Michael

[Tiger]

I say make-believe. The only soviet supertank I can think of is the single SU-130 "Igrek" SP gun based of the T-100 prototype. There's also the SMK model 1939 with two turrents, a 45mm amd a 76mm, ancestor of the KV series. The Soviets were pretty knowledgeable about tank design and it's doubtful they would have wasted resources on such a behemoth. The T-34 design itself was "frozen" for a year or so to concentrate on quantity instead of improvements. The description you gave sounds like some model-maker on crack put it together

John

[Maximus]

And they said the Maus was big...

I doubt very seriously ANYBODY in their right military mind would have built such a behemoth. For one, the damn thing would have been too heavy to be very useful for anything other than a mobile pillbox.

Secondly, how do you fit 3 large turrets on any tank hull(s)?

------------------

For your dream car click here.

[Perchpole]

Originally posted by Maximus:

Secondly, how do you fit 3 large turrets on any tank hull(s)?

Though, admittedly, not on the same scale, the Russian T-35 tank did possess 3 turrets. The main turret was armed with a short 76.2 mm howitzer, whilst the two smaller turrets (one at the front and one at the back) sported 37 mm guns. This lumbering beast had a crew of no less than 11 men. In all, only 60 or so T-35's were ever made and of these most saw action - and were destroyed - in 1941 fighting against the Finns.

------------------

Perch

[Gregory Deych]

There was a Usenet discussion on the subj a while back, with the consensus being that it was a total crock of bull****. My "KV Soviet Heavy Tank" booklet covers as far as I know all developmental version of KV: 3,4,6,7,8,9,13 and 122 and nothing like this monster appears in there.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Perchpole:

Though, admittedly, not on the same scale, the Russian T-35 tank did possess 3 turrets. The main turret was armed with a short 76.2 mm howitzer, whilst the two smaller turrets (one at the front and one at the back) sported 37 mm guns.

This tank appeared in several versions. The earliest, in addition to the turrets and guns you mention, also had two small turrets mounting MGs.

Later versions omitted the MG turrets and up-gunned the secondary turrets from 37mm to 45mm. There were other patterns as well.

This lumbering beast had a crew of no less than 11 men. In all, only 60 or so T-35's were ever made and of these most saw action - and were destroyed - in 1941 fighting against the Finns.

My source says 10 men and production of only 20-30 vehicles, but given the paucity and confusion of information on the subject, I'd concede that your figures are as likely as mine.

Source: Russian Tanks 1900-1970, John Milsom.

Michael

[rexford]

There may have been three hulls welded together to hold the three turrets.

Next time I go to the hobby shop I'll see if they gave a good reference document. Funny that no one, German or Russian took pictures or brought it home of rshow-'n-tell.

The tank did not move very fast, but, if one believes the write-up with the model, Stalin believed it could stop panzer divisions for days.

[rexford]

The gun that fired into another turret on the same vehicle did so against a moving target, it tracked the target, moved out ahead of the target to obtain a lead and fired into the adjacent turret, or so the story goes.

[Bruno Weiss]

Hmm, be pretty difficult to turn the hull in the direction of a triple threat target though. Wonder what "their" training manual said about that?

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-11-2001).]

[armornut]

I have a KV book somewhere that say's it was a concept tht was thought about. The model is most likly a model based off of that CONCEPT. It most likly was never enen built, just tossed about as an idea. The Russians liked to think very large in terms of tank size for a short period of the war. They had a whole bunch of ideas for giant tanks with more than one turret. I think that only one type was made T-35. They were used, as perchpole said, against the Finn's in 1941. I thought however that there was only one that saw sevice, and it was immobilized before it really saw much action. The Russians had to fall back and leave it because of the size they could not move it. They shelled the hell out of the area to keep it from beeing taken by the Finn's. When they returned they found a few of the hatchs had be removed, but that was all that the Finn's could get off of it. The book is old, and I cannot find it, but that is the story I remember.

Armornut

[Mr Oz]

Originally posted by rexford:

The Albany, NY Hobbytown has a scale model of a KV tank that Stalin supposedly had built after panzers were delayed by individual KV-1 and KV-2 behemoths.

This is the story that goes with the model:

The Stalin concept tank had two KV hulls welded together and three KV turrets. One turret had two 152mm guns, one had a flamethrower and two 76.2mm guns and the third had rockets on top and some guns in the turret. Three of these were built.

The first saw combat and one of the turrets fired into another turret. One super KV down.

The second super KV hull cracked as it went over a depression and burned. Two down.

The third super KV had all three guns simultaneously fire at flank targets on the same side, the tank rolled over and burned.

Super KV designers spent rest of war in Siberian camps. They forgot normal devices that do not allow turrets to fire into each other or to all fire broadsides at same time.

Is this real or make believe, you decide.

You mean this?

[FriendlyFire]

I think ya missed out a www in that URL...

I'd like to see that thing trying to turn round.

[Grrr, so much for my first image post]

[This message has been edited by FriendlyFire (edited 03-11-2001).]

[Guest Mike the bike]

I recall something vaguely like the written description circulatign a while back, complte with a really cool story about it's development.

The whole thing was a modeler's hoax.

Sorry, but I can't see the pics that were posted, so I'm not sure if they are "it" or not.

[Guest Michael emrys]

So that's what the sucker looks like! Yeah, that's definitely a modeler's fantasy. Unless you took off the treads and figured a way to get it to float, there's no way you'd get that to work. Nice fake out though. I'm particularly fond of the Katyusha on the back.

Michael

[Mr Oz]

Originally posted by Mike the bike:

I recall something vaguely like the written description circulatign a while back, complte with a really cool story about it's development.

The whole thing was a modeler's hoax.

Sorry, but I can't see the pics that were posted, so I'm not sure if they are "it" or not.

Sometimes the picture shows up and sometimes it doesn't, Right click on the box with the x where the picture should be, select properties and then copy and paste the url into the address line. The pic should show up.

[Guest Mike the bike]

Thanks - yep, that's "it"!! Definitely a fake - shame it doesn't have the full story at that site

[ASL Veteran]

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I'm sure the turn radius on that thing would be ... well, ridiculous. Why combine three tanks together when you could just have three separate tanks?

------------------

When we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers ... you know what I mean by assaulted huh? WELL I MEAN ASSAULTED!!!!

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

Like I say, a wargamer's/modeler's fantasy. I've known guys that were totally convinced that something like that would be totally invincible; a war-winner. Some people are just really, really dumb.

As a spoof though, I think it's great!

Michael

[gaffertape]

Shame if its a hoax - I did enjoy the story of its history. The article I read had the same info as REXFORD - 3 were made, and 3 were destroyed pretty quickly.

So the story goes, Stalin was impressed by a pair of KVIIs that held off a wave of German tanks. He felt that a supertank would fare even better.

I must admit though, that this monster seems to go against the sound design principles of mid-to-late war Russian tank design.

GAFF

[tss]

armornut wrote:

They were used, as perchpole said, against the Finn's in 1941.

Not as far as I know. There seems to be some confusion about tank models which is emphasised by the fact that most Finnish writers identify all heavy tanks with more than one turret as T-35s.

Many Finnish sources state that Soviets used T-35s against Mannerheim Line at Summa on December 18-19 1939 and later during the February major offensive. However, Soviet sources deny this and I'm inclined to believe them more. (Tank identification was never a precision science among Finnish infantrymen).

However, Soviets field-tested in December T-100 and SMK heavy tanks that were built on T-35 chassis. The SMK broke through Finnish lines and was immobilized there. Some sources state that it hit a mine, others claim that it was immobilized with a demolition charge. I don't know the truth. The tank was too heavy for Finnish recovery vehicles so it was left in place until Soviet breakthrough.

Here's a picture of the immobilized SMK:

The two men who stand by the T-28 are both Finns so this photo quite conclusively proves that SMK was lost behind Finnish lines. (Some sources claim that it was immobilized in the no-man's land). It is possible that the T-100 was immobilized between lines and that Soviets couldn't recover it.

Note that in many Finnish sources this picture appears with a caption claiming that the tank is a T-35C.

In February the Red Army field tested some other heavy constructions that were based on T-35 chassis. I don't have my sources available right now but there were two versions of heavy assault guns, with 150 mm howitzers, IIRC.

Also KV-I and KV-II tanks were field tested at Summa, the KV-I in December and KV-II in February. An old legend withstanding, the T-34 tank was not used in the Winter War but in Summer 1940 the prototypes were tested against the old fortifications.

I haven't seen any mentions of T-35s in Finnish front in 1941.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Zakalwe]

Originally posted by tss:

Not as far as I know. There seems to be some confusion about tank models which is emphasised by the fact that most Finnish writers identify all heavy tanks with more than one turret as T-35s.

Many Finnish sources state that Soviets used T-35s against Mannerheim Line at Summa on December 18-19 1939 and later during the February major offensive. However, Soviet sources deny this and I'm inclined to believe them more. (Tank identification was never a precision science among Finnish infantrymen).

- Tommi

So it's SMK, then? I've been wondering about that picture for a decade. As you stated, Soviet sources deny the use of T-35s in hte Winter War, and some Finnish sources supported this. However, this picture was often cited to represent a T-35, so I was a bit confused.

Back in the late 80's I talked to a Finnish veteran who was an ATG gunner in the Summa sector. He said that he was pretty sure there were no T-35s in action (I expressly asked, since I was an avid ASL player at the time), he guessed that most of the infantrymen were confusing T-28s with their larger cousins; the existence of T-35 was common knowledge, but very few actually knew what the vehicle looked like.

[JunoReactor]

Appeal to BTS:

Can we *please* have this tank as an easter egg in CM2?

Oh it would be SO fun to play around with. I can see the scenarios even now. Plus, it would appeal to all that Red Alert crowd, guaranteed sales around the 2 million mark in first two weeks of release! Think about it BTS, you could be swimming in money.

[Jasper]

Gotta love 'Russian Battlefield'. http://history.vif2.ru/ What you're looking for is a T-35.

Who says that battleship designers can't design tanks too?

http://history.vif2.ru/t35.html

------------------

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or

http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

[This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Jasper:

Gotta love 'Russian Battlefield'. http://history.vif2.ru/ What you're looking for is a T-35.

Note that this is the early version with five turrets. If you look closely you can make out the port forward MG turret. The starboard aft MG turret is masked by the port aft 37mm turret.

Michael