How Germans really took out KV-1s

[Holien]

That last story has a ring of human truth about it.

If I was inside enemy land and stuck inside my safe KV (for that period) I would stay put if I thought I had a chance of help arriving.

You know that if you open your hatch you are likely to be shot by the Germans. What do you have to lose?

Mind you I would think come night fall if I was on the outside with the Germans you would find a way to get some grenades or explosives on the side of a staionary tank with the crew having limited visibility.

H

[Trommelfeuer]

Here's the same story as posted by tar, with a KV-II instead of a KV-I...

On June 23rd the German 6th Panzerdivision established two bridgeheads over the Dubissa river, seizing the town of Rasyenya. The attack to this bridgeheads (formed by Pz 35(t), infantry, artillery and AT guns) begun the same day by the 12th Mechanized Corps and 2nd Tank Division and its KV heavy tanks of the 3rd Mechanized Corps as reinforcement. General Solyalyskin sent a single KV-2 and some infantry to sever the road connection with the rest of 6th Panzer.

It remained in that point for two days, destroying with its 152mm gun twelve trucks which tried to supply the isolated bridgeheads. Six 50mm PaK 39 were moved to dispatch the tank but as they succesfully scored five direct hits, the tank's gunner opened fire destroying the first gun and damaging the others. An 88mm gun (from the FlaK Abt. 298) was moved from its camouflaged position in the Northern bridgehead and with its halftracked prime mover used the wreckage of the trucks to reach a distance of 900 metres from its target where it was spotted by the tank crew a destroyed with two direct hits. Relief parties were kept away from MG fire. Night actions of the German Pz.Pionier Bn. 57 Engineers to blow it up failed due to heavy armor which remained unscatted from the explosive charge applied to the hull. A new attempt was only able to broke the track. Heavy MGs' fire prevented other tentatives.

So desperate was becoming the situation that the 6th Panzerdivision requested the 1st Panzer to come to the rescue by striking the Western flank of the 12th Mechanized Corps and 2nd Tank Division. The 1st Pz. Div. was largely equipped with the newer Pz III and IV, which have proved to be more succesfull (although in very unusual circumstances) than the Pz. 35(t) which equipped the 6th. In its drive, the 1st Pz. Div. succeded in breaching the Russian lines and defeat their armored forces as many KV tanks among their ranks (29 were destroyed or abandoned in the actions). This helped the bridgeheads by a grave pressure and so a Platoon of Pz. 35(t)s was sent to distract the KV-2 tank while another 88mm was carefully brought forward. When in position it opened fire, scoring six direct hits apparently disabling the tank. Further examination proved that only two projectiles had penetrated and while the German crew climbed over the tank, its turret rotated against them. An engineer finished it by launching some explosive in.

Found here.

Greetings, Sven

P.S. Has anyone heard the story of a KV-II being destroyed by a shot from a Panzer III through the KV-II's gun barrel ?

[ January 16, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Does this prove that my BS detector was functioning correctly?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Does this prove that my BS detector was functioning correctly?

Well at least in the book it is the original story, and not the 755 versions of it that are around on the internet.

The story still sounds like an exaggeration though. I have a similar story by a Soviet tank officer, who claims it happened to him, but it is very different in key aspects, e.g. security at night, when they disembarked the tank, and the location of the tank being in no-mans land, not miles behind the German lines.

[Ace Pilot]

I have to wonder why, if this tank was such a thorn in the side of the Germans, they couldn't call in a Stuka or other air support to eliminate the problem in the two days that it was sitting there?

Bad weather, or some other explanation?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The story still sounds like an exaggeration though. I have a similar story by a Soviet tank officer, who claims it happened to him, but it is very different in key aspects, e.g. security at night, when they disembarked the tank, and the location of the tank being in no-mans land, not miles behind the German lines.

That sounds alot more realistic: if the tank was stuck between the lines, holding on to it would make sense.

[MikeyD]

Remember, during the Barbarossa advance "No Man's Land" in the morning would be "Miles Behind enemy Lines" in the evening. I can well imagine a lone monster tank cut off from his comrades (especially if he was lacking a radio) having no choice but to sit there and do his duty until the inevitable came.

[Paul Lakowski]

This tale is typical of the way some war correspondance is reported. Early in Barbarossa the soviets had little chance of victory so every desprite tale became a focal point to make up for the lack of any good news. FOr example the divisions that were allegedly held up actually were to the east of the river encircling soviet mechanized korps destroying 200 tanks for the loss of 40 of there own tanks.

You see the samething happen to the germans at the end of the war. Great attention is paid to detailed accounts of individual acts of heroism and success while their own army crumbles around them.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

This tale is typical of the way some war correspondance is reported. Early in Barbarossa the soviets had little chance of victory so every desprite tale became a focal point to make up for the lack of any good news.

Even if Raus is lying, it would seem odd for him to resort to Soviet propaganda. So, what kind of person is he anyway? Maybe some analysis of his person and his history would help to understand why he wrote such things after the war.

[JunoReactor]

A Stuka or two might have come in handy. Wonder why the ubiquitous Luftwaffe never made an appearance.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

A Stuka or two might have come in handy. Wonder why the ubiquitous Luftwaffe never made an appearance.

I don't think there were any Stukas in Army Group North's air support in June and early July 1941. The Luftwaffe was far from ubiquitous during Barbarossa. On the contrary, it seems that in this sector air superiority belonged to the Soviets.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:

So, what kind of person is he anyway? Maybe some analysis of his person and his history would help to understand why he wrote such things after the war.

Someone with a very active imagination?

Raus was an Austrian, and was promoted rapidly during the war. Contrary to what it says in the first post, he did not rise to command an Army Group - his career ended when Hitler relieved him after a presentation early in 1945 (this incident is in Ryan's 'The last battle', without naming Raus). He commanded 4th Panzer Army, and then 3rd Panzer Army during 1944 and 1945. He was involved in the spring 1943 battle for Charkov, commanded 6th Panzer division during the Stalingrad relief attempt and the Don/Donets battles. His failure to appreciate the situation correctly contributed to the desaster of Fester Platz Tarnopol in March/April 44. In August/September 44 he was in charge of the counter-attacks to re-establish a connection between army groups centre and north.

After the war he contributed a lot to Marshall's project, and the book 'Panzers on the Eastern Front' is a collection of these papers. He also wrote articles for e.g. the Swiss 'Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau'. One of these articles is dealing with a Soviet attack by 25th Tank Corps on New Year's Eve 1942/3. The content of the article is disputed by a company commander who was present during that night battle (Raus was not), and is also not in line with a post-war account by the commander of the German unit who directed the battle.

During his time in the pre-war Austrian army, he was an infantry tactics instructor for a while. I would suspect it is possible that his style of writing was driven by making battle accounts more interesting, thereby being able to impart the important lessons on the young officers. If that means embellishing some facts, I guess that is not a problem.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JunoReactor:

A Stuka or two might have come in handy. Wonder why the ubiquitous Luftwaffe never made an appearance.

I don't think there were any Stukas in Army Group North's air support in June and early July 1941. The Luftwaffe was far from ubiquitous during Barbarossa. On the contrary, it seems that in this sector air superiority belonged to the Soviets. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

I found, where at the end of July 41, FlKps VIII transfered 400 Stukas to Luftlotte 1, assigned to Army Group North, but don't find a reference for the number before that.

I can not believe, that there were "NO" stukas supporting the Army Group, before that time. Blitzkreig would seem to have demanded the Stuka be present, as it was one of the main ingredients.

Panther Commander

Well, if you can find any proof for Stukas being present before then, I'd love to see it. IIRC the MGFA's 'Germany and the second World War', which is the official history, claims there were none before the transfer of VIII. FK. Since one of the authors is Boog, who is apparently the expert on the Luftwaffe, I would tend to believe it.

[Sergei]

Nice bio about Raus, Andreas. I guess Münchhausen syndrome is a German national disease.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I guess Münchhausen syndrome is a German national disease.

Thought he was Austrian?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Nice bio about Raus, Andreas. I guess Münchhausen syndrome is a German national disease.

Delaying turns is a Finnish disease then?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Thought he was Austrian?

So was Hitler! Beat that!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

I guess Münchhausen syndrome is a German national disease.

Thought he was Austrian? </font>

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

This tale is typical of the way some war correspondance is reported. Early in Barbarossa the soviets had little chance of victory so every desprite tale became a focal point to make up for the lack of any good news.

Even if Raus is lying, it would seem odd for him to resort to Soviet propaganda. So, what kind of person is he anyway? Maybe some analysis of his person and his history would help to understand why he wrote such things after the war. </font>

[gunnergoz]

In the late 40's and early 50's, the US Army printed some books about German experiences on the Eastern Front, drawn from survivors interviewed by US historians after the war. Obviously, most of the people interviewed were German, this being the early Cold War...not much was coming out of the Soviet side then.

I know that in one of these books --- which have since been reprinted --- there is an actual incident described in some detail about a KV-2 that held up the advance of a German panzer korps in July '41 IIRC. The story is likely true considering the official source and research done...after all, the US Army was looking for ways to fight the Soviets and war seemed a distinct likelihood back then, so the experience of German soldiers and officers were a gold mine of tactical and operational expertise.

I recall it pretty well...the KV-2 was blocking the main road that was the axis of advance of the korps. Initial attempts to knock it out with 37mm guns were futile, even when efforts were made to target potentially vulnerable spots. The thing just sat there and menaced all comers. Eighty-eights were brought up and didn't kill it off, though some rounds apparently penetrated to some degree. German engineers finally got up close enough to set charges that stunned the crew and, IIRC, the crew was taken out when they attempted to escape. By then, the tank was immobile from track hits or whatever, but the main gun was still functional. It apparently took about 30-40 hours to finally conclude the episode, if memory serves me.

I've also seen photos of this particular tank, or at least that purport to be the same one...riddled and peppered with dents and pockmarks, but still ominous and deadly almost to the end.

Anyway, there is credible evidence that at least one such incident took place.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

The story is likely true considering the official source and research done...after all, the US Army was looking for ways to fight the Soviets and war seemed a distinct likelihood back then, so the experience of German soldiers and officers were a gold mine of tactical and operational expertise.

It is the same story that tar posted at the beginning of the thread. Research done was most likely zero, because the story is just based on what Gen-Oberst Raus wrote down for the Americans. Most likely he did not have access to any documentary evidence during his time writing these stories. As I outlined above, there is one story where it can be shown that he made things up for dramatic effect.

There is only one way to find out if it is true. Go to the National Archives in Washington, get the KTB of 6.PD for that day, and hope that the incident is mentioned in there. Most regimental and below KTBs did not survive the war, they were destroyed in an air raid on Potsdam late in the war. They would not be as reliable anyway.

[ January 18, 2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Trommelfeuer]

...you just do what Hermann Bix' gunner Krause did after failing to pierce the side of a KV-I (in a Panzer III)... Shoot it through the barrel. Now thats mad skills...

True ? Myth ? BS ?

Regards, Sven

[MikeyD]

Most well known 'heroic' wartime anecdotes are just that - anecdotes. The same incident told by two soldiers 50 yards apart will often be very different. That's a simple function of perceptions and memory. On top of that a historian inadvertantly changing a single word ('soon' to 'quickly' for instance) from the original account can skew an entire story.

I see nothing in the original post that's any different than any other typical wartime anecdote. Why didn't they assault the tank at night you ask? The account stipulates that the tank was behind the front lines blocking a supply line. That would imply it was mostly confronting second tier files clerks and truck drivers who no doubt weren't prepared to assault a 40 ton monster. It probably took a day or two to haul the necessary professionals back from the front to do some mopping-up.

[Wisbech_lad]

True. Even for a famous, well documented incident like Pegasus Bridge, there seem to be a number of differing accounts, with 7th Para exploits being attributed the Ox & Bucks or Commandos.