Captured KV Tanks

[Battlefront.com]

The use of captured armored vehicles (especially tracked ones) was rare for all nations. The main reason is that captured AFVs were usually damaged in some way. Even minor damage was often very difficult to fix. Heck, the Germans had a hard enough time keeping their own German made vehicles running during much of the campaign in the East! The reason is that these things broke down and broke down often. Not just in one or two ways, but in dozens of ways which would limit or outright remove its value as a fighting vehicle.

As someone who owns quite a number of military vehicles I know a thing or two about the issue with parts. Most parts are not interchangable between vehicles. I don't just mean transmissions and engines, but also little stuff like $20 worth of ball bearings and racers. Most people can not conceive of a 30+ ton vehicle being inopperable because of a minor failing like this, but trust me... if the driveshaft cracks off because a needle bearing failed you ain't going NO PLACE (not that Moon and I know anything about this, nor about the 7 mile snowshoe trip that followed ).

The problem was once a bunch of captured tanks were concentrated in one area they could be maintained at GREAT effort. This did happen from time to time, but generally only when domestic vehicles were not available. As soon as they were made available... the captured stuff was just run into the ground and abandoned when they broke down.

All nations in CMBB will have access to some captured stuff based on evidence of "common" use. Meaning, more than 30 or so were used. But if you play with Rarity on... forget about ever seeing captured stuff in your Quick Battles

Steve

[Mattias]

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

[/qb]At one point there was quite a bit of debate as to whether the Su76i actually existed in the numbers claimed for it.<hr></blockquote>

Right, one shouldn't just accept things Brian, I like that

For some, most probably, un-doctored shots of the SU76i head over to the Russian Military Zone:

http://history.vif2.ru/su76i.html

For one version of the Pz IV turret mounted on a Pz V chassis head over to Achtung Panzer:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

As for the KV with a German KwK there is a picture of it on page 280 in Spielbergers "Beute- Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht". The author presents it as a L/43 gun, as indeed the early "ball" type muzzle break seems to support.

For those interested Achtung Panzer has one or two things to say about T-34's in German use:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm

That page takes a considerably more "liberal" stance with regards to German T-34 use than, for example, Spielberger in the above mentioned book. One would have to find a few more sources before being able to pin down the numbers used more closely.

M.

P.S.

Hmm.. Is it poor Internet practice to post links directly to a specific page within a site?

[Mattias]

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

[/qb]At one point there was quite a bit of debate as to whether the Su76i actually existed in the numbers claimed for it.<hr></blockquote>

Right, one shouldn't just accept things Brian, I like that

For some, most probably, un-doctored shots of the SU76i head over to the Russian Military Zone:

http://history.vif2.ru/su76i.html

For one version of the Pz IV turret mounted on a Pz V chassis head over to Achtung Panzer:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

As for the KV with a German KwK there is a picture of it on page 280 in Spielbergers "Beute- Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht". The author presents it as a L/43 gun, as indeed the early "ball" type muzzle break seems to support.

For those interested Achtung Panzer has one or two things to say about T-34's in German use:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm

That page takes a considerably more "liberal" stance with regards to German T-34 use than, for example, Spielberger in the above mentioned book. One would have to find a few more sources before being able to pin down the numbers used more closely.

M.

P.S.

Hmm.. Is it poor Internet practice to post links directly to a specific page within a site?

[Brian]

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

Right, one shouldn't just accept things Brian, I like that

<hr></blockquote>

Of course not. One should also be careful about making sure one reads the qualifications that people place on statements as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

For some, most probably, un-doctored shots of the SU76i head over to the Russian Military Zone:

http://history.vif2.ru/su76i.html

<hr></blockquote>

Mmm, interesting. Although it is of the prototype, I can only see four units mentioned as being armed with this vehicle in that article. With ~20 or less Su76i's per unit, again, according to that article, thats not that many really.

I suspect that a ratio of about 1:3 is about right (300 captured at Kursk, 100 kept running by cannibalisation/capture of spares/etc).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

For one version of the Pz IV turret mounted on a Pz V chassis head over to Achtung Panzer:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, thats the place I first saw it mentioned. I believe its also mentioned on the Technical Virtue website here.. That site features an actual photo of the vehicle. Both most probably draw on the same source book. It makes the note that it was a converted Bergepanther, with the upper hull of a Mk.IV welded on, with as I mentioned the Mk.IV's turret ring.

Personally, I still cannot see much point in it. I'd think the Bergepanther was more useful as a recovery vehicle than the small increase in firepower that this conversion would have conferred on the unit concerned. Anyway, it was a one off conversion and while interesting, in itself it has little bearing on the topic under discussion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As for the KV with a German KwK there is a picture of it on page 280 in Spielbergers "Beute- Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht". The author presents it as a L/43 gun, as indeed the early "ball" type muzzle break seems to support.

<hr></blockquote>

Is there an English edition of the book? If it had the ball muzzle break then yes, it was more likely to be an L/43 gun. However, I'd ask what the point was, when a rechambering of the original 76.2mm gun would allow it to fire German ammunition which would seem to have made more sense than ripping out the entire gun and replacing it, if this was meant to be an official, prototype vehicle. If it was a field conversion, then yes, replacing the gun makes some sense but Soviet ammunition wasn't exactly in short supply for the Germans for most of the war...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

P.S.

Hmm.. Is it poor Internet practice to post links directly to a specific page within a site?<hr></blockquote>

IMO, no it isn't. Its exactly the same as referencing the page of a book. You don't simply pointing the reader at the whole book, you point them at the actual page the reference is on.

[Brian]

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

Right, one shouldn't just accept things Brian, I like that

<hr></blockquote>

Of course not. One should also be careful about making sure one reads the qualifications that people place on statements as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

For some, most probably, un-doctored shots of the SU76i head over to the Russian Military Zone:

http://history.vif2.ru/su76i.html

<hr></blockquote>

Mmm, interesting. Although it is of the prototype, I can only see four units mentioned as being armed with this vehicle in that article. With ~20 or less Su76i's per unit, again, according to that article, thats not that many really.

I suspect that a ratio of about 1:3 is about right (300 captured at Kursk, 100 kept running by cannibalisation/capture of spares/etc).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

For one version of the Pz IV turret mounted on a Pz V chassis head over to Achtung Panzer:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, thats the place I first saw it mentioned. I believe its also mentioned on the Technical Virtue website here.. That site features an actual photo of the vehicle. Both most probably draw on the same source book. It makes the note that it was a converted Bergepanther, with the upper hull of a Mk.IV welded on, with as I mentioned the Mk.IV's turret ring.

Personally, I still cannot see much point in it. I'd think the Bergepanther was more useful as a recovery vehicle than the small increase in firepower that this conversion would have conferred on the unit concerned. Anyway, it was a one off conversion and while interesting, in itself it has little bearing on the topic under discussion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As for the KV with a German KwK there is a picture of it on page 280 in Spielbergers "Beute- Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht". The author presents it as a L/43 gun, as indeed the early "ball" type muzzle break seems to support.

<hr></blockquote>

Is there an English edition of the book? If it had the ball muzzle break then yes, it was more likely to be an L/43 gun. However, I'd ask what the point was, when a rechambering of the original 76.2mm gun would allow it to fire German ammunition which would seem to have made more sense than ripping out the entire gun and replacing it, if this was meant to be an official, prototype vehicle. If it was a field conversion, then yes, replacing the gun makes some sense but Soviet ammunition wasn't exactly in short supply for the Germans for most of the war...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

P.S.

Hmm.. Is it poor Internet practice to post links directly to a specific page within a site?<hr></blockquote>

IMO, no it isn't. Its exactly the same as referencing the page of a book. You don't simply pointing the reader at the whole book, you point them at the actual page the reference is on.

[Brian]

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

As for the KV with a German KwK there is a picture of it on page 280 in Spielbergers "Beute- Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht". The author presents it as a L/43 gun, as indeed the early "ball" type muzzle break seems to support.

<hr></blockquote>

P.S. Just found this vehicle on the Technical Virtue website here. Interestingly, this picture makes it clear that the vehicle's gun didn't have the early ball type muzzle brake, but rather the latter cage type. It claims it was equipped with a Pak40, rather than the L/48 Kwk40.

[Brian]

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

As for the KV with a German KwK there is a picture of it on page 280 in Spielbergers "Beute- Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht". The author presents it as a L/43 gun, as indeed the early "ball" type muzzle break seems to support.

<hr></blockquote>

P.S. Just found this vehicle on the Technical Virtue website here. Interestingly, this picture makes it clear that the vehicle's gun didn't have the early ball type muzzle brake, but rather the latter cage type. It claims it was equipped with a Pak40, rather than the L/48 Kwk40.

[Mattias]

Brian,

Well, unless the version presented on the site is wrong it seems pretty clear to me. There are 3 exterior shots of the prototype and 4 of different production vehicles. The site also says that "In total, Factory #37 manufactured 181 SU-76i plus 20 commander SU-76i.", which would land us with just over 200 produced (in the line from May 1943). What is it that you are doubting in this, the deployment?

The conversion of the Bergepanther was no doubt done because the schw. Pz Jäg. Abt. 653 had more use of an agile command tank than they had of another recovery vehicle.

You are right about the gun mounted on the KV though, it does not have the "ball" muzzle break. What fooled me was the fact that the picture in Spielbergers book is cropped in such a way that only a small part of the muzzle break is visible, looking deceptively "ballish", and since the man referred to it as a L/43 I didn't pick up the magnifying glass

M.

[Mattias]

Brian,

Well, unless the version presented on the site is wrong it seems pretty clear to me. There are 3 exterior shots of the prototype and 4 of different production vehicles. The site also says that "In total, Factory #37 manufactured 181 SU-76i plus 20 commander SU-76i.", which would land us with just over 200 produced (in the line from May 1943). What is it that you are doubting in this, the deployment?

The conversion of the Bergepanther was no doubt done because the schw. Pz Jäg. Abt. 653 had more use of an agile command tank than they had of another recovery vehicle.

You are right about the gun mounted on the KV though, it does not have the "ball" muzzle break. What fooled me was the fact that the picture in Spielbergers book is cropped in such a way that only a small part of the muzzle break is visible, looking deceptively "ballish", and since the man referred to it as a L/43 I didn't pick up the magnifying glass

M.

[Battlefront.com]

Brain,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>IMO, no it isn't. Its exactly the same as referencing the page of a book. You don't simply pointing the reader at the whole book, you point them at the actual page the reference is on. <hr></blockquote>

Personally I totally agree with you, but I know many Webmasters do not because it screws up their page hit statistic. But I say... tough, that's their problem

I hate being given a link to a homepage and then verbal instructions how to navigate to the correct page. Total waste of my time and sometimes on big sites nearly impossible to do without many wrong turns.

Steve

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Brain,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>IMO, no it isn't. Its exactly the same as referencing the page of a book. You don't simply pointing the reader at the whole book, you point them at the actual page the reference is on. <hr></blockquote>

Personally I totally agree with you, but I know many Webmasters do not because it screws up their page hit statistic. But I say... tough, that's their problem

I hate being given a link to a homepage and then verbal instructions how to navigate to the correct page. Total waste of my time and sometimes on big sites nearly impossible to do without many wrong turns.

Steve

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Are the PanzerII Ausf D's going to be modeled?

Officially the Panzer Selbstfahrlafette 1 für 7.62cm PaK36® auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf D1 und D2 (Sd Kfz 132), it represented the first German attempt to mount the excellent Soviet 76.2mm anti-tank gun in a self-propelled mounting. The hull and superstructure was unchanged from the Alkett LaS chassis designed to be the Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf D, E, and Flamm.

A total of 201 of these vehicles were produced and were supplied to Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions from 1942 onwards. They were only intended as a stopgap measure, as their superstructure was very high (making them a prominent target). They were gradually phased out in 1944 having served their intended purpose admirably.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Are the PanzerII Ausf D's going to be modeled?

Officially the Panzer Selbstfahrlafette 1 für 7.62cm PaK36® auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf D1 und D2 (Sd Kfz 132), it represented the first German attempt to mount the excellent Soviet 76.2mm anti-tank gun in a self-propelled mounting. The hull and superstructure was unchanged from the Alkett LaS chassis designed to be the Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf D, E, and Flamm.

A total of 201 of these vehicles were produced and were supplied to Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions from 1942 onwards. They were only intended as a stopgap measure, as their superstructure was very high (making them a prominent target). They were gradually phased out in 1944 having served their intended purpose admirably.

[Brian]

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

Brian,

Well, unless the version presented on the site is wrong it seems pretty clear to me. There are 3 exterior shots of the prototype and 4 of different production vehicles. The site also says that "In total, Factory #37 manufactured 181 SU-76i plus 20 commander SU-76i.", which would land us with just over 200 produced (in the line from May 1943). What is it that you are doubting in this, the deployment?

<hr></blockquote>Basically, yes, Mattias. We've clashed before over this sort of thing. Indeed, if you wish, I'm now willing to revisit the matter of the Puppchen, now that I've rescued my references from storage. However, ignoring that one for the moment , the page referred to, only talks about four units, one of which was understrength, apparently or equipped with different vehicles. I'm not disputing numbers manufactured so much as how they were issued and whether or not how hard it was found to maintain them. As even the Germans were, as far as I'm aware, rather poor in their manufacture of spares for their vehicles (a complaint I've read in several different sources over the years), I wonder just what was the serviceability rate of these vehicles?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The conversion of the Bergepanther was no doubt done because the schw. Pz Jäg. Abt. 653 had more use of an agile command tank than they had of another recovery vehicle.

<hr></blockquote>Again, I note that all too often Germans, writing postwar complained about how they lacked the facilities to recover their vehicles, if they were even lightly damaged. The value of the Bergepanther was always emphasised as apart from the FAMO 18ton half-track, they were the only vehicles which could recover a Tiger or similar weighted vehicle. Both the FAMO's and the Bergepanthers were in perenial short supply, supposedly, so thats why I'd suggest it was more valuable as a recovery vehicle than a gun tank. I must say though, it must have been quite a bit more roomy than a standard Mk.IV so perhaps it could have been useful as a command tank.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You are right about the gun mounted on the KV though, it does not have the "ball" muzzle break. What fooled me was the fact that the picture in Spielbergers book is cropped in such a way that only a small part of the muzzle break is visible, looking deceptively "ballish", and since the man referred to it as a L/43 I didn't pick up the magnifying glass

<hr></blockquote>

Fair enough. I had problems on the photo I directed you to, seeing the Panzer IV cupola. I'm also surprised that the Pak40 rather than a Kwk40 was used. Surely the Pak40 would have taken up more room than the Kwk40? Either way, I think it would have been a pretty potent vehicle. Perhaps the Germans should have put that into production, instead of the Panther? Even the vk.3001 was IMO a better long-term bet.

[Brian]

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

Brian,

Well, unless the version presented on the site is wrong it seems pretty clear to me. There are 3 exterior shots of the prototype and 4 of different production vehicles. The site also says that "In total, Factory #37 manufactured 181 SU-76i plus 20 commander SU-76i.", which would land us with just over 200 produced (in the line from May 1943). What is it that you are doubting in this, the deployment?

<hr></blockquote>Basically, yes, Mattias. We've clashed before over this sort of thing. Indeed, if you wish, I'm now willing to revisit the matter of the Puppchen, now that I've rescued my references from storage. However, ignoring that one for the moment , the page referred to, only talks about four units, one of which was understrength, apparently or equipped with different vehicles. I'm not disputing numbers manufactured so much as how they were issued and whether or not how hard it was found to maintain them. As even the Germans were, as far as I'm aware, rather poor in their manufacture of spares for their vehicles (a complaint I've read in several different sources over the years), I wonder just what was the serviceability rate of these vehicles?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The conversion of the Bergepanther was no doubt done because the schw. Pz Jäg. Abt. 653 had more use of an agile command tank than they had of another recovery vehicle.

<hr></blockquote>Again, I note that all too often Germans, writing postwar complained about how they lacked the facilities to recover their vehicles, if they were even lightly damaged. The value of the Bergepanther was always emphasised as apart from the FAMO 18ton half-track, they were the only vehicles which could recover a Tiger or similar weighted vehicle. Both the FAMO's and the Bergepanthers were in perenial short supply, supposedly, so thats why I'd suggest it was more valuable as a recovery vehicle than a gun tank. I must say though, it must have been quite a bit more roomy than a standard Mk.IV so perhaps it could have been useful as a command tank.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You are right about the gun mounted on the KV though, it does not have the "ball" muzzle break. What fooled me was the fact that the picture in Spielbergers book is cropped in such a way that only a small part of the muzzle break is visible, looking deceptively "ballish", and since the man referred to it as a L/43 I didn't pick up the magnifying glass

<hr></blockquote>

Fair enough. I had problems on the photo I directed you to, seeing the Panzer IV cupola. I'm also surprised that the Pak40 rather than a Kwk40 was used. Surely the Pak40 would have taken up more room than the Kwk40? Either way, I think it would have been a pretty potent vehicle. Perhaps the Germans should have put that into production, instead of the Panther? Even the vk.3001 was IMO a better long-term bet.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brain,

Personally I totally agree with you, but I know many Webmasters do not because it screws up their page hit statistic. But I say... tough, that's their problem

I hate being given a link to a homepage and then verbal instructions how to navigate to the correct page. Total waste of my time and sometimes on big sites nearly impossible to do without many wrong turns.

Steve

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>

As a full-time SysAdmin and Hostmaster, I'd suggest any webmasters that have problems with that need a better logging and analysis system. Try Sawmill, its one of the better commercial ones around and it can be configured to analyse hits on the basis of individual pages, if your webserver logs it (and thats the key, much more than the analysis software).

I merely view as I said, exactly like referencing a page number in a book. If I want to direct a person to the whole website, I do so but if I'm making a point about a particular page, thats where I'll direct them to.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brain,

Personally I totally agree with you, but I know many Webmasters do not because it screws up their page hit statistic. But I say... tough, that's their problem

I hate being given a link to a homepage and then verbal instructions how to navigate to the correct page. Total waste of my time and sometimes on big sites nearly impossible to do without many wrong turns.

Steve

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>

As a full-time SysAdmin and Hostmaster, I'd suggest any webmasters that have problems with that need a better logging and analysis system. Try Sawmill, its one of the better commercial ones around and it can be configured to analyse hits on the basis of individual pages, if your webserver logs it (and thats the key, much more than the analysis software).

I merely view as I said, exactly like referencing a page number in a book. If I want to direct a person to the whole website, I do so but if I'm making a point about a particular page, thats where I'll direct them to.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The use of captured armored vehicles (especially tracked ones) was rare for all nations. The main reason is that captured AFVs were usually damaged in some way. Even minor damage was often very difficult to fix...... The problem was once a bunch of captured tanks were concentrated in one area they could be maintained at GREAT effort. This did happen from time to time, but generally only when domestic vehicles were not available. As soon as they were made available... the captured stuff was just run into the ground and abandoned when they broke down.

How did you resolve this problem in the case of a nation which relied very heavily on captured materiel and which historically kept some of them going almost 25 years beyond the last being produced in the parent nation ?

All nations in CMBB will have access to some captured stuff based on evidence of "common" use. Meaning, more than 30 or so were used. But if you play with Rarity on... forget about ever seeing captured stuff in your Quick Battles

So basically the Finns will get BT-7's (widrawn from service altogether by late 1943) because they were used in numbers but the few T-34's and the two KV's that played much more vital role in the war effort are out because of this "30-vehicle rule" ? And this means the Finns do not get most of the AC's either ?

Historically the Finnish armoured division worked with T-26's and other assorted captured stuff, later supplemented/replaced by the Stugs because they were the most numerous vehicles present in the OB at any given time.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The use of captured armored vehicles (especially tracked ones) was rare for all nations. The main reason is that captured AFVs were usually damaged in some way. Even minor damage was often very difficult to fix...... The problem was once a bunch of captured tanks were concentrated in one area they could be maintained at GREAT effort. This did happen from time to time, but generally only when domestic vehicles were not available. As soon as they were made available... the captured stuff was just run into the ground and abandoned when they broke down.

How did you resolve this problem in the case of a nation which relied very heavily on captured materiel and which historically kept some of them going almost 25 years beyond the last being produced in the parent nation ?

All nations in CMBB will have access to some captured stuff based on evidence of "common" use. Meaning, more than 30 or so were used. But if you play with Rarity on... forget about ever seeing captured stuff in your Quick Battles

So basically the Finns will get BT-7's (widrawn from service altogether by late 1943) because they were used in numbers but the few T-34's and the two KV's that played much more vital role in the war effort are out because of this "30-vehicle rule" ? And this means the Finns do not get most of the AC's either ?

Historically the Finnish armoured division worked with T-26's and other assorted captured stuff, later supplemented/replaced by the Stugs because they were the most numerous vehicles present in the OB at any given time.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Bullethead]

tero said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How did you resolve this problem in the case of a nation which relied very heavily on captured materiel and which historically kept some of them going almost 25 years beyond the last being produced in the parent nation ?<hr></blockquote>

Don't sweat it, tero. Uberfinns don't need tanks anyway

[Bullethead]

tero said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How did you resolve this problem in the case of a nation which relied very heavily on captured materiel and which historically kept some of them going almost 25 years beyond the last being produced in the parent nation ?<hr></blockquote>

Don't sweat it, tero. Uberfinns don't need tanks anyway

[rexford]

The following site for PST and other 1/72 scale models has some neat plastic and resin kits on German conversions of KV tanks:

http://home.att.net/~d.kuligowski/

Go to

World War II

then go to PST

then go to PST web site at bottom of page

Enter the site by clicking on the Welcome statement under the converted KV tank and go down the list to see the kits for KV tanks in German use. The list provides pictures of the kit boxes.

Lorrin

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]</p>

[rexford]

The following site for PST and other 1/72 scale models has some neat plastic and resin kits on German conversions of KV tanks:

http://home.att.net/~d.kuligowski/

Go to

World War II

then go to PST

then go to PST web site at bottom of page

Enter the site by clicking on the Welcome statement under the converted KV tank and go down the list to see the kits for KV tanks in German use. The list provides pictures of the kit boxes.

Lorrin

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: rexford ]</p>

[Mattias]

Brian,

Have we clashed over then Puppchen? Goes to show how long we have been around, I can't remember that. Well, I hope it didn't escalate beyond this level of intensity, a bit of fact sharing between sides differing, basically, in degrees

Ok, do I understand you right if I say that you think maybe some 80 units where in action at, pretty much, the same time? It would seem reasonable considering how long it took to produce these 200 vehicles. By the time the factory had churned out the second half of the productions the first half had seen a lot of fighting.

You are absolutely right about the constant lack of recovery vehicles experienced by German armoured formations, and that is probably why this use of a Bergepanther is a unique exception. Perhaps this was one of the vehicles delivered without the superlative heavy duty winch that was in even shorter supply, making it less attractive in the recovery role.

Ehhh... Did you say Pak? But the gun mounted on the KV has the recoil spring assembly of the KwK. It looks to me as if the distinctive armoured box that can be seen on all Pz IV tanks is present on this KV as well. Take a look

M.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Mattias ]</p>

[Mattias]

Brian,

Have we clashed over then Puppchen? Goes to show how long we have been around, I can't remember that. Well, I hope it didn't escalate beyond this level of intensity, a bit of fact sharing between sides differing, basically, in degrees

Ok, do I understand you right if I say that you think maybe some 80 units where in action at, pretty much, the same time? It would seem reasonable considering how long it took to produce these 200 vehicles. By the time the factory had churned out the second half of the productions the first half had seen a lot of fighting.

You are absolutely right about the constant lack of recovery vehicles experienced by German armoured formations, and that is probably why this use of a Bergepanther is a unique exception. Perhaps this was one of the vehicles delivered without the superlative heavy duty winch that was in even shorter supply, making it less attractive in the recovery role.

Ehhh... Did you say Pak? But the gun mounted on the KV has the recoil spring assembly of the KwK. It looks to me as if the distinctive armoured box that can be seen on all Pz IV tanks is present on this KV as well. Take a look

M.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Mattias ]</p>