Captured KV Tanks

Brian · January 27, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 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

<hr></blockquote>

Basically. :eek:

<blockquote>quote:<hr>

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.

<hr></blockquote>

One of the problems the Russians would have faced was that they had a finite resource in these vehicles. The Germans were reducing production of them, restricting it to Stugs (which in turn were being replaced by the Stug IV) and the Nashorn/Hornise/Hummel Panzer III/IV hybrid chassis, so it would have been increasingly difficult to capture spares. Cannibalisation would have provided another source but again, a finite one, which was slowing decreasing in size. Then there would be combat attrition, itself. So, from having captured 300+ hulls (how many were still in a running condition, one wonders), to how many they converted which was, as you mention ~200, to how many were in service at any one time and you end up with the figure of about 80. Hardly earth shattering. I don't doubt they were valuable but even so, by the time they got into service, their gun was becoming semi-obsolecent.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>

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.

<hr></blockquote>

That and the possibility it had a U/S winch (again the lack of spare parts), had both passed my mind. That might have made it more attractive for conversion but I'd have thought its value, even as a tow vehicle would have made it worth keeping in that condition.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>

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

I see what you mean but the nomclenclature for the vehicle, "Panzerkampfwagen KV I ® mit 7.5cm PaK" and this quote from the Technical Virtue website, makes it clear that it was in fact the Pak, not the Kwk which was used: "Many of the later vehicles were used without modification. This KV I seems to be an exception to this rule. Not only has the Soviet 76.2mm gun been replaced with

the German PaK 40, but the commander's hatch has been replaced with a cupola."

Having had a second, longer look at the photo, yes I can now see the side mounted recuperator housings on each side of the barrel but again, the designation indicates the use of a Pak. While the drawings on the kit boxes that Rexford pointed out, also make it clear that its a Kwk. My, this is confusing. Why designate the weapon as a Pak if its a Kwk? Role perhaps?

Brian · January 27, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 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

<hr></blockquote>

Basically. :eek:

<blockquote>quote:<hr>

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.

<hr></blockquote>

One of the problems the Russians would have faced was that they had a finite resource in these vehicles. The Germans were reducing production of them, restricting it to Stugs (which in turn were being replaced by the Stug IV) and the Nashorn/Hornise/Hummel Panzer III/IV hybrid chassis, so it would have been increasingly difficult to capture spares. Cannibalisation would have provided another source but again, a finite one, which was slowing decreasing in size. Then there would be combat attrition, itself. So, from having captured 300+ hulls (how many were still in a running condition, one wonders), to how many they converted which was, as you mention ~200, to how many were in service at any one time and you end up with the figure of about 80. Hardly earth shattering. I don't doubt they were valuable but even so, by the time they got into service, their gun was becoming semi-obsolecent.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>

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.

<hr></blockquote>

That and the possibility it had a U/S winch (again the lack of spare parts), had both passed my mind. That might have made it more attractive for conversion but I'd have thought its value, even as a tow vehicle would have made it worth keeping in that condition.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>

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

I see what you mean but the nomclenclature for the vehicle, "Panzerkampfwagen KV I ® mit 7.5cm PaK" and this quote from the Technical Virtue website, makes it clear that it was in fact the Pak, not the Kwk which was used: "Many of the later vehicles were used without modification. This KV I seems to be an exception to this rule. Not only has the Soviet 76.2mm gun been replaced with

the German PaK 40, but the commander's hatch has been replaced with a cupola."

Having had a second, longer look at the photo, yes I can now see the side mounted recuperator housings on each side of the barrel but again, the designation indicates the use of a Pak. While the drawings on the kit boxes that Rexford pointed out, also make it clear that its a Kwk. My, this is confusing. Why designate the weapon as a Pak if its a Kwk? Role perhaps?

Battlefront.com · January 27, 2002

Tero wrote:

<blockquote>quote:<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>

Do not confuse frontline, highly intensive war situations hundreds of miles from home territory with peaceful, home depot situations.

How do countries keep old stuff running? The same way I keep my 55+ year old stuff on the go. You hunt around for surplus parts, find matches to domestic parts, fabricate your own, or replace entire systems (like engines) when you can't do anything more for them. Many of the ex-Yugoslav M18s and M36s that have come back to the US have Soviet V-12 Diesels in them instead of the highly complex US radial engines they originally shipped over with. Other parts were aquired on the open market or through deals with the governments that produced them (if they are friendly, of course).

None of this can be compared to a German Divisional level support shop stuck next to some swamp in Central Russia with a backlog of German vehicles in need of repair and often lacking the resources or time to do so. I mean, why did the Finns have so few Soviet AFVs in service at one time? They certainly did knock out/capture far more than the numbers fielded.

BTW, this was the single biggest problem with the German lorries. They fielded anything that moved, which meant trucks of various types produced by probably a dozen different nations over a period of 10-15 years. This resulted in a low readiness level and decreasing mechanization as the war dragged on. And the Germans had spare parts being produced in many cases by the same factories which made them, yet there were still many logistical headaches that were never solved.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>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 ?<hr></blockquote>

We have different standards for Axis Allied nations. The same thing you describe with the Finns exists for Hungary and Romania too. How many people know that the Hungarians used a company's worth of Tiger 1 Es?

Steve

Battlefront.com · January 27, 2002

Tero wrote:

<blockquote>quote:<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>

Do not confuse frontline, highly intensive war situations hundreds of miles from home territory with peaceful, home depot situations.

How do countries keep old stuff running? The same way I keep my 55+ year old stuff on the go. You hunt around for surplus parts, find matches to domestic parts, fabricate your own, or replace entire systems (like engines) when you can't do anything more for them. Many of the ex-Yugoslav M18s and M36s that have come back to the US have Soviet V-12 Diesels in them instead of the highly complex US radial engines they originally shipped over with. Other parts were aquired on the open market or through deals with the governments that produced them (if they are friendly, of course).

None of this can be compared to a German Divisional level support shop stuck next to some swamp in Central Russia with a backlog of German vehicles in need of repair and often lacking the resources or time to do so. I mean, why did the Finns have so few Soviet AFVs in service at one time? They certainly did knock out/capture far more than the numbers fielded.

BTW, this was the single biggest problem with the German lorries. They fielded anything that moved, which meant trucks of various types produced by probably a dozen different nations over a period of 10-15 years. This resulted in a low readiness level and decreasing mechanization as the war dragged on. And the Germans had spare parts being produced in many cases by the same factories which made them, yet there were still many logistical headaches that were never solved.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>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 ?<hr></blockquote>

We have different standards for Axis Allied nations. The same thing you describe with the Finns exists for Hungary and Romania too. How many people know that the Hungarians used a company's worth of Tiger 1 Es?

Steve

Tero · January 28, 2002

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Do not confuse frontline, highly intensive war situations hundreds of miles from home territory with peaceful, home depot situations.

I try not to. But what is the difference between the two at the time of total war in a place with highly restricted access routes ?

Other parts were aquired on the open market or through deals with the governments that produced them (if they are friendly, of course).

The Finnish Stugs were kept running by buying PzKw-III's from IIRC Norway after the war.

None of this can be compared to a German Divisional level support shop stuck next to some swamp in Central Russia with a backlog of German vehicles in need of repair and often lacking the resources or time to do so.

The German situation was similar. And different. We had only one armoured formation.

I mean, why did the Finns have so few Soviet AFVs in service at one time? They certainly did knock out/capture far more than the numbers fielded.

Do you mean types or numbers ? For all intents and purposes prior to 1940 there was no armour in the Finnish army. In 1941 some 100 T-26's were fielded along with BT-7's and a few T-28's. A rag tag assortment of AC's, amphib tankettes and arty tractors. Most were captured and/or rebuilt by joining different components from different damaged vehicles.

BTW, this was the single biggest problem with the German lorries. They fielded anything that moved, which meant trucks of various types produced by probably a dozen different nations over a period of 10-15 years. This resulted in a low readiness level and decreasing mechanization as the war dragged on. And the Germans had spare parts being produced in many cases by the same factories which made them, yet there were still many logistical headaches that were never solved.

If you take a look at the assortment of makes and models the Finnish Air Force kept up and flying throughout the war you will find the chaos they had to sort through is of similar magnitude, relatively speaking.

We have different standards for Axis Allied nations. The same thing you describe with the Finns exists for Hungary and Romania too. How many people know that the Hungarians used a company's worth of Tiger 1 Es?

Not too many I suspect.

Incidentaly: how will the unit costs be valued for different armies (for example in the case of Stugs) ? There was only one armoured formation in the Finnish army so there was only one combined arms/armour formation. The rest were plain vanilla infantry.

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

Tero · January 28, 2002