Dragoon 45
Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline
|
"Tanks of the World, 1915-1945" by Chamberlain and Ellis list the following heights: KV-2 is 12 feet, and KV-2B is 13.7 feet tall. The M-3 Medium Tank depending on version and source was between 10 ft 3in and 11 ft 1 in tall. Also in the narrative of the KV-2, they state "early models had a 122mm howitzer but most had a 152mm howtizer". What we have are two different sources that contradict themselves. I have the Bean and Fowler book and have read it through a number of times. It contradicts a number of other sources in other areas and I am not sure which is correct. This brings up one of the major problems in researching military equipment, without the actual source technical manuals, how do you tell which source is correct. And looking at pictures and basing a comment on them can sometimes be very deceiving.
The idea that the turret race would not support the turret effectively sounds the most likely as to why it was limited to firing on certain bearings. Also the structure strength of the hull sides could be a problem also; if they were weak and couldn't stand up to the recoil force of the howtizer this would allow the turret race to become warped interfering with the traverse.
The JS-4 precursor of the T-10 was known to break apart at the center of the hull. Hull sides were not strong enough to withstand lateral forces over rough terrain and also this tank had problems with the hull front coming apart when hit on the bow. The welds holding the two armor plates that formed the bow were not strong enough to take the impact of a large caliber round. These were staples of NATO briefings on Soviet armor, i.e. BMP-1's fuel tank was also the rear troop door, T-62 autoloader was prone to loading the gunner's arm into the breach of the main gun, T-55's auto-ejector was not lined up with the opening in the back of the turret which cause the spent casing to bounce around inside the hull and sometimes breaking arms or legs of the crewmen, etc.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
The problem with the KV-2 and level ground was that its turret ring was crudely constructed, resulting in it binding if the tank was not on relatively flat ground. The turret was too heavy (12 tons) for the bearing race used.
quote:
Although from the picture it appears quite tall, it was only a foot taller than the Grant.
According to "Russian Tanks of World War II", Tim Bean and Will Fowler, the tank had a sillhouette of 4.9 meters (16 ft), compared to the KV-1 height of 3.1 meters (10 ft).
No reference is made to the KV-2 being fitted with a 122mm gun; The three projects begun for the vehicle were as follows: OKMO Team's T-100 hull mounting a B-13 130mm naval gun (designated T-100U), the Kotin team's attempt at mounting both a BR-2 152mm and a B-4 203mm gun on a lengthened KV-1 chassis, and an expedient model mounting a regular 152mm howitzer and 2 machineguns on an unmodified KV-1 chassis. The later version, which took two weeks to construct, was approved for tests in Feb 1940, and two prototypes were sent to the Karelian Isthmus for field testing.
Two models were produced, the KV-2M40 and the KV-2M41. The KV-2M40 was also known as the KV-II, the KV-IIB, and te KV-2B. The M41 model had a slightly different turret and engine.
_____________________________
Artillery always has the Right of Way
|
Printable Version
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank - 
The French Char B1 Heavy Tank was not very good to look at either. A second tank, which was built in the 30s and used at the start of the war was the Japanese Type 89B Medium Tank. This was really ugly!
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread