The KV-1 was a horrible tank. It may have had good armor and a decent gun but everything else was just terrible.
16 May 2016, 02:02
M4a3e8(76)w vs Panzer V vs T34
I really liked the response I got from my poll on heavy tanks so I thought I'd add a list for medium tanks as well. If someone thinks I missed a tank and should add one to the poll just let me know.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
149 Replies
16 May 2016, 16:08
The Germans main gear was from the mid 30's. Besides, if Soviet gear was so old and crap why did the Germans use so much of it, going so far as to make factories specially to produce ammo and replacement parts for them?Caesar wrote:
The Soviets had an outdated army.
So bad the German's made it their own. Not sure if you can see, or know, but that tank has a German crew in it, a new gun, a Bundeswehr cross and a new gun (and mantlet) amongst other things. In fact, the KV-1 was so good the Germans copied parts of it to put on the Pz. II.Kollin wrote:
The KV-1 was a horrible tank. It may have had good armor and a decent gun but everything else was just terrible.
16 May 2016, 17:51
The reason the KV-1 stood up so well at first was because it was one of only 2 heavy tanks, Germany only had medium tanks at the time and of course the KV-1 would win against them. But after Germany caught up the KV-1 was outclassed by almost every heavy tank after that. Lets not forget the KV-1 almost used the same gun as the T34 effectively making it a armored up medium tank.Quasi-duck wrote:
So bad the German's made it their own. Not sure if you can see, or know, but that tank has a German crew in it, a new gun, a Bundeswehr cross and a new gun (and mantlet) amongst other things. In fact, the KV-1 was so good the Germans copied parts of it to put on the Pz. II.
16 May 2016, 17:59
That means all WWII tanks were terrible because, y'know, nearly every tank after them have outclassed them.Kollin wrote:
But after Germany caught up the KV-1 was outclassed by almost every heavy tank after that.
Point being? This doesn't make it bad.Kollin wrote:
Lets not forget the KV-1 almost used the same gun as the T34 effectively making it a armored up medium tank.
16 May 2016, 17:59
There were actually multiple heavy tanks at this time, at least 3 types in the USSR alone.Kollin wrote:
The reason the KV-1 stood up so well at first was because it was one of only 2 heavy tanks
16 May 2016, 18:00
For one the Panzer II was designed in 1934, 4 years before the KV-1 in 1938. So if anything the KV-1 took notes from the Panzer II. Secondly the only thing that the German's used was the armor for an experimental panzer II, the Panzer II Ausf. J (Pz.Kpfw. IIJ). They made about 20 of them and deployed them to the eastern front. The fact that the Panzer II is a light tank and it matched the armor of a KV-1 proves my point better than I can explain with words.Quasi-duck wrote:
. In fact, the KV-1 was so good the Germans copied parts of it to put on the Pz. II.
16 May 2016, 18:09
Uh, how?Kollin wrote:
The fact that the Panzer II is a light tank and it matched the armor of a KV-1 proves my point better than I can explain with words.
16 May 2016, 18:10
Do you have sources for this? Looking at the KV-1 it is everything the Pz. II isn't.Kollin wrote:
So if anything the KV-1 took notes from the Panzer II.
16 May 2016, 18:10
USSR had 2 heavy tanks at the time. The failed T-35 and the KV series and France had the Char 2C, that was it.Quasi-duck wrote:
There were actually multiple heavy tanks at this time, at least 3 types in the USSR alone
16 May 2016, 18:19
The two KV's were different tanks. That is like calling the M1 Abrams and the M60 Patton the same thing. There was the Char B-1 bis too. The American M6.Kollin wrote:
USSR had 2 heavy tanks at the time. The failed T-35 and the KV series and France had the Char 2C, that was it.
16 May 2016, 18:19
I did not say this was a fact, I implied that if one of these vehicles copied one another it would have been the KV-1. And of course the Panzer II doesn't match the KV-1 as I said it was a light tank.Quasi-duck wrote:
Do you have sources for this? Looking at the KV-1 it is everything the Pz. II isn't.
16 May 2016, 18:22
I was saying the KV-1 was good, others said it was old and outdated when really it topped any German tank of the time.Kollin wrote:
And of course the Panzer II doesn't match the KV-1 as I said it was a light tank.
16 May 2016, 18:25
They were not different tanks, just as the M1 Abrams is the same take as a M1A1 and the M1A2. They as just upgraded versions of the same tanks. And my mistake on the French take I meant to say Char B-1 as the Char 2C was a super heavy post war tank.Quasi-duck wrote:
The two KV's were different tanks. That is like calling the M1 Abrams and the M60 Patton the same thing. There was the Char B-1 bis too. The American M6.
16 May 2016, 18:26
The KV-1 and KV-2 don't even have the same hull. Never mind turret or gun.Kollin wrote:
They as just upgraded versions of the same tanks.
16 May 2016, 18:28
I never said the KV-1 didn't top the German tanks of the time. As I said earlier Germany only had medium tanks that couldn't penetrate the armor of the KV-1. though once Germany started production on long barrel 50mm and 75mm gun the KV-1 quickly became obsolete.Quasi-duck wrote:
I was saying the KV-1 was good, others said it was old and outdated when really it topped any German tank of the time.
16 May 2016, 18:34
the VK 45.01 (H) had a different hull and turret than the tiger I, but was it still a tiger tank? yes it was still a tiger tank.Quasi-duck wrote:
The KV-1 and KV-2 don't even have the same hull. Never mind turret or gun
16 May 2016, 18:34
That took about a year or so though.Kollin wrote:
though once Germany started production on long barrel 50mm and 75mm gun the KV-1 quickly became obsolete.
16 May 2016, 18:36
Combined with superior armor, better troops and Generals. With the best moral as well!Quasi-duck wrote:
Unexpected attack and most of Soviet air forces destroyed on the ground.oceanhawk wrote:
Then explain how the Germans were winning the war in 41?
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
16 May 2016, 18:39
Of course it is, it is commonly known as the Tiger (P) and was a Tiger prototype. By your logic, the B-17 is the same as the DB-1 and Martin Model 146. Are they though? No, they are not.Kollin wrote:
the VK 45.01 (H) had a different hull and turret than the tiger I, but was it still a tiger tank? yes it was still a tiger tank.
16 May 2016, 18:41 (edited)
Look at the fact based, friendly debate, between two peers, while some German tanks were better than some Soviet ones, all fell below the Soviet T-34, KV-1 and KV-2.oceanhawk wrote:
Combined with superior armor
I'll give you this but they were ordered to retreat and burn what they left behind.oceanhawk wrote:
better troops
Debatable.oceanhawk wrote:
With the best moral as well!
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
