WW2 Soviet SPGs


Soviet Union (1940-1941)
Heavy Assault Tank – 203 Built

The bunker-buster

The Russo-Finnish war proved the soundness of the decision to manufacture the KV-1. However, when encountering difficulties on the heavily fortified Mannerheim line during the Winter War in Finland, the General Staff demanded a specially equipped version fitted with a heavy howitzer, intended to deal with concrete bunkers, in support of the regular KV-1 units. Instead of choosing the more pragmatic solution of a traditional SPG, they decided to use the same turret ring to accommodate a fully traversed, redesigned turret that housed the gargantuan howitzer. This gave the KV-2 an unmistakable profile, with its towering turret, which was only accessible by a ladder – an obvious target which was also notably top-heavy, compromising the lateral stability of the tank while crossing a sloped terrain, a problem which would later haunt Soviet tank crews. All these deficiencies were taken into account when the factory was relocated in the new “Tankograd” complex at the steps of the Ural. However, production was no longer maintained. Only 203 were built in all from late 1939 to mid-1941.

Design process

The North-West front headquarters and the Commander of the Seventh Army, Kiril Meretskov, made forceful requests for a bunker-busting heavy tank. Several projects were then undertaken. In one of their last projects before disbandment, the OKMO team revived the T-100 hull and mounted a B-13 130 mm (5.12 in) naval gun, designating it the SU-100Y. However, this was rejected because of the army’s lack of barrels and naval semi-armor piercing rounds, at a time when the Soviet Navy was beginning a massive expansion in order to create a more powerful, ocean-going fleet. Somewhat more pragmatically, Zhozef Kotin’s team, at the Kirov Plant in Leningrad, developed two designs based on the already battle-proven KV chassis, which made more sense in terms of streamlining production costs. There was an initial attempt to mount a 152 mm (5.98 in) BR-2 and a 203 mm (8 in) B-4 howitzer on a lengthened KV hull, but this was never completed.

The third design was the design which was chosen. Completed in two weeks, it had a 152 mm (5.98 in) howitzer with two DT machine guns mounted on an unmodified KV chassis. It was accepted for production and designated the KV-2. First trials were conducted on 10th February, 1940 and shortly after, two prototypes were sent to the front on the Karelian Isthmus. However, there is some debate as to whether these prototypes saw combat. Recent evidence suggests that Meretskov’s and others’ reports on the excellent results achieved by the KV-2 against fortified positions and pillboxes referred to tests conducted against already captured positions.
The KV-2 had one of the most unique silhouettes of WWII. The hull was no different to that of a KV-1, but in order to fit the 152 mm (5.98 in) L20 howitzer, a box shaped, 12.9 tonne turret was mounted. This now made the vehicle stand 4.9 m (16 ft) tall, compared to the 3.9 m (12.8 ft) height of the KV-1. However, the high profile of the KV-2’s turret was compensated by its immense armor – 110 mm (4.33 in) frontal armor and 75 mm (2.95 in) side armor.
In October 1941, KV-2 production was halted as Soviet factories relocated and were moved eastwards to avoid German capture.


Designation of the two models varies between sources and can be confusing. The earlier model of the KV-2 had a turret with a sloped front with rivets and only featured one DT machine gun in a hull mount. It weighed 53.8 tons, and was the lesser produced model. In German sources, this variant is referred to as the KW-II.  This model is sometimes erroneously called the KV-2 M1939 or KV-2 M1940. The turret is often wrongly called the MT-1, but that is the designation of the gun mount, not the turret. Sometimes the MT-10 designation is also wrongly used for the turret, and this seems like a mix of the mount name and the gun name (MT-1 + M-10). The turret was actually simply called “big turret” (большой башней).
The later variant of the KV-2 featured the more common and boxy turret, featuring a second DT machine gun in a rear mount, and an improved rear turret hatch that made resupplying ammunition easier. The armor was kept the same, but thanks to the removal of the angled turret front, it had a much roomier crew turret, meaning that working conditions were better for the crew, especially the loaders. In German sources, this variant is referred to as the KW-2B or KW-IIB. It is sometimes wrongly designated as the KV-2A, KV-2 M1940, KV-2 M1941 or KV-2B. The turret is often erroneously called the MT-2, seemingly as a progression over the wrong MT-1 designation of the previous turret. The turret was also simply called “reduced turret” (пониженная башня).
Very few early production models were fitted with the 122 mm (4.8 in) 1938 L/22.7 howitzer fitted to the earlier turret. The number produced is unknown, but were very limited before they were upgunned with the 152 mm (5.98 in) howitzer.
An unknown number of KV-2s were captured by the Wehrmacht. They were sent to Berlin for tests before they were fitted with a new commander’s cupola and sent back to the front line. These were designated (Sturm)Panzerkampfwagen KV-II 754(r) and were often used for artillery observation due to their height.
Perhaps the most interesting variant was a KV-2 armed with a 107 mm (4.21 in) gun. This was during a time when the superheavy tank concept was still being considered by Soviet leadership. There were no plans to serially produce a KV-2 with a 107 mm gun. Instead, just before the Siege of Leningrad, a KV-2 with a 107 mm gun was made and sent for fire testing in March, 1941. The 107 mm gun was going to be mounted on vehicles such as the KV-3, KV-4, and KV-5, but none of these projects left the drawing board as a result of the Siege of Leningrad. All 107 mm guns were destroyed and work on superheavy tanks was stopped.

The KV-2 in action

Due to its size and armored strength, it was nicknamed “Dreadnought” by its six man crews. The KV-2 first saw service in the Winter War as a prototype, as did many other vehicles. However, they were too late to test their might against the more fortified Finnish defenses, as they had already been overrun. Despite this, they still destroyed some remaining enemy bunkers and AT guns. Finnish AT guns were ill-prepared for the KV-2’s strong armor, and even reportedly stopped firing after three non-penetrations.
In the opening years of WWII, when the KV-2 operated in vast numbers, it was virtually invulnerable to direct fire from all but high velocity weapons at horrifically close-range. The best the enemy could hope to was force the KV-2’s crew to abandon the vehicle by disabling it, such as by hitting its tracks and wheels, but this did not always go to plan. A clear example of this was in June 1941, near Raseiniai. Roughly 20 KV tanks of the Soviet 3rd Mechanized Corps met the assault of the 6th Panzer Division, with approximately 100 vehicles. Another vehicle, probably a KV-2 tank, managed to hold off the German advance for a full day while being pummeled by a variety of antitank weapons, until finally the tank ran out of ammunition and was finally knocked out.
Having said this, the KV-2 paid a high price for its immense gun and vast armor. Its mobility between engagements and during battle was heavily restricted by many of the initial gear and transmission problems that the KV-1 faced. This situation was made even worse by the fact that the vehicle now weighed 53.8-57.9 tonnes depending on the model, as well as by using the unimproved 500 bhp V-2 diesel engine.
The road speed of a KV-2 was no more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph) and it only reached a mere 12 km/h (7.5 mph) off-road, making it a very slow moving vehicle. It was also prone to having trouble traversing the heavy turret if not on relatively flat ground. These problems all limited the flexibility of the KV-2 combat, but nevertheless, it was still a formidable opponent if dug into a strategic position. However, it lacked speed and mobility – two traits shown to be massively important in the opening years of the war.
The worst problem for the KV-2 was by far its unreliability. The gearbox would often break easily, and the immense recoil of the gun meant that the small turret ring could jam, or the engine or gearbox could suffer severe damage. The majority of KV-2 losses in 1941 were due to breakdowns or lack of fuel which forced them to be abandoned. The 41st Tank Division lost two thirds of its 33 KV-2s, but only five were as a result of enemy action – usually landmines, as there were few insufficient AT guns or enemy tanks capable of knocking out a KV-2, and as it was used as a breakthrough tank, the KV-2 would often be the first victim of mines.
Despite this, KV tanks came as a nasty shock to German invaders due to their resilience. They had no comparable tanks in strength, and few AT guns that could destroy them.
Marshal Rokossovsky later recalled in his memoirs, A Soldier’s Duty:
“They withstood the fire of every type of gun that the German tanks were armed with. But what a sight they were returning from combat. Their armor all pock-marked all over and sometimes even their barrels were pierced.”
Similarly, the experience of the 1st Panzer Division on 23rd June, 1941 in Lithuania proves just how resilient the KV-2 could be. Here is a record of the engagement:
“Our companies opened fire from 700 m (765 yd). We got closer and closer… Soon we were only about 50-100 m (55-110 yd) from each other. A fantastic engagement opened up – without any German progress. The Soviet tanks continued their advance and our armor-piercing projectiles simply bounced off. The Soviet tanks withstood point-blank fire from both our 50 mm (1.97 in) and 75 mm (2.95 in) guns. A KV-2 was hit more than 70 times and not a single round penetrated. A very few Soviet tanks were immobilized and eventually destroyed as we managed to shoot at their tracks, and then brought up artillery to hammer them at close range. It was then attacked at close range with satchel charges.”


The KV-1 (generic) on Wikipedia

KV-2 specifications

Dimensions (L-w-h) 7.31 x 3.49 x 3.93 m (23ft 11in x 11ft 5in x 12ft 1in)
Total weight, battle ready 53.8 (early), 57.9 (late) tonnes
Crew 5– later 6 (driver, commander, gunner, 2 loaders)
Propulsion V-2 diesel, 500 bhp
Speed (road/off-road) 25/12 km/h (15.5/7.5 mph)
Range 200 km (120 mi)
Armament 152 mm (5.98 in) 1938/1940 L20 howitzer or 152 mm M-10T (later models)
2 x DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-guns (8000 rounds)
Armor 75-110 mm (2.95 – 4.3 in)
Total production 203

KV-2, model 1939, 3rd Regiment of the 2nd Tank Division, Central front, summer 1941. The KV-2 was globally an impressive but unsatisfactory model
KV-2, pre-production turret, 3rd Regiment of the 2nd Tank Division, Central front, summer 1941. The KV-2 was globally an impressive but unsatisfactory model.
KV-2 model 1939, unknown unit, winter livery, Leningrad sector, December 1941.
KV-2 in fictional livery. In reality, none are known to be painted with patriotic slogans.
PzKpfw KW II 754(r), Panzerkompanie (z.b.v.) 66, Malta invasion force, 1941. Notice the Panzer III commander cupola and headlight
PzKpfw KW II 754(r), Panzerkompanie (z.b.v.) 66, Malta invasion force, 1941. Notice the Panzer III commander cupola and headlight.


Blueprints of the KV-2, U-3 preseries prototype
Blueprints of the KV-2, U-3 preseries prototype.
A technical drawing of the KV-2.
A technical drawing of the KV-2.
A KV-2 of the 2nd Tank Division/3rd Mechanised Corps being inspected by Germans. Notice the numerous 37 mm (1.46 in) AT shells that bounced off the turret. Baltic area, June 1941, suspected to be the infamous Raseiniai KV!
A KV-2 of the 2nd Tank Division/3rd Mechanised Corps being inspected by Germans. Notice the numerous 37 mm (1.46 in) AT shells that bounced off the turret. Baltic area, June 1941, suspected to be the infamous Raseiniai KV!
KV-2 displayed at the Central Museum of Russian Armed Forces, Moscow - Credits: Wikipedia.
KV-2 displayed at the Central Museum of Russian Armed Forces, Moscow – Credits: Wikipedia.
The U-3, a KV-2 prototype, February, 1940.
The U-3, a KV-2 prototype, February, 1940.
A KV-2 with a 107 mm gun. The KV-2 was similar to some superheavy tank projects the gun was intended for use with
A KV-2 with a 107 mm gun. The KV-2 was similar to some superheavy tank projects the gun was intended for use with.
KV-2Another destroyed KV-2A child next to the KV-2Another view of the KV-2 armed with the 107 mm gun
ww2 soviet armour
ww2 Soviet Tanks Poster

86 replies on “KV-2”

I suggest that you remove the ‘Raseiniai KV-2’ as it is not 100% certain that it is a KV-2. Other sources state that it was also a KV-1 with an extra crewmember.

Hello Anonymous Panda.
We have reviewed the story and, indeed, it is not certain that it was a KV-2. We have modified the paragraph, but not removed it, as it an important and famous story about the KV tanks.
Thank you for your observation

It of course also had less Amour a faster turret traverse as well as a higher top speed and according to almost all the reports I kind find more reliable

It is no doubt it was a KV 2 at Reiseniai, the incident is mentioned in Chief of Staff Halder’s memories. He did not believed that the USSR could manage to produce tanks with 152 mm guns (he wrote in his journal that the testimony was “soldiers imaginations”). Cordially yours

3 of the 6 men found in the open grave were so badly burned that they could not be positively identified as tank crew. Two of the men had commander’s belts. A tank would not have two commanders; this and the fact that the German commander that day recorded the tank as a KV with a small turret confirms it was a KV-1.

There’s no way a KV-1 with its 75mm gun could hold off the Germans for 24hrs. You need a 152mm in order to do that. KV-2 fits it perfectly.

Ummm… Kv-1 with a 75mm cannon? I think you meant a zis-5 76.2mm gun kv-1 couldn’t hold the whole collum of the german for 24 hours and a mixtures of kv-1 and kv-2 in order to hold the collum so the kv-2 fits the match correctly. (I just want to fix some mistakes nothing wrong or a grudge against you for your mistake on the 75mm part).

152 will take a long time to reload, and a 76.2mm will do just fine, the Panzer IIs, IIIs and 35ts could not penetrate the frontal armour of the KV-1 during the early stages of operation barbarossa, and the 76.2mm gun will penetrate the Panzer II, III, IV and 35t, thats my research.

“Served in vast numbers”? are you sure about that? the T-34 served in vast numbers, there were barely 200 KV-2 tanks in all. I think the author means “significant numbers” perhaps?

Another one, probably full of inaccuracies (didn’t even read the article; just judging from the title and images).
204 were built, not 334.
There was never designation “KV-2A”.
There was never “MT-1 and MT-2 turrets”; it’s an old myth going around. There was the “MT-1 artillery system” designed for installation on KV-2.
“Captured KV-2A (MT-2 turret) displayed at Parola Museum, Finland” – There is only one KV-2 in existence in the Central Museum of the Armed Forces in Moscow; and that’s the one in your photo.
“A KV-2A has had its turret blown off. The ammunition may have detonated.” – This is actually KV-1; seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it? 😉

“KV-2 model 1939, unknown unit, winter livery, Leningrad sector, December 1941.” – There is no evidence of any KV-2 with a slogan written on a turret. There is also no evidence that the last KV used (at Leningrad, in December 1941) had an early type of a turret.
“The earlier model KV-2. Note the MT-1 sloped turret.” – This is the U-3, the third produced KV-2 tank. February, 1940.
As a matter of fact the whole western classification “model of 1939” is inaccurate as there was no KV-2 in 1939. The first experimental vehicle, the U-0, was built in February 1940.
Cheers! 🙂

The team member who will rewrite the article will go looking for sources.
Currently on the topic in our library are Maksim Kolomietz’ “Heavy Tank KV-2”, “Breakthrough Tank KV” and the Osprey “Heavy Tanks KV-1 & KV-2”.
Would you suggest other books or sources?

Why don’t you create your own website and they can use that? I love how many people come here to see all this fantastic FREE information and photos then just take it apart with smart-a*** comments because there are some inaccuracies.

“Most sources accepted 334”? Wikipedia numbers?
Why does one need the questionable “most sources” if there are actual original WW2 production documents available that are clearly stating 204?
Military factory is one one the worst sources one can find, that is true; Edited

Hello Alex.
This article is still marked as “to be remade” internally. The problem is none of our teammembers want to tackle it.
Again, please direct us to the production documents, as I am unable to find them (guessing they are in Russian and my search terms fail)

Correction: The USSR had close to nothing capable of defeating the German tanks early in the war. It wasn’t until the T-34/76 came around that they had adequate armour to defeat even a Panzerkampfwagen IV H. It wasn’t until the IS series that they could take down a Tiger II, as even the heavily armoured KV-1 couldn’t keep a Tiger 1’s devastating L/56 at bay.

Okay, there’s a lot wrong with what you’ve just said there, through no fault of your own.
Let’s define “early war” as Operation Barbarossa – June – December, 1941.
The USSR had close to nothing capable of defeating the German tanks early in the war.
Well, it did. Let’s assume that we’re not talking about aircraft or field guns and leave them to one side. Even if we talk about just tanks, you’re still arguing a tricky position.
German tanks” is such a wide array of vehicles, so let’s establish them as (broadly speaking), Panzer IIIs, IVs, and Panzer 38(t)s.
The 45mm 20kl gun, as seen on the T-26, was one of the best weapons of the early war. In fact, it was the best weapon fielded in the Spanish Civil War (excluding aircraft). A T-70, which used the same 20kl gun, was able to knock out Panthers on from 150-200m on March 26th, 1944. That’s a very interesting engagement to look up. The 20kl was perfectly adequate at knocking out any early war German tank from short – medium ranges.
It wasn’t until the T-34/76 came around that they had adequate armour to defeat even a Panzerkampfwagen IV H.
There are three problems here. First, the T-34/76 was made in 1940 and saw action in 1941. Second, the Panzer IV H wasn’t produced until 1943. Thirdly, the KV-1 used effectively the same 76mm gun as the T-34/76, and the KV-1 also came earlier than the T-34.
It wasn’t until the IS series that they could take down a Tiger II, as even the heavily armoured KV-1 couldn’t keep a Tiger 1’s devastating L/56 at bay.
I don’t really understand your point here. You talk about, presumably, guns of Soviet late-war heavy tanks fighting against late-war heavy German tanks in the first half of the sentence, and then switch to talking about pre-war Soviet heavy tank armour fighting a mid-war German heavy tank.
It wasn’t until the IS series that they could take down a Tiger II
Again, still assuming that we’re talking about just Soviet tanks, this is, on paper, a somewhat accurate view. Looking more at the IS-122 than the IS-85 (and by extension, the KV-85, the T-34/85, and the SU-85), we can look at its gun. On paper, it would destroy a King Tiger. However, testing of the improved 122mm D-25T (which was used on the ISU-122S and the IS-122) in Kubinka in 1944 shows that it wasn’t actually that reliable. The tests suggest that a King Tiger’s turret could be penetrated from up to 1000-1500m, and the welds of front hull seams from 500-600m. Similar to the ML-20S, the D-25T could only manage up to 3 rounds per minute. Whilst these penetration statistics might make the D-25T sound more promising, they must be taken with some caveats. Firstly, to score such hits would require a very skilled and very experienced gunner – especially to score a hit on the turret from a range of up to 1500m. Secondly, these validity of these statistics have been called into question, because they come from Soviet sources.
even the heavily armoured KV-1 couldn’t keep a Tiger 1’s devastating L/56 at bay.
It wasn’t really designed to. It should come as no surprise that a pre-war Soviet tank cannot stack against a wartime heavy German tank.

P.S Does anyone know how they reloaded it, i mean, they used a HUGH shell, i knew that is was by crane (I think) But how did the get the shell over the gun.

They had two seriously strong loaders buddy and mostly it would be firing HE shells because a) using AP with a 251mm would be retarded b) and also it only takes 2 people to lift 300 or 400 lbs it they’re strong

V2 is the model designation dude, not the type of engine. it’s the “V2” V-12 diesel. obviously it isn’t using a damn V-twin engine. And a 152mm shell can easily be loaded by hand, they only weigh a little over 100lbs. They make the shell and propellant separate exactly for that reason, so you can load them individually and not have to lift the entire unit, and that’s also why they have two loaders, one for shell, one for the propellant charge. I’m not a huge guy but I can handle 114lbs, especially since they only have 22 rounds in the tank and no one is expecting them to be slamming shell after shell into the gun at a quick pace for long periods of time. artillery pieces in this class will often use more crew and a sort of carrying device to lift the shell together because they have much more space and usually have to fire for much longer. cranes and pullies don’t come into the picture until you start getting into the 8 inch or larger class, where it’s just not practical to manhandle them, because they already expect the rate of fire to be very slow and the gun is already extremely expensive and cumbersome, so some added complexity isn’t really a huge issue. there isn’t even any way you could install a crane into a turret usefully, you need to be able to reach around to where the different shells are stored, the roof hatches need to be accessible, and you don’t want a crane and chains uncontrollably flailing around as you drive injuring the crew. if you have to move the shell to where it can be lifted by the crane, you might as well just lift it to load it, especially since securing every shell for lifting would slow the process down several times.
And as one accustomed to lifting things a lot, I would far rather be lifting 114lbs conveniently located for easy lifting then trying to lift 60lbs out of an inconvenient corner at arms length, and trying to swing it around behind the breech and ram it home at an angle to my body. that’s how you pull muscles.

There is a spelling error – it says ‘encounteri-ng’ when it should say encountering. I know it is a tiny error, but this is a website and everything should be right.

If you play World of Tanks (Blitz) you can easily recognise WW2 tanks. Me and my brother can notice them very easily as a result.

Same here, been playing WOTB for a while and i can recognize most tanks. Sometimes i dream about tanks.

One day when i have enough money, ima build ww2 tanks possibly the t-34, tiger 1, kv2, and other tanks. If you have suggestions can you please comment? Make sure they are not big tanks cause tiger 1 cost over 1million dollars to make.

Lol, in about every tank game, the KV-2 is the most feared. War Thunder, WOTB + WOT.

BTW, check out ‘Angelo’s World’. He makes comics about tanks from ww1 to modern tanks. Most of them are from ww2.

The Mannerheim Line was not nearly as fortified as this article leads one to believe; the soviet generals were requesting a bunker buster to try and justify their lack of success against it to their superiors. In reality, it was a (deep) trench reinforced with logs with some concrete bunkers here and there, so a bunker buster was never actually required.

That is not a 122 mm gun Robert.
That is a regular 152 mm gun. The recoil from a shot jammed it in this backward position, meaning there is something wrong with its recoil system and recuperator. Probably sabotaged by the crew before bailing out.

Did you know its penetration sucked but the kenetic energy the shell picked up when hit other tanks would either take the turret of or shake tanks apart

We knew this, and it’s the core principle behind the KEP/LRP type rounds (now familarly called “arrows” or “darts” and more generally “sabot”) in service today as #1 antitank rounds. Technically called APFSDS-T rounds they were first developed by the British in 1941-1943 as APDS.
David B. TE manager

Hello, isn’t the KV-2 a heavy tank? In many books, games and even films its introduced and listed as a heavy tank

It is a bit complicated. The KV-2 wasn’t a heavy tank as the KV-1, it was meant more as a bunker buster. Most sources online give it as a heavy assault tank (to which we’ve changed now as well), but you have to remember that its replacement in the role was the SU-152.
It’ll get better settled when we rewrite the article.

Because the gun is simply enormous and would not fit in the regular KV-1 turret. Also, the KV-2 had to have two loaders, not just one.

Funny, Recently Wargaming has released a tier 7 KV-2 on the WoT Console servers called the “Dreadnought”, but it has the SU-152 gun sadly

? No they made the Smasher tank which is a tier 7. It is the KV-2 with more armor and it can do more damage. The Dreadnought is a tier 5 British tank destroyer which is basically like the Churchill tank destroyer with a net on top of it. This tank has earned the name “House Tank”

It’d be really cool if y’all polished up these articles and made a on paper encyclopedia. It probably sell really well as this is one of the main and most reliable sites about tanks. (I think, I usually just stick to hear unless I need to cross reference something.)

Also, why did the Russians box off the front of the turret instead of extending it? (Other than ease of manufacturing and cost.)

Um…I don’t think so…the Maus might actually be able to punch through a KV-2…I doubt a KV-2 can get through the Maus’ armor…

The Maus would probably win because it has a faster reload plus it has a secondary gun. If i was the commander of the KV-2, i would try and shoot the back of the Maus with an AP to take out the engine then i will load up and HE and shoot the back of its turret to possibly get an ammorack.

As far as I’m concerned, the Kv-2 has the weirdest turret I’ve seen, unlike the prototype Kv-2 which had a rectangular turret and a small recess near the bottom of the turret on the back but despite Whether it’s weird or less maneuverable like the prototype Kv-2 and Kv-1, the Tiger and Panther will have a hard time confronting a tank that is no less powerful than the Joseph Stalin heavy tank. IS heavy tank)

Came here when looking for info on KV-2 after finding a photos in a book of the remains of a heavy tank destroyed by Finnish troops in the Alakurtti front in 1941. I became curious as the text mentioned a “six-inch main gun”. It hit a mine, which broke one track. Then a combat engineer climbed on top of it and disabled machine guns by hitting the barrels with an axe and bending them. Then they blew it to bits with a 40-kg TNT demolition charge.

Y’all keep b*tching and moaning about inaccuracies, just trust them! The site is literally dedicated to tanks, they probably check the stuff. And about Reiseniai stuff, it’s cooler and more likely to have been a KV-2
Thanks for letting me rant.

Yeah, no, don’t just trust us. Double check, look for new sources and, if we’re wrong or you find something new, tell us. We love finding out new things and we are very open to fixing our mistakes (of which there are probably enough)

my grandfather was a gunner in one of those tanks, big bear they called him. tho he was more known for his accuracy, his ability to carry heavy objects was incredible. he knew the tank very well and taught me all i know

There is a mistake regarding the height of the KV-2 in the dimensions section.The height is given as 3.93 m, but in the article it states that the KV-2 is 4.9 m tall. I think you may have confused the height of the KV-1 with the KV-2. Other than that, this is a very good article.

There are 2 version of the KV-2: The 1939 model, and the 1940 model. Why do we see 2 versions of the 1939 model, and a German version of the 1940 model, but no actual 1940 model?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *