Were KV-1 and KV-2s effective? every time I see them they just look like a waste of resources

Were KV-1 and KV-2s effective? every time I see them they just look like a waste of resources.

Attached: fat head.jpg (1024x787, 89K)

Kv-1 was fairly useful despite being a kind of shit heavy tank. As it turns out its easier to keep up with the medium tanks in a retreat.

One stopped an entire panzer division for over 48h.

>Were KV-1 and KV-2s effective
they were effective for the time period they were active and in their respective roles
>waste of resources
debatable as vehicles in and of itself, as the roles they were intended to provide couldnt be done better by other tanks
so the question isnt was the tank a waste of resources, but whether the role they are intended to fill such a big one that we can afford to make more than just a few dozen
the russians did recognize the limitations of each tank, and focused on upgrading the T-34 over heavy tank production
the KV-1 was replaced by the IS-2 and the KV-2 was replaced by the ISU-152, as part of an effort to focus solely on 1 type of tank per weight category

Well, Russia did cease production of the KV-1 to simply spit out more t34 instead, so they don't seem to have thought it was resource-effective at least. A gigantic waste is probably going too far though, it wasn't like it was ever intended to be churned out in huge numbers and I've never heard that it'd be a truly bad heavy tank either. The KV-2 appears to have been even more of a niche thing, so even less overall resources spent on it and thus hardly a massive waste no matter how well it may or may not have performed. And given that it's just a bunker-be-gone huge gun on a tracked chassis with a decent amount of armour on the bunker side of it, well, how bad could it have been?

KV-1 was a good tank for its time. When shit hit the fan in 1941 and the Red Army needed a tank that could take hits and return them. They are not good for the long-term but they really didn't need to be considering how close the fighting was getting to the industrial centers producing these tanks. As the war progressed, the IS family became the main Soviet heavy tanks and breakthrough tanks.
The KV-2 is a bit more of a hard sell because it was a bunker buster but it required very specific conditions to work; the turret didn't traverse unless on flat ground, the space was cramped for the two loaders, and the vehicle itself presented a massive target. The idea was much better executed later on with the ISU-152.

Good post.

just seems inadequate compared to other heavy tanks

and?

what heavy tanks?
when it was first produced in 1939, it was a crapload tougher and stronger than nearly every tank in production

the matilda was giving the germans a headache in north Africa as late as 1942 and the germans had few answers to the french B1 in 1940, and the KV-1 was more heavily armed and armored than either

the first german heavy, the tiger 1, only arrived in 1942, months after barbarossa and mostly made in response to the inability of their most common tanks to deal with heavy armor

The KV-1 was in service 3 years before the Tiger. In 1941 there wasn’t really anything else like it in Europe. 1942 saw both the Tiger and T-34 make huge impact on tank design and warfare, everything designed after that benefits greatly from the experience.

What are you talking about, retard? It was the most advanced and best protected heavy tank in the world when it entered production in 1939... and remained so until late 1942.

My bad I thought it was a late war tank

that will most definitely fuck up your perception of the vehicle.
No, the KV-1 was upgraded early on in the war, and acted as a sort of base for a lot of future developments. However, until the deployment of the IS (and really, the IS-2), the KV was always playing catch-up (literally) with the T-34.

it really did but that makes sense

IS is further development of KV by all means.🐱

Well... basically, KV-1 start T-34 myth...

Attached: kv1-bt5.jpg (503x270, 35K)

your cat makes me think your comment is less than sincere

Attached: 6be_u18chan.jpg (349x376, 27K)

Not him but basically turret ring on the KV stopped it being upgunned- and IS2 was designed to replace. Amazingly though; for the armour and gun mounted on the IS2 the weight wasn't ludicrous like the German big cats

They were effective when they were first introduced but as the T-34 improved it became more of a waste of resources. They essentially used the same guns as the T-34 and had more armor but you could make 3 t-34's for each KV.

Well they did develop the SU-122 and SU-152 which were really better platforms as a bunker buster because it used less resources and did the same job.

It was a breakthrough tank. Had the Soviet attacked first, KV would shine on it's way to Berlin. However, facing German Blitzkrieg KV was literally dropped in favor of something more mobile, something allowing the safe escape. Like car, bicycle or horse carriage.
It'd especially visible as You look at war path of Soviet heavy XVI corps in 1941 - KV tanks wandering aimlessly around Kiev and suffering mysterious non combat losses, until only wheeled vehicles are left.

Considering the low amount of units produced, that makes it a cost-efficient tank for its performance, even if that performance is lacking strategically.

Simply put, the KV was the right tank at the right time.

>how bad could have it been?
Quite a lot, most of them broke down before the Nazis could actually knock them out.

Did the French have the best tanks in 39/40?

>french with their ww1 tier shitboxes
>vs KV-1 and T-34
gee i dunno

>early Soviet designs
>good
maybe if your whole knowledge base comes from warthunder and on paper statistics

Attached: d0d.png (803x688, 453K)

>literally one outlier sets the bar
aw
it's retarded

... so, show me any heavy tank from 1940-41, better than KV-1 in term of armor, fire power or even a mobility?

Attached: kv1_hits_pz4.jpg (600x368, 26K)

KV-2 :D

>substantiateyourclaims.rooster

Ok retard
>My Hotchkiss will certainly win against t34 ebil