Building KVs

 "Addendum to agreement #B1-081 signed between the GABTU and Kirov factory for the year 1941

This addendum is signed on [rubbed out] June July 1941 between the GABTU (Customer) represented by Deputy Chief of the GABTU Major General of the Technical Forces I.A. Lebedev and Chelyabinsk factory (Vendor) represented by Deputy Director comrade Obrant and is based on State decree #525-224 issued on March 13th, 1941.

The Vendor accepts the responsibility of producing and delivery of 500 33 KV-3 tanks and increase of monthly delivery of KV-1 tanks by 10 units and the Customer accepts these vehicles and pays the previously agreed price of 740 thousand rubles for each one.

Delivery of KV-3 tanks is conducted in accordance with blueprints and technical requirements developed by the Kirov factory and the tactical-technical requirements approved by the State.
Blueprints and technical requirements are subject to final approval by the GABTU after the prototype is tested.

The agreed upon price of one KV-3 tank with parts and instruments is established at 740,000 rubles and is subject to adjustment according to calculations in reports delivered in October of this year. All calculations to establish the price of the KV-3 are subject to revision based on these reports.

In accordance to State decree #548-232s issued on March 15th, 1941, the amount of KV-1 tanks build according to agreement B1-081 is reduced by 100 units, as a result of which the cost of the contract is reduced by fifty two million three hundred thousand (52,300,000) rubles.

The overall cost of the KV-3 tanks is established by this addendum to equal three hundred and seventy million rubles (370,000,000).

The final cost of contract B1-081 including the addendum is therefore six hundred and thirty five million rubles (635,000,000).

The Vendor accepts the responsibility of producing a manual for the KV-3 vehicle by November 1st, 1941 and a catalog of spare parts by November 1st, 1941.

All other sections of the contract B1-081 remain in force.

[Signatures]
June 5th, 1941"

Item	Amount	Unit cost (thousand)	Total (thousand)
KV-1 tank	400	523	209,200
KV-2 tank	100	558	55,800
KV-3 tank	500	740	370,000
Total	1000	-	635,000

	KV-1		KV-2		KV-3
	Amount	Cost (thousands)	Amount	Cost (thousands)	Amount	Cost (thousands)
January	40	20,920	-	-	-	-
February	45	23,535	-	-	-	-
March	50	26,150	-	-	-	-
Q1 Total	135	70,605	-	-	-	-
April	65	33,995	-	-	-	-
May	-	-	70	39,060	-	-
June	50	26,150	30	16,740	-	-
Q2 Total	115	60,145	100	55,800	-	-
July	100	52,300	-	-	-	-
August	50	26,150	-	-	55	40,700
September	-	-	-	-	105	77,700
Q3 Total	150	78,450	-	-	160	118,400
October	-	-	-	-	110	81,400
November	-	-	-	-	110	81,400
December	-	-	-	-	120	88,800
Q4 Total	-	-	-	-	340	251,600

CAMD RF F.38 Op.11355 D.98 pp 65, 67

Kirov Factory's Light Alternative

The appearance of Zhosef Yakovlevich Kotin as the chief of the Kirov factory's SKB-2 design bureau in 1937 launched a number of interesting processes. Under O.I. Ivanov before him, the bureau sat quietly and worked on ideas that came from the top. There were few original projects, and the ones that were weren't seriously considered. The situation radically changed when Kotin arrived on the scene. A fierce competition broke out with experimental factory #185 that previously held a monopoly. The monopoly on breakthrough tanks was the first to crumble. This was Kotin's achievement, as he created first the SMK-1 then the KV. Factory #185 wanted to build their alternative to the KV with the index 050, but while the KV was accepted into service the 050 was not even built. At this point the experimental factory was reaching the end of its life.

An experimental hull of the T-221, Kirov factory's first support tank.

Factory #185 was also losing territory to factory #174. In 1939-1940, the latter did more than the former achieved in a very long time. This only happened due to the arrival of S.A. Ginzburg at factory #174. Ginzburg had an excellent understanding of a vehicle's lifecycle.

Book Announcement: Designing the IS-2

I'm delighted to announce that my third book is now available! This is the first title released by the Military History Group, a new publisher created by notable historians Bernhard Kast (Military History Visualized) and Chris Bergs (Military Aviation History). 

This book briefly covers the birth of the Soviet heavy tank from captured British Mark V tanks to the KV-1S before describing how the IS-1 came to be, why the IS-2 replaced it in production so quickly, and why the IS-2 itself managed to hold on to its spot on the assembly line for much longer than its predecessor. Like my previous books, this one is extensively based on primary documents that have never before been available in the English language. 

The book can be purchased at http://is-2-tank.com/ or from Amazon.

Goliath Demolition Vehicle

 "Artillery HQ, 49th Army
August 12th, 1943
#128/op

To Chiefs of Staff and Commanders of Artillery Regiments

In order to combat our tanks, dugouts, and pillboxes on the Central and Volkhov Fronts, the enemy is using torpedo tankettes and suffocating yellow-green smoke that is created by means of burning a special powder.

I attach characteristics of these types of German weapons.

Brief characteristics of the torpedo tankette and means of combat against it:

Video: Did T-34 tanks really carry transmissions on their back?

The myth that T-34 tanks had to carry spare transmissions on their back into battle is a persistent one. In this video, I take a look at what evidence is available to support this claim and the many reasons why this alleged practice wasn't actually possible. Thanks to Francis Pulham for providing photographs and information used in this video.

The Elusive Maus

Great Britain and the USSR actively exchanged information on the enemy during WWII. The USSR even shared its trophies, for instance, Panther and Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.L tanks captured in the USSR were sent to the UK. However, these relations soured after the end of the war and the exchange of information ceased. As both experimental Maus prototypes ended up in the hands of the Red Army, the British had to collect scraps of information on this tank across their occupation zone. How well did British investigators do and how truthful was the information they collected?

The Final Squeak

The Maus is first mentioned in the DRAC (Director, Royal Armoured Corps) Technical Intelligence Summary for May 1945. The description is rather brief:

“Developments in German tank design appear to have been mainly limited to the super-heavy class. Three equipments falling under this heading have so far been examined as follows:

...

Maus (Mouse). This is a tank with an estimated weight of 200 tons mounting a 12.8 cm Kw.K.82 (L/55) and a co-axial 7.5 cm Kw.K.44 (L/36.5) in a turret with 360° traverse.”

The summary also described the E-100 tank and Grille SPG, but there was likewise little information on those vehicles.

 Officers of the 1st Polish Armoured Division and three sets of Maus armour parts, Krupp proving grounds in Meppen.

British Carrier as a Soviet Tractor

There is a common misconception that tankettes disappeared by the mid-1930s. On the contrary, some nations (for example Japan) continued to produce these vehicles even during WW2. There is also a question of classification. Tankettes were multipurpose vehicles. Their initial purpose was a machine gun carrier. The first Carden-Loyd tankettes didn't even have a roof for the gunner and driver. This classic British tankette evolved into a vehicle that some call an APC. In reality, this was a machine gun carrier that had a few seats in the back (like the T-27 tankette, for example). This means the most produced armoured vehicle in history is, in fact, a tankette. This would of course be the Universal Carrier. 113,000 units were built during its time in production, which is about as many as all Medium Tanks M4 and T-34s put together.

The Universal Carrier carried 2 crewmen plus 4 riders in the back. In practice, as many as 6 could fit in the back.

All the King's Horses

The heaviest mass produced tank of WWII appeared on the Eastern and Western Fronts almost simultaneously. Unlike the Tiger, which the Western Allies had a taste of in Africa, and the Panther, information on which was available from the USSR, the forces that landed in Normandy on D-Day had to go into battle against the “King Tiger” blind. How did the Western Allies learn about the last member of the German “Big Cats”?

Bits and pieces

The Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B saw its first battle on July 18th, 1944, in France. Two tanks from the first company of the 503rd Heavy Tank Regiment were knocked out. In addition, one tank fell into a bomb crater and got stuck there. Despite being aware of a “new mark of Tiger … having a sloping sided turret and hull” as early as May of 1944, the British learned very little from these knocked out vehicles, if anything at all. Judging by the somewhat inaccurate description of a new 66.4 ton Tiger tank with the 8.8 cm KwK 43 cannon described in the September 1944 edition of the A.F.V. School Gunnery Wing Information Bulletin, any available information was collected from intelligence sources rather than from the knocked out tanks. Even this limited information was more than what the Americans obtained. The head of the American military mission in the USSR, Major General John R. Deane, sent a request to Lieutenant General Lebedev, the head of the Red Army Main Directorate of Armoured Vehicles (GBTU) on October 4th, wishing to know more about the new enemy tank. Judging by the fact that Deane used neither the official index of the tank nor its commonly used nickname, but the term “Tiger Imperial”, the Americans had precious little information about the vehicle.

Photograph of the King Tiger tank from the January 1945 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin magazine. The photograph is annotated with the thickness of the tank’s armour plates.

The AA Tank That Came Too Late

The story of a SPAAG on the T-60 chassis that was not fated to enter mass production.

SPAAGs were a sore spot of the Soviet tank design program. It’s not that there weren’t any of them by the start of the Great Patriotic War, but they looked nothing like what was originally envisioned. A class of SPAAGs on tank chassis was conceived and such vehicles were even built. The best example would be the SU-6, a SPAAG on the chassis of the T-26 light support tank. It was even accepted into service with a pilot batch built, but mass production never came. Development of SPAAGs on light tank chassis continued. The T-50 chassis was considered a candidate for a SPAAG, armed with either a pair of MP-6 23 mm auto cannons or a 37 mm 61-K. The actual result was quite sad: two experimental SPAAGs on the T-26 chassis were built in Leningrad and that was it. Mechanized units were covered against air attack by a variety of systems on a truck chassis.

The GABTU considered the installation of a T-90 turret on the T-60 to be a quick fix.

Further work went down the road of creating a universal chassis using T-60 tank components. The chassis was developed under code 31 at factory #37 in Sverdlovsk. The prototype designated SU-31 was quite a good vehicle for its time. The 37 mm 61-K auto cannon was an effective weapon against enemy aircraft. However, work dragged on and factory #37 was rolled into UZTM. Instead of the T-70, it was used to build T-34 tanks. Meanwhile, a German airplane was shot down in late June of 1942. A report was found on board detailing the trials of a Henschel Hs 129A ground attack aircraft. Its 30 mm MK 101 gun could penetrate even the armour of the KV-1 tank. The news that SPAAGs on truck chassis had poor off-road mobility were also bad. The combination of these factors gave rise to the idea of building AA tanks.

The SPAAG only entered trials in July of 1943. Compare this arrival to the due dates in the GKO decree above.