KV-1S and High Caliber Guns

Posted on by

I have read lots of people complain that the KV-1S is ahistoric, and should not get any larger gun than 76 mm, citing that the only KV with such a gun was the KV-85 (when questioned on the difference between a KV-1S and a KV-85, they fall silent). To clear up any difficulties some people may have with nomenclature, here are some choice bits from the archives.

kvas-85

CAMD RF 38-11355-1377, page 195, fragment

“To arm new “IS” and modernized KV-1S tanks, four 85 mm “S-31″ guns were received, and one “D-5″ gun, designed and produced by factory #9.
The “S-31″ gun has a recoil length of 540 mm, and a large, non-compact mount, which makes it difficult to install in a tank.
The “D-5″ gun has a recoil length of 300 mm, and a compact mount, with a relatively low line of loading. The ballistic qualities of both guns are the same.
Aside from the specified characteristics, the “D-5″ can also be converted to a 122 mm caliber by swapping the barrel and breech.”

And, of course, here is an oldie but a goodie:

kvas-122

CAMD RF 38-11369-106 page 56, fragment

“Installing a 122 mm “S-41″ howitzer on the KV-1S will make a weight difference of _____ compared to the KV-1S with a 76.2 mm ZIS-5 gun (43.5 tons), and will be equivalent to _____ tons.
All specifics of installing an 85 mm gun in the KV-1S and IS tanks are applicable to the changes in the turret and fighting compartment that come with installing a 122 mm howitzer (refer to the TsAKB project “S-31″).”

Hopefully that clears up any confusion as to what KV had what kind of gun in it.

 

Edit: it appears that people are somehow more confused about the KV-1S and its armament now.

kv-1s-122

Here you go, a KV-1S with a 122 mm D-25T gun. If you don’t like it, there is a bigger gun Wargaming can put in.

 

75 thoughts on “KV-1S and High Caliber Guns”

  1. Thanks for your effort but I fear that unfortunately historical accuracy isn’t the real issue there, several tanks are less realistic but people hardly complain about them so much.

      • The Panther II, Jagdpanther II, VK 30.01(H), VK 4502s, E-100, Maus, VK 30.02(D), Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Aufl.Panther, etc. have all been buffed beyond historical specs.

        • And stupid Wargaming does not even put more realistic and appropriete german tanks; i call it russian bias.

        • Well, WG isn’t a fair game developer.

          If a German tank had worse characteristics in real life they will surely nerf it.
          If russian tanks have better – OP – characteristics: “How terrible…”

          Examples:

          IS-7 has better armor in game – won’t be changed.
          E-100 had 10 mm less side armors – nerf it imediately!
          E-100′s HEAT shell worked as in reality – no problem, nerf it too!
          Panther I/Panther II had 700 HP engine – Nerf it!!! ROF won’t be a compensation!
          KV-1S kills every tier V tanks with one shoot – “How terrible…”
          invisible F155 french TD with very good view range – “How terrible…”

          Can somebody explain what was alpha and beta test good for?
          Balancing and balancing…
          WG had to decide the characteristics of tanks in the test phase of the game!
          All tech trees, including those which will be added in the future.

          “Funny” EU server fails…

          Furthermore this game should be renamed to world of russian tanks…

        • Well, at least one was effectively built, unlike paper tanks like the E-series. Its model is apparently wrong but other tanks suffer of similar issues and the upcoming hulls modules will probably fix that.

        • Not only was only 1 constructed, they never got it to work. It had too many problems with weight distribution. It was a theory tank that didn’t work, thus leading to the KV-13 and IS-122. The IS was the first hull to successfully mount the 122.

      • The T28 Proto. and what we know as the T110E4 are pretty much pulled out of WG’s ass

    • Completely crap article.

      People were complaining against 122mm ANTI-TANK (D-2-5T) gun (KV-1S chassis was used as testbed for this gun, nothing more), and yet author is going about explaining that 122mm HOWITZER (allegedly S-41) is the same thing…And that should “hopefully clear up any confusion as to what KV had what kind of gun in it.” (could work on his English, too).

      Well, they may be same caliber, but are two different weapons

  2. …pretty sure people don’t mind KV-1S’s with the snub 122mm howitzer though (which these seem to be talking about unless the late hour has completely shot my comprehension skills), more like they pounce upon such with bloodthirsty glee. It’s the ones with the big D-25T that provoke such grief, especially when a third to a half of either team consists of such…

    • >Aside from the specified characteristics, the “D-5″ can also be converted to a 122 mm caliber by swapping the barrel and breech.”
      This should be your feared D-25T, afaik.

    • I’m no artillery engineer, but allow me to excess severe doubts regarding the technical feasibility of that. I seem to recall there being a major turret redesign when the IS went from its initial (slightly silly) 85mm gun to the D-25… Not to mention the weapon being discussed in the text is *explicitly* referred to as a “howitzer”, which it is my impression wasn’t exactly the 25′s designation.

      • The S-41 is the howitzer. The D-25 is not. Factory #9 didn’t make a 122 mm howitzer.

        Also there are photos of a KV-1S with a D-25. I’ve posted them before. SS has posted them before. It’s interesting how the conspiracy theorists gloss over them.

      • That’s kind of what I was referring to…

        Hardly alters the main point though, which was the article basically talking about entirely different guns than people rage about and hence being essentially irrelevant. Big-bore howitzers were a common enough alternative armament for most tanks after all, and quite routinely around 50% larger than the default higher-velocity gun – eg, the US and German 105mm’s (to ~75mm standard armament)

      • > Not to mention the weapon being discussed in the text is *explicitly* referred to as a “howitzer”
        Stop sleeping for 10 minutes and read it better, the article refers to two different orders, the first one talks about 85mm guns and it mentions the possibility of upgunning the D-5 85mm gun to 122mm; this is what they did in late 1943 thus creating the D-25T, its very same index comes from the combination of D-2, a lightweight variation of the original A-19 field gun, and D-5.

        • Because I would obviously know the D-25 was the Artist Formerly Known As D-5 when nobody bothered to mention it where it’s relevant, right? (Also just HOW heavy-duty recoil buffers did the D-5 have if those could handle a high-velocity 122 as is?)

          • It is mentioned in both the English and Russian wiki article of the A19 field gun, read it.

          • There is a vague mention of “necessary adaptations” and nothing at all of a lighter version called “D-2″, but true. Doesn’t change the fact that the article would do a lot better job clearing up the confusion if it was clearer on what kind of 122mm weapon exactly is discussed where.

  3. Could ye lot do up an article about the upcoming French super-heavies (Char 2C [+bis] and F1), and where they might be in game development now?

    With the TOG out and about in game I’ve become interested in seeing those beasts show up as well.

    • That would make the KV-2 useless.
      That said, I wouldn’t mind the 152mm derp on KV-4…

          • Most sources mentioned “152mm S-41″, but this article said it’s “122mm S-41″.

            Something is wrong here.

          • Zaloga is actually pretty shitty source for Soviet armor development, he did 0 primary research, just translated Russian works.

          • There were two guns with that designation: a 122 mm howitzer and a 152 mm howitzer. If you’re confused about that, don’t look up how many guns were named “LB-1″ :P

          • Ouch. That kind of thing is painfully normal for historians dealing with, say, Ancient Greek or Medieval militaries, but in modern context that’s just bad indexing practices.

          • …and the Chinese and Japanese remain fixated on the “Type XYZ” pattern, but all append the basic index with varyingly verbose and tortuous definitions of what’s being talked about (eg. “United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1″ – better known as M1 Garand).

  6. Yeah sooo many whiners about one gun. I believe PLAYERS in these bloody KV-1S are OP not the tank itself. This gun is inaccurate, bounces like hell and it likes to put a hit into tracks or gun manlet = 0 dmg hit. I see lately bunch of tomatoes and potatoes (sorry for XVM slanging) trying to deal with riding kv-1s. It’s funny when they have no idea what to do against su-152 ingame. They are shooting on auto mode straightinto my gun mainly. But when it comes to tank companies, playing against horde of KV-1S can be horrible. But quoting our SerBy – “How Terrible”

    • Nope, the tank is just OP. As long as you dont auto aim 175mm pen is ridiculous at Tier 6.

  8. KV-1S with the 122 is a joke. Any moron can just auto target any tier 6 tank and blow it to pieces in 2 shots. Its the KV with 107 all over again. They need to remove the 122 and just leave it the 85mm. That gun is perfectly balanced for tier 6.

    There is a reason why the gap between tank w/r and player w/r is so big with the KV-1s, its because the tank is insanely OP.

    • that 85 is not balanced at all ,120mm pen on a tier 6 heavy? if you meant the better 85 ( the t34 85′s top gun) then fine, but the 120 pen 85 is a dreadful gun.
      anyway, the 90mm M3 is better than the long 122, better DPM, way better aim time, way better accuracy, better accuracy on the move and only 15 less pen,and it comes on a tank with gun deppresion that doesn’t get set on fire every other hit like the 1S

    • Then, you will cry about M6 with the 90 mm to be nerfed, then SU-100Y, then SU-100 with the 122, then Hellcat and Jackson’s 90 mm, the T-150 and KV-2′s 107.

      Hell, leave all tanks with 20 mm peashooters so you don’t feel they are “insanely op” anymore. Then uninstall and play a game which you can handle., you publord.

  9. I like how everyone thinks the KVV-1S is OP, yet forget that the ARL 44 also exists at that tier.

    Oh, and by the way, leaving the KV-1S with just the 85 mm D-5T would make it ridiculously worse than the T-34-85.

    • ARL exists and it’s upper glacis is penetrated surprisingly easily with KV-1S and SU-100 (especially the last one) – I would say IS, T25/2 and similar bounce more often (yesterday i took full T69 clip at unangled ARL – 0 damage) but, the more noobish the player is, the more RNG helps him, or jut they aim more carefully…
      But, still ARL can bounce D-2-5T shot, also angled T-150 and Churchill VII – and I’m talking about not-lucky bounces. However, KV-1s has really nasty armor – autobounce middle plate and shell eating mantle no matter how big gun you shoot – yes it can bounce pretty anything frontally at 200+ m no matter how good your aim is (OK, T-150 can do it too, ARL may bounce up to 200 pene but only with upper glacis, and turret is rather big).

      A perfect gun for KV-1s would be either 100 mm (and make it “snipish” russian tank) or some kind of 85 mm 200 alpha gun similar to german short 88 – for more medlike playstyle. Current KV-1s is nowhere near anything in this game – if IS-3 would get 152 mm gun with 240 mm pene it would be similar.

      Ahhh, high mobility of KV-1s doesn’t help at all to properly balance it (stay exposed for ~8 seconds – 800 damage done – only KV-2 can match it)

    • Yes, Russians pretty much came to same conclusion during WW2. That gun is what KV-1S is all about: less armored, lighter and thus more mobile KV chassis armed with 85mm gun. That “S” in name stands for “skorostnoy” or “speedy” – speedy for KV that is.

  10. One KV-122 prototype was all WG needed to justify the KV-1S with the 122 in WoT. Funny, there was also a KV-1S prototype with the 100 mm D-10T gun, so why didn’t WG include that as well?

  11. It’s funny how they nerf German tanks for “historical” reasons and yet tiger tank still has 30 top speed instead of 38. why? because 38 top speed tiger I will be too OP???

    • As for Kv-1S I don’t think it is op. or should I say it wasn’t until they buffed accuracy and made it possible for such inaccurate top guns to land 85% hits from other end of the map. Plus they also increased chance of hitting exact average damage on guns. nuff said.

      • Don cry dear butthurt german player. They will buff Tigers speed. I dont belive how many germans belive in this crap russian bias teory :D

  12. It isnt OP, you noobs just dont know his weaknesses and how to aproach that tank… The KW sport shines in pikaboo actions and close quarter fights in cities but every single tier6 tank if light, med, heavy or td can own him at longer distances or if its a medium or light tank just outmanouver him. And think about the long reload… That tank isng OP, you just suck cuz no average player was ever complaining that this tank is OP and they dont know how to kill it.

    • Correct. The KV-1S can do peekabooming well but utterly sucks at nearly everything else. It cannot tank, as its frontal armour is weak at tier. It cannot snipe, it’s to inaccurate. It cannot DPM things. It cannot sidescrape. It is made of fuel tanks and can two-shot itself on high rolls.

      What it does exceptionally well is going somewhere fast, popping out, blasting something in the guts at close range and then running away to hide while it reloads. The fact pubbies are stupid enough to BACK AWAY from a reloading tank instead of rushing it is probably the cause of 90% of “THIS TANK IS OP” claims in the entire game (KV-1S, 704, old T5 KV with 152, Foch 155, etc.)

  13. I thought the nomenclature was

    KV-1S = fast KV-1 with 76mm
    KV-85 = KV-1S chassis with IS-like turret and 85mm
    KV-122 = KV-1S chassis with IS-like turret and 122mm

    Can someone confirm?

    • KV-1S = Yes, filling the need for a lighter/faster KV-1.
      KV-85 = Not really. The KV-1S chassis had to be modified to fit the bigger turret. A larger turret ring required the midsection to be expanded. It also had other modifications like the removed radio operator position. I would say that the modifications were so extensive that it’s a KV-85 chassis and not a KV-1S chassis at that point.
      KV-122 = That name would make sense, but only one KV-85 was fitted with the 122mm D-25 for trials so I’m not sure it ever got an official designation.

      • The KV-85 was a slightly modified KV-1S hull. The “extensive” modifications required welding two armoured boxes to the side of the turret platform.

        The KV-122 was the name the IS-2 was sometimes called. In official trials, it would probably be referred to with its “object’ designation.

  15. Pingback: Historical Accuracy: Guns of the KV-1S | For The Record