Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "KV-1: What was its Weakness? @TankArchives" video.

  1. Main weaknesses of KV-1 were: 1)Voroshilov being a moron, who almost cancelled development until appeased with the naming bribe; 2)some f//cks making T-34 use same engine and gun; 3)low load cranes on many factories; 4)overrating engine instead of derating it as well as overloading transmission. They tried to run V-2 at 600hp on KV-1, but V-2 on IS-1/2/3 ran only at 520hp. Otherwise a great tank, especially for its time. Ideally KV should have gotten sloped front, lowered side armor thickness, new transmission and derated engine. And be produced instead of T-34 as "universal" tank until 1943. Edit: another small correction, KV-1 had superior firepower to T-34 despite having de facto same gun and ammo. KV-1 had dedicated loader and the crew weren't choking on fumes. So unlike T-34, KV-1 crew could both really achieve the stated RoF of the gun AND allow commander and gunner to do their jobs unopposed. Same gun=/=same firepower.
    9
  2. There weren't many bridges in USSR that could support 30 ton tank either, but that doesn't negatively impact the amount of rimjobs T-34 is receiving for some reason ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
    4
  3.  @TK421-53  Chad KV-1S >>>>>> virgin T-34:P And I guess KV-1, KV-1S, T-70, KV-85, IS-1, SU-76, IS-2, ISU-152, ISU-122, T-43, KV-13 and dozen others are all american tanks, right? Or maybe it's just T-34 that is piece of sh//t? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks had used Christie suspension? None? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks used sloped side armor? Also none? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks made commander work as loader? Some, but not really? Oh, I'm sure that T-34 was a great tank and the fact that it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M ASAP or that it costed almost exactly as much to produce as KV-1 due to the use of shared bottleneck components isn't telling a different story. Such a pity that all soviet reports and archives are still in place about pre war testing and all the attempts to replace that "tank". Otherwise some kid would have even believed you:D
    2
  4. ​ @thiagorodrigues5211  that's T-34. Just one more reason why it was a waste of steel. KV-1 had two problems - 1)engine wasn't properly derated to lower power output like on follow up tanks like IS-1/2/3 or T-44/54 where V-2 was giving 520 hp instead of CLAIMED 600 hp of KV-1. Which either meant very low reliability OR that power was in fact far lower then claimed; 2)early transmission wasn't up to the task of handling said engine and mass. However T-34 used the same engine and wasn't kind to it's transmission either. Moreover unlike KV-1 it had low internal space due to angled sides, welds that were prone to bursting thanks to angled sides, complicated hull welding process because of angled sides, abysmal to maintain and replace Christie suspension hidden insides hull and... yep, angled sides once again, commander had to operate as loader too and so on. Soviet would have been far better off shaving side armor of KV-1 to KV-1S level and producing that as medium tank. Or better yet put KV-1 turret on proposed T-34M hull. Instead they've produced T-34 which was a piece of fertilizer. And no, it wasn't cheap or good for mass production because it costed almost as much as KV-1. Because they used same bottleneck components! Literary the same gun and engine.
    1
  5. Except 2-3 T-34 would cost as much as 2-3 KV-1 to produce and they have almost the same combat offroad speed due to faulty transmissions of both tanks. In all regards KV-1 was "bad", T-34 was even worse and it wasn't any cheaper to produce.
    1
  6.  @mtnbound2764  you're right, on parades T-34 is faster :D
    1