Talk:Kliment Voroshilov tank

message: Lots of info on this tank.  I'll get back to working on this article when the weekend hits.  Oberiko 01:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Why that russian tank on photo has Nazi sign on it ? :-O Wlcina (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a "Nazi sign", but the swastika of Finland as it was captured by Finnish forces during the war with the Soviet Union and used against it's former owner. BP OMowe (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: Sorry for copying and pasting from another website (even though proper credit was given), but I want to know the historical validity of the KV-VI tank. Darth Sidious 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per russian Wiki a KV-6 designation did not exist. There was a small number of KV-1 modified with a flamethrower instead of MG but that was called KV-1 with flamethrower. --Denniss (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: KV-VI

message: The KV-6 is a joke we came up with over a few beers; I know the author.  DMorpheus 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a joke

message: KV-4 and KV-5 were real projects, though. Both were twin-turreted, and to  be armed with the F-39 107mm and 45mm guns. KV-4 (Obiekt 224) was to be 92 tonnes, with up to 130mm armour. KV-5 (Obiekt 225) would be 150 tonnes and up to 180mm armour. However, the evactuation of the Kirovskiy plant in August 1941 meant that they only remained paper-projects. (Sourced from Steven Zaloga's "KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939-45") cougar1 (cougar1) 14:38, 22 February 2011 (EST)
KV-6 is not the joke, KV-VI is the joke. KV-6 really exist with an ATO-41 flamethrower. The different between KV-6 and KV-8 is KV-6 has a 76mm gun while KV-8 has a 45mm gun LolIamArnoob (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per russian Wiki a KV-6 designation did not exist. There was a small number of KV-1 modified with a flamethrower instead of MG but that was called KV-1 with flamethrower. --Denniss (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: KV-4 & 5 were proposed

message: "While the above makes an excellent story, worthy of the greatest examples of Soviet wartime propaganda (including the fascinating, but false story of the Stalingrad sniper duel between Zaitsev and the invented German "super-sniper" made famous in the movie Enemy at the Gates), the numbers just are not verifiable or believable."
I have no problem with the claim that the numbers are not believable but this sentence reads like a history text rather than an encyclopedia and is very POV. 121.44.96.164 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, not really. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Uhm..

message: I first reverted the addition about "Equally important, it was the Soviet definition of "tank" in the 1930's, ..." because it lacks a reference, and is not a theory I've ever seen referred to in any publication.  It also suffers from grammatical and spelling errors, but it's the lack of references which makes it a non-starter.
We can't call it an "excellent explanation" unless there's some evidence that it comes from one or more reliable, verifiable sources. —Michael Z. 2007-05-01 13:49 Z
:: As well as being unreferenced, it is irrelevant to the article and simply incorrect. That's three strikes. DMorpheus 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of tank

message: Description of Raseiniaj episode is completly wrong
:1. It is not known if the tank was KV-1 or KV-2 (there are some photos of damaged KV-2, but there is no evidence it is a Raseiniaj KV)
:2. There is no evidence that the tank run out of ammunition
:3. All the crew were killed. There is a witness who took part in burying them. There is also a monument on the their grave now. Some research was made into subject in last years.
I had already tried to edit this section once (KV-1 or KV-2, killed crew), but unknown reason my edit was reverted. Serg3d2 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raseiniaj

message: Just wondering, where did this tidbit of info come from:
When the Soviets entered the Winter War, the SMK, KV and a third design, the T-100, were sent to be tested in combat conditions. The heavy armour of the KV proved highly resistent to Finnish anti-tank weapons, making it more effective than the other designs. It was soon put into production, both as the original 76-mm-armed KV-1 Heavy Tank and the 152 mm howitzer-mounting assault gun, the KV-2 Heavy Artillery Tank.
Was that info in the book KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939–1945?
--MacroDaemon 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: KV-1 and SMK

message: http://himg.qihoo.com/qhimg/comic/0_0/10/01/d5/1001d53qc7b5b.a5ddc6.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.156.230 (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The KV-4

message: "about 5,219"
Seems a little too specific to be "about", is there a source supporting 5,219 tanks being built? If so the word "about" should really be removed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zaloga gives 4,749, which includes the KV-1, KV-2, and KV-1S plus prototypes and specialized variants such as the U-1 versions, KV-9, KV-8 flamethrower, etc. DMorpheus (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zaloga ref via google books: , if that's helpful. Hohum (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: info box tank numbers

message: The IS-3 was finished too late to see action in WW2 against the Germans and there are only rumors that it seen action against the Japanese in China. I think that the part under 'Soviet heavies in WW2'should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.241.235 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IS-3 in WW2 

message: In the fourth paragraph of #Development history, it is stated that "One of the main competing designs was the SMK, which in its final form had two turrets, mounting the same combination of 76.2 mm and 45 mm weapons." Since, to this point, there has been no mention of a 45 mm weapon, secondary or otherwise, to what tank is this "same combination" referring?
Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is referring to the T-35, which is indeed mentioned at the very beginning of section "Development History". Cheers Irondome (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have clarified the sentence. Well spotted. Irondome (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly implicit forward reference 

message: The photo just added is very interesting. It looks to me like a KV-1S turret on a standard KV-1 hull. Note the rear deck does not slope downwards as on a true KV-1S. I'm glad to see a photo of the KV-1S in place of a second KV-2 photo, but I am wondering exactly what this vehicle is. Odd? Could it be a museum-constructed example?  DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  KV-1S Photo? 

message: Would it be appropriate to mention the Kv-2 has appeared in video games such as World of Tanks and War Thunder, and show such as Girls Und Panzer? Or is that unnecessary? ShrimpAnimation (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a trivial mention of the kind parodied in a 2008 xkcd cartoon.  The World of Tanks video game has depictions of almost all tanks.  Most computer games that depict tanks of the Russian front in World War II include the KV-2. The Girls und Panzer television series depicts many different types of World War II tanks.  See MOS:POPCULT.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  KV-2 in popular culture  

message: "KV-2 (334) – [...] Those captured and used by the German Army were known as (Sturm)Panzerkampfwagen KV-II 754(r)."
I honestly doubt that. Why would the German Army use parentheses? Can someone please provide a source for this? ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked into two older Spielberger/Scheibert books and both only mention Panzerkampfwagen. --Denniss (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Models" 

message: Can the T-150 redirect page be a independent page? DerpGunKV2 (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-150 split