SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Very Ugly Trumpeter KV-2

11257 views
17 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Very Ugly Trumpeter KV-2
Posted by EBergerud on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:07 AM

 

Model: Trumpeter 1/35 KV-2

Out of box: (braided thread for tow cables)

Paints & Washes: Coat d’Arms acrylics, Golden acrylics, Golden and Liquitex mediums. Vallejo washes.

 

The Kit:

For a variety of reasons I’ve spent the last six months doing models from Dragon, Eastern Europe or the “classic” UK. It hasn’t always been a delight and I was determined rest my mind with a Tamigawa something or other. Didn't quite get there, but close. Finescale has a Group Build on the Eastern Front and I did Dragon Pzkw 38(T). I wanted to enter it with a compatriot. The 38t was a handsome, efficient and advanced model in 1940. So what better contrast than a Soviet KV-2, a tank that was ugly as a wart, big enough to be called “Dreadnought” by its crew and one of the new generation Soviet tanks that saved the USSR from defeat in late 1941.

 

The kit itself is very good and available for a very low price. The part count is about 200 with no options (beyond the tracks) so it won’t challenge a new Dragon for detail but is still considerably better made than the earlier Tamiya KV-1 still out there. I wouldn’t say the fit is as clean as the best from Tamiya but it’s very good. Trumpeter gives you the choice of using nicely made vinyl tracks or a kind of hybrid-independent track system. I assembled one of the plastic tracks and it looked okay, but the advantage of easy removal of the vinyls (which are very good for their kind) got my vote. Of course I knew what was going to happen to them. I saw very few KV-2 photos that showed any markings so I stuck with minimalist decals. Some gaudy Rooskie phrases are there, no doubt penned by Marshall Stalin himself. (I read on Armorama that some of these big white cyrillic phrases are very bad Korean or Japanese Russian. Take that for what it’s worth.)  The box art is very much to my liking – reminds me of a Sgt Rock comic from my boyhood. The only real problem was self-inflicted and not, alas, for the first time. Next time for sure, grab handles will be the absolutely last thing to go on the model. They are very easy to knock off during handling and I got pretty good at that.

 

I used my water based acrylics again and I’m getting very fond of them. When you start getting used to the mediums required, it’s really easy not to miss thinners and most of the solvents required in model building. (Still use lacquer thinner for airbrush cleaning.) You can thin these things with milky mediums that dry clear and spray an extremely thin paint/medium ratio. Worked very well for panel shading, dusting etc. Possible to paint for extended periods at very low psi on your compressor and just brush the tip off with water occasionally and no nozzle clogging. Can’t let the guard down though. These paints have very fine pigments and because the mediums have polymer in them (over 25% water and the paints will break down: the effect is very obvious) it is very important to keep your airbrush clean. (I think this is why Future gives some people problems: it’s so easy to work with and is clear so one could forget this is liquid acrylic and will dry like a plastic. Same things with artist acrylics. If you don’t remember and it gets clogged a good cleaning in potent solvents will fix things easily enough.) Coat d’Arms has a color they call “military tank” which I put a little khaki into. A little “greener” than most “Russian greens” but as I understand it, Rooskie armor had a very wide range of colors - as long as it was some kind of green.

 

As noted this kit was designed from the beginning to represent a Russian tank fighting during the “rasputitsa” (roughly quagmire) in the fall of 1941 when rain, sleet and early snow melted and turned Russia’s unpaved roads into mud bad enough to slow or stop the Wehrmacht immediately after their great – and last - victories of the campaign at Vyasma and Bryansk in early October. (The condition is well illustrated by a famous photo from outside Moscow in 1941 below.) When the ground finally froze in mid-November the Wehrmacht was quickly faced with arctic temperatures, improved Soviet defenses at key points near Moscow and ultimately Zhukov's counter-attack. Hitler's only real chance to achieve complete victory in WWII ended at that moment.

 

Assembly is so smooth with this kit that it would make a terrific “weekender” if you gave it a nice coat of green and a decent wash and left it in “delivery day” condition. That wouldn't do for a monster brawling in the rasputitsa though. So it was heavy weather time. I have the Osprey “Modeling the T-34” book which includes efforts by weather gurus Mig Jimenez and Adam Wilder. Wilder's effort was covered with mud, streaking and rust – just the ticket. I suppose many people will look at the kit the way people viewed paintings by Jackson Pollack – a monkey could do that. Actually it took quite a while to wreck the model. Four filters, three washes and quite a bit of dry brushing. And about a pound of Doc Martin's and MIG pigments to make three types of dry mud and one batch of wet. I used a kind of polymer plaster that removed the need for any kind of resin or white glue for mud. It thins nicely with water and worked well for splattering the stuff on the upper hull with an airbrush blowing high psi air through a brush loaded with mud. I also used Wilder's suggestion of applying streaks with buff paint heavily thinned with water. Also found out that Golden gloss varnish worked very well for wet mud, wet streaks and grease. I hit the tracks and wheels very hard. Judging from some of the photos, not hard enough.

 

I didn't put on the large amount of rust Wilder recommended. I just don't see it on the photos. A holy mess no doubt, but not rust. (I did bust up one of the fenders a little just for fun. Didn't have the courage to cut a big gouge out of it.) However, I did try to emulate hits taken from 40mm, 37mm and 20mm guns. I wish I could have found more photo guidance on damage: lots of tanks knocked out but not just whacked around. The Germans found out the hard way that a 37mm anti-tank round wouldn't penetrate the KV-2s armor, but I'm betting it would have done more than scratch the paint. I followed a tip from the neat armor boutique site Ausfwerks (very good place to buy after-market stuff and Vallejo paints: very good technique articles). You take the Xacto and dig a hole. Surround it with red oxide primer paint and fill in with oily steel – only way I know to make a gash in three dimensions.

 

So the result is an awkward and ugly model. Actually it turned out about the way I wanted it to. Let's not forget that the most beautifully done KV-2 is still going to be the ugliest tank that ever went into battle. Pics below.

Eric

 

 

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2015
Posted by spadx111 on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:30 AM

well done

Ron

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 12:01 PM

I concur that the KV-2 series are among the ugliest tanks ever. However, you've brought yours to life with some serious weathering. I've never modeled a build to that extreme, because it's not my style, but you seem happy with it and that is all that really matters. A lesson I forget sometimes. We model for ourselves....or do we? Wink

Did you use the link-and-lengths or the kits vinyls? I think the link-and lengths with the long top track sag is wonderful.

I think your weathering turned out really well and like the many tonal variations on the green and mud. Well done.

 

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by TD4438 on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 12:09 PM

The Trumpeter KV series are some nice kits.My wife and I have both built a couple.You did a fine job on this one.

  • Member since
    February 2011
  • From: San Antonio
Posted by MAJ Mike on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 1:09 PM

You managed to turn an ugly tank into a jewel of a build.  Well done!

 

 

 "I'd "I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct."

"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!"

  • Member since
    March 2006
  • From: Right Side of a Left State
Posted by Shellback on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 9:17 PM

Looks good , sure is dirty .

Sometimes ugly is so ugly it starts getting good looking ...............well thats my opinion ! Propeller

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 9:39 PM

The KV-2 was kind of the baboon of the tank world. Face only a mother could love. Actually it wasn't a very good tank and only about 300 were built. It was too heavy for an assault gun at that stage and bad on broken terrain. But those wide tracks let it move around on soft and muddy ground if things were flat. And if you were in a German unit whose anti-tank guns couldn't get into position because they couldn't move, I dare say the KV-2 would have been a really scary sight. Naturally the T-34 and KV-1s were more important ... but too pretty for a ton of mud.

I did make a run of the plastic tracks. With no weathering they might have been worth it, but they aren't as good as Magic Tracks and it was a real luxury to be able to remove the tracks (more than once) during painting and weathering. And for vinyls they look good - of course you can't see mine.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Philadelphia PA
Posted by smeagol the vile on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 10:00 PM

Yea... I was wondering how it even survived on the battlefield... I mean... they used sloped armor on tanks so that the shells would not hit direct on and penetrate and instead be directed off of the sloped armor... but the KV2... its a GIANT BOX.  I mean... how can you miss that... I guess it has a long enough range to hit anything before they can get close enough to hit it, but christ man

 

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:33 AM

I'm going to put this thing up on the Ostfront Group Build and pontificate about armor in the battle for Moscow. The short answer is that the KV-2 "box" had 110mm of armor on parts of the front hull and turret. (The K1-2 had 95 on the mantlet and 75mm on the front hull..) Like the KV-1, and this was key, the KV-2 had 70mm of plate in the rear and on the sides. Even the weakest points on the tank had 40mm. In 1941 that was a whopping amount of armor slopped or not. (As I recall the T-34's slopped armor was the equivalent of 90mm plate: about the same as the KV-1 and less than the KV-2.)  Most Pz IIIs and IVs had 50mm max and far weaker on the sides. Many at the start of Barbarossa had less: the Pz38(t) and PzIIs were weaker still. You'Add into the equation firepower: the most powerful tank gun in the Wehrmacht was the PzIIIs 50mm - however in June 1941 over half the type still carried the 37mm. PzIVs had short 75mm designed for infantry targets. 38ts carried a 40mm and PzIIs a 20mm. German anti-tank guns were likewise weak. The 37mm was the most common at campaign start, supported by the 50mm in insufficient number. The fine 75mm was slowly deployed throughout the campaign but didn't become "top dog" until well into 1942. Ironically, outside the 88, the best anti-tank gun in German hands was the rechambered 76mm Russian gun captured by the hundreds early in the campaign. But those were not in the front line for several weeks for the most part. If enough ammo was also captured they could be used in place, but the Germans decided quickly to rebuild this weapon to handle the 75mm German round. All of these were fine against the blizzard of light Soviet tanks but inadequate when facing the KV1, KV2 and T34 - this fact was immediately apparent to the Wehrmacht when the big Soviet buggies were encountered. Tactical skill initially allowed the Wehrmacht to compensate, but stories of the KVs taking multiple hits were common on both sides. So yea, you could hit a KV-2: you just had to be near a whopping big gun to penetrate its armor. The most effective weapon against them was the 88mm flak and field guns firing over open sights. (And breakdowns of course. A mechanical failure in most of 41 meant a captured Rooskie AFV. And all tanks break down.) As long as the Wehrmacht could use their speed and strength this did the job. As soon as a Russian "monster" was encountered, the call went out to bring up towed guns. If a PzIIIs or IVs were close they'd come too hoping to maneuver for a close range shot. When losses, supply stretch and weather deprived the Wehrmacht of this ability, the new Soviet tanks inflicted very nasty losses. This was despite the fact there were never very many of them - at least by later standards. (About 500 KVs in mid-41: with losses I doubt the number ever went higher during Barbarossa. Later KV-1s were much more common.) The KV2, like all Rooskie buggies had another advantage. It had trouble with rough terrain, but if the ground was flat it's width and wide tracks allowed it to move well in the kind mud and soft ground that slowed badly or stopped Wehrmacht tanks developed for the the better roads found in Europe. But the Russians recognized that the KV-2 was basically a bad idea and only about 300 were made: I doubt many were fighting by spring of 1942. By then with the 75mm German guns appearing on the PzIV and more in the anti-tank role - a KV-2 would have been dogmeat. On the other hand the Soviets also began building whole lots more of these things as the violence barometer continued to climb until late 1944. The KV-1, when upgraded, became the Stalin and the T-34 stuck around for a generation. The weapons and type of war changed remarkably in the East between 1941 and 1944. BTW: the Germans liked the "box" just fine and rebuilt several dozen captured KV-2s and employed them often "hull down" for defensive strong points.

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Philadelphia PA
Posted by smeagol the vile on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:13 PM

please... paragraphs are your friend...

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:54 PM

Dirty, ugly, battered, bruised and nasty looking....JOB WELL DONE !!!!!

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:16 PM

The question you posed can't be answered simply because the mechanics of war are beastly complex. I assumed you wanted an answer and I tried to provide it.

When it's part of my job I usually work with professional editors. I use a lot of paragraphs in books and articles. Silly me. I've always thought of email as a kind of short hand - a place where the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't really fit. I write fast and there are errors all over the place in my posts as haste does make waste. But I don't care much. Nor, does it seem, do many other people.

I know I can use serious advice on modeling. Frankly, I don't need tips on composition. If you don't like my posts you can exercise your freedom not to read them.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois
Posted by Hercmech on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:30 PM

Pretty nice build!


13151015

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Massachusetts
Posted by minimortar on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 5:19 PM

Nice job. Yeah, it is ugly and it (or Soviet WWII armor in general) just begs for more uglyness. I feel that the more the mud and grunge, the better with these subjects.

I built the old Tamiya offering years ago and that was probably the muddiest that I've ever gone on an armor model. I may be a bit conservative on my weathering and always leary of going too far but I had a blast doing that classic.

http://www.mortarsinminiature.com/images/Other%20Models/Soviet%20KV-II-1.jpg

http://www.mortarsinminiature.com/images/Other%20Models/Soviet%20KV-II-2.jpg

You've done this one up really nicely and I love it! Beer 

Thanks,
Kevin Keefe

Mortars in Miniature
A Scale Model (Plus!) Collection of the Infantryman's Artillery

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 8:01 PM

Kevin

I've seen that kit in pics - has several differences from the Trumpeter - I assume it's a later model with that front MG. Lovely build: ugly and refined. I assume that's 48 scale. I've heard good things about them. (Wonder what the word means. Could be Victory, or Onward, or Fred. Whatever it is, whenever I try to sound those things out they sound like something insulting.)

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Austin, Texas
Posted by Lt. Zogg on Thursday, June 9, 2011 12:34 PM

Eric,

The word on the side of Kevin's KV is 'Kirov'.  Probably named after Sergey Kirov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kirov).  A lot of WWII Soviet vehicles had the names of Communist revolutionaries or old famous Russian generals/war heroes painted on the sides.

I've got one of the Trump KVs in the stash that I'll get to one of these days, but yours looks about as pretty as they can get - nice work.

Jeff 

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Allentown, PA
Posted by BaBill212 on Thursday, June 9, 2011 12:59 PM

Very nice EB,,,,   nice history blurb too

 

Mostly, thanks for sharing!

Enjoy the ride!

 

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Thursday, June 9, 2011 7:17 PM

Wonder what Russian is for "Another Stalin Victim"? I don't think it was ever proved, but after 1956 it was widely rumored inside the Soviet leadership that Kirov had been popped by the NKVD to serve as a pretext for the purges. Might have been closer to the Reichstag Fire where the bad guys took advantage of a lurid bit of "luck" -  the work of a Dutch looney.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.