Once GABTU approved production of the KV heavy tank, the Red Army specified an initial order of 3,800. The Kirov plant in Leningrad built three models of KV-1 tanks in 1940–41 and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory built two improved models in 1941–43. Two models of the KV-2 tank were also built at the Kirov plant between February 1940 and October 1941, when production ceased. Altogether, about 4,220 KV-1 and 204 KV-2 heavy tanks were built. These models in brief were:
About 106 of the original model were built from June until October 1940. It weighed 43.5 tons and was armed with the short 76.2mm L-11 gun. Armor protection was 75–90mm on the turret and the hull.
About 296 were built from November 1940 until June 1941. The main improvement was the better 76.2mm F-32 gun. About one-third were built with additional bolt-on armor plates on the hull and turret, which increased protection up to 110mm but also raised the weight by 4 tons.
Over 700 were built from July to December 1941 and armed with the long 76.2mm ZIS-5 gun (F-34) in a cast turret. The tank weighed 45 tons and armor protection was 90–110mm on the hull and 100–110mm on the turret.
Over 1,500 were built from January to August 1942 and retained the 76.2mm ZIS-5 gun. Armor protection was augmented to 90–130mm on the hull and 100–120mm on the turret, which increased the weight to 47 tons. Off-road speed decreased to 13km/h (8mph).
Over 1,300 were built from August 1942 to March 1943. Stalin wanted the KV to have better mobility so the GABTU ordered Kotin to shave 5 tons off the gross weight. Although the KV-1S (“speedy”) had an improved off-road speed of 24km/h (15mph), it was still significantly slower than the T-34 and came at the expense of decreasing armor protection, which was reduced to 60–75mm on the hull and 82mm on a smaller turret.
An initial batch of 24 assault tanks was built from February to August 1940. However, these early models were too top-heavy to be issued to field units. The KV-2 weighed 52 tons and was armed with the 152mm M-10T howitzer in a huge turret. It had a top road speed of only 26km/h (16mph) and had armor protection of 75mm on the hull and 75–110mm on the turret. The KV-2 was primarily intended as a bunker-busting assault tank.
A total of 180 improved KVs with 152mm howitzers were built between November 1940 and June 1941. This model added minor refinements, such as a hull machine gun and additional armor protection, which increased the weight by up to 4 tons on some variants.
KV-1 tanks being assembled at the Chelyabinsk plant, spring 1942. The CTZ plant began producing KV tanks in July 1941 and hit peak production in May 1942, with 325 rolling out that month. (Author)
Rheinmetall was the only German company designing large antitank weapons at the start of World War II. At the start of Operation Barbarossa, the primary antitank weapons in production were:
Although classified as an antitank rifle, the sPzB 41 was a sophisticated light antitank gun using the tapered-bore principle to fire tungsten-core penetrators. The Mauser-Werke began testing this weapon in July 1940 and almost 200 had been built by the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.
This was the Wehrmacht’s primary antitank weapon at the start of Operation Barbarossa. Rheinmetall had built over 11,000 by June 1941, although production was beginning to taper off in favor of the PaK 38. Using PzGr 39 rounds, its best penetration was 35mm at 100m, which was totally ineffective against the KV-1’s armor. PzGr 40 tungsten-core rounds for 3.7cm entered production in 1940, but only limited quantities had been issued by June 1941 due to the high cost of production. Even with these rounds, a 3.7cm PaK could only damage a KV when fired from the rear arc at ranges of just 20–30m. Few gun crews had the nerves for this kind of engagement.
Owing to its excellent performance, the Germans kept the Skoda-built 4.7cm antitank gun in limited production into 1942. While its standard armor-piercing rounds could only penetrate 52mm at 100m, the 4.7cm PzGr 40 round issued in July 1940 could penetrate 100mm at 100m, which was the best performance of any Panzerjäger weapon in June 1941.
Rheinmetall’s 5cm PaK 38 was more than twice the weight of the 3.7cm PaK and represented something of a compromise between mobility and firepower. In June 1941, the Wehrmacht believed that the PaK 38 was the best antitank gun in the world. (Author)
This was the Wehrmacht replacement for the 3.7cm PaK and it entered low-rate production in April 1940. However, Rheinmetall experienced production difficulties establishing the PaK 38 production line in Düsseldorf, with a monthly output of less than 100 PaK guns throughout 1940. It was not until April 1941 that production finally reached 150 guns per month, so that by June Rheinmetall had built over 1,200 PaK 38s. The PaK 38 guns used in the initial invasion were primarily armed with standard PzGr 39 rounds, whose best penetration was 69mm at 100m.
7.5cm Gr 38 HI/A HEAT ammunition entered low-rate production for testing in August 1940 and offered a potential solution to the threat posed by Soviet heavy tanks. However, since the Panzerjäger did not have a 7.5cm gun to fire the hollow-charge rounds, no HEAT ammunition was issued to Panzerjäger units until early 1942. A 7.5cm HEAT round was later issued for the 7.5cm IG 18 infantry howitzer, providing additional antitank capability for infantry regiments.
| Table 2: German Panzerjäger weapons by entry into service | ||||||
| Weapon | Entered service | Combat weight | Height | Rate of fire | Cost | Barrel life |
| 3.7cm PaK 36 | 1936 | 440kg | 1.17m | 15–18 rds/min | 5,730 RM | 4,000– 5,000 rds |
| 4.7cm PaK 36(t) | 1939 | 590kg | 1.14m | 16–20 rds/min | N/A | N/A |
| 2.8cm sPzB 41 | 1940 | 223kg | 0.83m | 22 rds/min | 4,500 RM | 500 rds |
| 5cm PaK 38 | 1940 | 986kg | 1.1m | 12–14 rds/min | 8,000 RM | 4,000– 5,000 rds |
| 4.2cm PaK 41 | 1942 | 642kg | 1.17m | 10–12 rds/min | 7,800 RM | 1,000 rds |
| 7.5cm PaK 40 | 1942 | 1,425kg | 1.25m | 11–14 rds/min | 12,000 RM | 6,000 rds |
| 7.5cm PaK 41 | 1942 | 1,356kg | 1.8m | 13 rds/min | 15,000 RM | 600– 1,000 rds |
| 7.5cm PaK 97/38 | 1942 | 1,190kg | 1.05m | 10–14 rds/min | 8,000 RM | N/A |
| 7.62cm PaK 36(r) | 1942 | 1,730kg | 1.22m | 10–12 rds/min | N/A | 6,000 rds |
| 8.8cm PaK 43 | 1943 | 3,700kg | 1.98m | 6–10 rds/min | 26,000 RM | 2,000 rds |
Three other antitank weapons were under development in June 1941, but the Heereswaffenamt had not placed any orders. Each of these new PaK guns was specifically intended to counter enemy heavy tanks, such as the French Char B1 bis:
Expanding upon the tapered-bore principle, the PaK 41 mounted a 4.2cm tapered-bore barrel manufactured by Billerer & Künz in Aschersleben on a Rheinmetall-built PaK 36 carriage, in order to significantly increase armor penetration capabilities without sacrificing mobility. The PaK 41 did not enter low-rate production until December 1941 when 37 were built, followed by another 276. Production was terminated in June 1942. The PaK 41’s PzGr 41 tungsten-core round had excellent performance for its size and could penetrate up to 87mm of armor at 500m, which threatened the KV’s side armor. However, only 115 PaK 41s were issued to Luftwaffe Fallschirmjäger units and 25 to the Waffen-SS, which meant that this excellent weapon saw limited service on the Eastern Front.
Rheinmetall began developing a 7.5cm antitank gun in 1939, but this project was a low priority until the discovery of the KV-1. However, after the initial encounters with the KV-1 and T-34, Reichsminister Fritz Todt moved the PaK 40 project to the front of the line and a prototype was completed by November 1941. After brief testing, low-rate production began in April 1942. A total of 2,114 PaK 40 were built in 1942 and 8,740 in 1943. Using standard PzGr 39 armor-piercing rounds, the PaK 40 could destroy KV-1 tanks at ranges of about 500m.
Krupp had also begun developing a 7.5cm antitank gun prior to Barbarossa, but their design utilized a tapered-bore barrel to produce much higher muzzle velocities than Rheinmetall’s PaK 40. The first PaK 41s were delivered in April 1942 and the Krupp gun had significantly better penetration than Rheinmetall’s PaK 40; the PaK 41 could penetrate KV-1 frontal armor out to 2,000m. However, the PaK 41 was an expensive weapon that relied upon tungsten-core penetrators, so only 150 were built before the weapon was phased out.
Although the Panzerjäger were still reliant on towed, lightweight PaK guns at the start of Barbarossa, the German Army recognized that army-level Panzerjäger units needed self-propelled antitank guns to keep up with fast-moving offensive operations. Two self-propelled weapon systems were in service by June 1941:
Some 202 Czech-built 4.7cm PaK 36(t) antitank guns were mounted on PzKpfw I chassis during March 1940–February 1941, providing German Panzerjäger with their first self-propelled antitank gun.
Another 174 Czech 4.7cm PaK guns were mounted on French R35 light tank chassis in May–October 1941. The Renault R35 proved a poor choice as a chassis and the converted weapon lacked the reliability of its predecessor.
One foreign-built antitank gun rushed into service was the PaK 97/38. Based upon a French 75mm gun mounted on a German gun carriage and firing HEAT ammunition, the PaK 97/38 was cheap, available, and provided a modicum of defense against Soviet heavy tanks. (Ian Barter)
Once the Wehrmacht became aware of the near-invulnerability of the KV-1 and T-34 to its existing antitank weapons, there was an immediate push to counter these new enemy tanks. Fritz Todt’s Reichministerium für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion (Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production) pushed a bewildering array of antitank programs through the Heereswaffenamt after June 1941 to counter the KV-1 and T-34 tanks. In addition to expediting the Krupp and Rheinmetall 7.5cm PaK projects, Todt authorized multiple ad hoc and poorly coordinated interim solutions, which threw Russian guns, French guns, Czech and French tank chassis and untested German technology into a mixing bowl to come up with a quick response to the KV-1. The fact that both of the primary “quick-fix” solutions to the KV relied upon captured weapons demonstrates that the Germans had been caught on the wrong side of a serious technological imbalance.
In an effort to get a weapon that could fire the 7.5cm Gr 38 HI/A (HEAT) shells against enemy tanks as rapidly as possible, Rheinmetall decided to mount the barrels of captured French 75mm cannon on its carriage for the PaK 38. A muzzle brake was added to the barrel to stabilize the weapon. The PaK 97/38 was 25 percent less expensive than the PaK 40 and Rheinmetall was able to convert 2,854 in 1942. The first PaK 97/38 reached the Eastern Front in mid-1942. Although the PaK 97/38 had an effective antitank range of only 500m, its HEAT rounds could penetrate 75mm of armor, which gave the gun a credible capability against the KV-1’s side armor. However, normal engagements usually required at least five rounds per target. Since the PaK 97/38 had no tracer rounds, it was difficult for the crew to determine whether or not they had scored a hit.
The German Army began using captured Soviet 76.2mm F-22 guns against Soviet heavy tanks as early as July 1941, but there were a number of problems with this approach, not least of which was a reliable supply of ammunition. Rheinmetall was tasked to rechamber the captured weapons to use 7.5cm PaK 40 ammunition and conduct other modifications to suit German standards. The first PaK 36(r) reached the front in February 1942, followed by 357 more that year. Using both HEAT and armor-piercing ammunition, the PaK 36(r) could penetrate the KV-1’s armor at ranges up to 500m.
The Germans pressed large numbers of captured 76.2mm F-22 guns into service as antitank weapons. Once upgraded with a lowered profile and the ability to use German-produced ammunition, the 7.62cm PaK 36(r) became one of the Panzerjäger’s best means of defeating the KV-1 in 1942. (Ian Barter)
Yet even as the Heereswaffenamt pushed forward the various heavy PaK gun projects, it was digesting reports from the early engagements with KVs which indicated that it was difficult to reposition large, towed PaK guns on the battlefield when in contact with enemy armor. Thus, the Heereswaffenamt concluded that some of the heavy PaK guns should be mounted on self-propelled mounts. Based upon lessons learned from the Panzerjäger I series, Rheinmetall teamed up with the firm of Alkett and others in December 1941 to begin converting surplus PzKpfw II and PzKpfw 38(t) hulls to carry the new generation of heavy PaK guns, beginning with the PaK 40 and PaK 36(r). This approach had the advantages of expediency and the ability to upgrade the main gun without waiting for larger turrets to be designed. The resulting self-propelled heavy PaK guns were dubbed the Marder (Marten) series and began appearing in April 1942, deployed as companies.
Alkett mounted a Soviet 76.2mm gun on a PzKpfw II tank chassis. The first Marder II appeared in April 1942, with 344 built by the end of the year.
Another batch of 344 Soviet 76.2mm guns were mounted on a Czech PzKpfw 38(t) tank chassis.
A 7.5cm PaK 40 was mounted on a PzKpfw II tank chassis. It first appeared in June 1942, with 576 built by June 1943.
A 7.5cm PaK 40 mounted on a French Chenillette (Little Caterpillar) Lorraine chassis. A total of 170 were completed in July–August 1942.
A 7.5cm PaK 40 mounted on a Czech PzKpfw 38(t) tank chassis. It first appeared in November 1942, with 110 built in 1942 and 618 in 1943.
Despite its height, the Marder II Ausf D–E with 7.62cm gun was the best self-propelled Panzerjäger weapon available during Operation Blue. On the open steppe, Marder IIs could successfully engage KV-1 tanks at 500–600m. (Ian Barter)
The Stielgranate 41 HEAT warhead was deployed as a stopgap solution to provide the 3.7cm PaK with some capability against the KV-1 and T-34 tanks. While the HEAT warhead could burn through the KV’s thick armor, the weapon was highly inaccurate and had a practical range of only about 100m. (Author)
In addition to the new heavy PaK guns, the Heereswaffenamt sought to leverage the German development of HEAT ammunition to upgrade existing 3.7cm and 5cm PaK guns to provide at least a limited anti-KV capability, as well as to provide a last-ditch weapon for the infantry. A stick grenade mounting a hollow-charge warhead was developed for both of the existing PaK guns and began to arrive at the front in early 1942. The 3.7cm Stielgranate 41 provided the PaK 36 with an ability to knock out KV-1 tanks at ranges of about 130m; however, the round had poor flight characteristics and was thus not very accurate. The Stielgranate proved useful for finishing off immobilized KVs, but it was less well suited to engaging moving targets. Nevertheless, over 600,000 Stielgranaten were produced in 1942. For the infantry, the Hafthohlladung magnetic shaped-charge antitank mine was first issued in May 1942. Although a desperation weapon that had to be emplaced by hand, the 3kg charge provided German infantry with the means to disable Soviet heavy tanks. While more than 600,000 were built in 1942–43, magnetic mines accounted for only about 1 percent of tank “kills.”
The “duel” between German Panzerjäger and the KV heavy tanks was shaped by three main characteristics: firepower, protection and mobility. Initially, the KVs enjoyed a one-sided advantage in terms of firepower and protection, but the Panzerjäger had superior mobility. The Germans redressed the imbalance in firepower by mid-1942, but the KV remained a tough tank to destroy until mid-1943.
In order to destroy a target on the battlefields of 1941–43, the firing platform needed to be able to detect that target and engage it with appropriate ammunition. Spotting the enemy first and shooting first conferred a significant advantage. The KV heavy tanks had the ability to destroy all forms of towed and self-propelled Panzerjäger throughout the period of 1941–43. Against towed PaK guns, the 76.2mm OF-350 HE-FRAG round was the weapon of choice, followed up by 7.62mm coaxial machine-gun fire. The OF-350 was a point-detonating round with a relatively small bursting charge, which made it less than ideal for destroying small, concealed PaK guns. However, if the weapon could be identified, its destruction was almost certain. KV tankers also took great pleasure in crushing PaK guns beneath their tracks. Against thinly protected self-propelled guns, the OF-350 was more effective, although the BR-350A APHE round could also suffice. For the KV-1 tankers, the main problem was spotting the PaK gun, which was very difficult to see from inside a buttoned-up tank with poor external visibility. The gunner’s TMFD-7 sight had only a 15-degree field of view, which made scanning for targets time-consuming. The commander’s PTK-5 panoramic sight had a wider field of view, but it had a serious blind spot on the left side of the turret and to the rear. While the rear-firing 7.62mm DT machine gun might cover the rear arc, the more astute Panzerjäger soon learned that the KV-1 was virtually blind from its left rear quarter. In addition, the KV-1 had a much lower rate of fire versus most PaK guns – 4–8 rounds/min compared with 12 or more rounds per minute for most PaK guns. Thus, concealed PaK guns usually managed to get in several shots before the KV-1 could even respond.
KV-1 crews used the BR-350 APHE round (1) and the OF-350 HE-FRAG round (2).
| Caliber | Round | Projectile weight | Muzzle velocity | Penetration (mm) | ||||
| 100m | 500m | 1,000m | 1,500m | 2,000m | ||||
| 3.7cm | PzGr AP (1) | 0.68kg | 762m/s | 50 | 36 | 22 | – | – |
| PzGr 40 APCR* (2) | 0.35kg | 1,030m/s | 68 | 40 | – | – | – | |
| Stielgranate 41 HEAT (3) | 8.6kg | 110m/s | 180 | 180 | – | – | – | |
| 4.2cm | PzGr 41* (4) | .336kg | 1,265m/s | 90 | 72 | 53 | – | – |
| 4.7cm | PzGr 39 (5) | 47 | ||||||
| PzGr 40 (6) | 58 | |||||||
| 5cm | PzGr 39 (7) | 2.25kg | 823m/s | 68 | 60 | 48 | 35 | – |
| PzGr 40* (8) | 0.85kg | 1,198m/s | 116**† | 80 | 55 | – | – | |
| 7.5cm PaK 40 | PzGr 39 AP (9) | 6.8kg | 792m/s | 120** | 104** | 89 | 76 | – |
| PzGr 40 APCR* (10) | 3.2kg | 990m/s | 135**† | 115**† | 96 | 80 | – | |
| 7.5cm PaK 40, PaK 97/38, PaK 36(r) | Gr 38 Hl/B HEAT (11) | 4.57kg | 450m/s | 75 | 75 | 75 | – | – |
| 7.5cm PaK 41 | PzGr 41 HK* (12) | 2.59kg | 1,125m/s | 183**† | 171**† | 145**† | 122**† | 102 |
| 7.62cm PaK 36(r) | PzGr 39 (13) | 7.54kg | 740m/s | 106 | 98 | 88 | 79 | 71 |
| PzGr 40* (14) | 4.0kg | 990m/s | 145**† | 118**† | 92 | 71 | 55 | |
| 8.8cm PaK 43 | PzGr 39 (15) | 10.4kg | 1,000m/s | 202** | 182** | 167** | 153** | 139** |
| PzGr 40* (16) | 7.3kg | 1,130m/s | 237**† | 226**† | 192**† | 162**† | 136**† | |
| Gr 39 Hl HEAT (17) | 7.65kg | 880m/s | 90 | 90 | 90 | – | – | |
* Tungsten-core penetrator.
** Able to penetrate frontal armor of KV-1 (100–110mm @ 60–75-degree slope).
† Owing to tungsten-carbide penetrators.
A 5cm PaK 38 crew knocking out a T-34 with side shots from a range of just 20m. This photo demonstrates the point-blank nature of the Panzerjäger duel with Soviet heavy and medium tanks in the summer of 1941. In order for this tactic to work, commanders had to accept Soviet tanks advancing into their positions. (Author)
From the German perspective, the Panzerjäger had grossly insufficient firepower throughout the summer 1941 and winter 1941/42 campaigns. The standard load for a 3.7cm PaK was 250 rounds, of which only 30 were PzGr 40, while the 5cm PaK had 220 rounds, of which 150 were PzGr 39 and 40 PzGr 40. Thus at best, only about 15 percent of the German PaK ammunition had any chance of inflicting damage on a KV tank. With standard PzGr 39 antitank rounds, the 3.7cm, 4.7cm and 5cm guns had negligible probability of seriously damaging a KV even if fired from directly behind the vehicle at ranges of 20–50m. If the tank’s final drive wheel or thin belly armor could be hit from this angle, the KV might be immobilized. Of course, the trick was getting a PaK gun into position behind a heavy tank, which was impossible if the KVs had any infantry support on hand. When equipped with PzGr 40 tungsten-core rounds, the situation improved slightly for the 5cm PaK 38, which could inflict damage up to several hundred meters away and possibly on the hull side. However, tungsten-core rounds were not available in quantity at the start of Barbarossa and HEAT ammunition had not yet been issued to Panzerjäger units.
Although the KV consistently enjoyed an advantage in destroying its antitank opponents if detected, the Panzerjäger did not gain a reliable capability to engage the KV-1 successfully until the arrival of the first 7.62cm PaK 36(r) in February 1942. This capability was reinforced by the introduction of the 7.5cm PaK 97/38 and 7.5cm PaK 40 into service by mid-1942. The mass production of HEAT ammunition for Panzerjäger and artillery units also added great punch to German antitank capabilities by mid-1942. However, HEAT warheads were generally only effective up to 500m and did not yield a high kill probability, requiring multiple rounds fired. When armed only with standard armor-piercing rounds, no German antitank gun could reliably penetrate a KV-1 at normal battlefield ranges until late 1943.
The KV-1/KV-2 models of 1940–41 had very poor mobility due to inadequate transmissions and horsepower-weight, which greatly reduced their impact on the battlefield. Faulty clutches also made some KV tanks virtually unsteerable, which even occurred in front of Stalin during the parade in Moscow on November 7, 1941. KV transmissions tended to fail after as little as 800km (500mi) of road marching. Unlike the T-34 tank, which had its mobility well tested by Koshkin during road trials in 1940, the KV entered service after negligible testing and operators soon found out that it could move only short distances without breaking down. In combat, KVs typically advanced at speeds of only 3–4km/h (2–2.5mph), which made them large, slow-moving targets. Their top off-road speed was 16km/h (10mph) and their turning radius was poor. The KV did very poorly on marshy or soft ground, with many lost simply because they became stuck in the mud – no way for a superior weapon to perish. Simply put, the early KV models did not have adequate mobility to conduct their breakthrough role successfully. Retreats were also very hard on KVs, with many being lost or abandoned because of a plethora of mobility issues (such as difficulty in crossing bridges or handling hilly terrain). Eventually, the introduction of the KV-1S model in 1942 and further refinements gradually improved the KV’s mobility to the point where it could accomplish its breakthrough mission, although by then improved German Panzerjäger capabilities made that increasingly problematic.
The Panzerjäger of 1941 had excellent tactical and operational mobility due to the small size of their weapons, although very few were self-propelled. However, many prime movers were lost in the first six months of the campaign and horses were often substituted, which reduced the mobility of division-level PaK guns. During 1942, the dynamic began to change from reliance on small, towed weapons to bigger, self-propelled guns. The towed guns such as the 7.5cm PaK 40 proved too heavy and large for frontline combat and so despite this gun’s armor-piercing capabilities, it suffered heavy losses in 1942–43. Eventually, the German antitank defenses after mid-1943 became increasingly reliant upon small numbers of self-propelled heavy PaK guns, which could be rushed from one threatened sector to the next.
A KV-2 stuck in the mud and abandoned. In June 1941, few KV drivers were trained and those that were had practiced on light tankettes, which handled very differently. Consequently, many KVs were lost trying to move across unsuitable terrain. (Ian Barter)
Even when PaK guns could engage the KV-1 at close range, penetration was not assured. Here, a 5cm antitank round hit the side of the turret of this KV-1 but could not penetrate the 30mm bolt-on armor. Note that the armor plate is cracked and deformed. (Author)
The KV-1 was the best-protected tank in the world in 1941; virtually invulnerable to German Panzerjäger weaponry for the first seven months of the war in the East. One of its few weaknesses lay in the turret ring, which could be jammed by impact damage from large-caliber rounds. The panoramic sight could also be damaged by direct fire, thereby greatly reducing the KV’s ability to locate targets. Gradually, the KV’s advantage in self-protection began to erode, despite additional armor on the KV-1, as the penetration performance of Panzerjäger weaponry improved. The introduction of the KV-1S model abandoned the over-reliance on armor protection in favor of regaining mobility, which made the KV-1 more vulnerable to German heavy PaK guns by late 1942.
In 1941, the Panzerjäger derived their protection not from armor plate but from the low silhouettes of their towed guns, which were difficult to spot beyond a few hundred meters. If their PaK gun was spotted, both the crew and the gun itself had little chance of survival against a KV-1. Yet as the PaK guns grew bigger in 1942–43, it became more difficult to conceal them – and the self-propelled guns were just as visible as tanks, but without the armor plate. As the level of protection afforded by concealment dwindled, the up-gunned Panzerjäger units were forced to deploy further back from the frontline, lest they be identified and targeted by Soviet artillery. All Panzerjäger weapons in 1941–43 were at risk from high-explosive and even machine-gun fire. Gun shields on both towed and self-propelled weapons offered protection against only shell splinters and small-arms fire, but crews were entirely exposed if attacked from overhead or the rear.
A KV-1 destroyed on the steppe during the battle of the Don Bend in August 1942. This tank has been hit at least 20 times, but appears to have only a single penetration on the turret. (Bundesarchiv, Bild 169-0441)
5 The official designation of this weapon in 1941–43 was the 3.7cm PaK, but after the war it was widely described as the 3.7cm PaK 36.