Tamiya Field Grey camo coat applied. I used the preshade method using the black base coat to act as the darker panel lines and filled in the center of each area.

Danger !!! KV-85 - has notMG in front hull - on the left!
OnlyfixedMGdriver on the right.
regards
Tankan

This KV-85 conversion is consistent with the KV-85 specimen on display in Kubinka. 

That's good enough for me.http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw..._85_museum.htm

YUP, pretty well known fact. Besides ... you don't use the MG in IR tank battling.

Come on SU-100!!!!!!


- Jeff

If you go to this page and scroll to the bottom you will see a diagram clearly showing a KV85 will a bow mg.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...V/KV_85_bp.htm

Perhaps the KV85 in Kubinka museum is special?  I hope so!
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...Kubinka_06.jpg

I don't go by diagrams (that is an artist's mistake) but by using photographs.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...s/KV/KV_85.htm


- Jeff

<span style="font-size: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Yep, diagrams can be faulty, though I thinkthis diagramisa rendering ofthe actual tank in Kubinka. Could this be a manufacturing anomaly?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or a battlefield mod/repair?</span>
<font color="#00265e">http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/KV/KV_85/museums/KV_85_Kubinka_06.jpg</font>

Kubinka KV tank not KV-85 !!!!! In Kubinka is KV-1S with test 85 mm gun. KV-85 is imposedammunitionfor tank gun in a place where he had a position in the KV-1 / 2 machine gunner .Logically - why not a machine gun on the left side of the hull.
Only preserved KV-85 is located on the memorial in Avtovo - Saint Petersburg . Unfortunately, he was quite poorly restored after the war and was welded onto thegunport with machine gun on the left side of the hull. Since then this error periodically repeated in all publications and drawings.
regards
Tankan</p>

Wow! Awesome, simply awesome. The paint job looks great! So you used Rustoleum black and then Tamiya field gray in-between the panels, any other paint you used? I like the darker green, more menacing.

Duane

Yes Sir, I think you are correct.</p>

I didn't know enough about this tank to make that fix. I guess I should have more closely at the model pics on the box. Oh well. I will stick to Sherman's from now on.

All the evidence shown so far shows that the only 2 KV-85's surviving today actually have MG's in the bow position. How about sharing some of your sources so we could get this right? I'm specifically interested in what information you based the following assertions upon:

1. The KV-85 that is in Kubinka is actually a KV-1S with a "test" 85mm cannon mounted. What's your source for this? I checked the Kubina tank museum's official website http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html and note that the Kubinka tank museum is calling their tank a KV-85 (which is further identified by the museum's website as a KV-1S chassis with an 85mm cannon). I don't see any mention about the cannon being a "test" or experimental model. If the Russians (who built it) are calling that tank a KV-85...(and they are), I say ok, it's a KV-85. I note that many wartime photos show other KV-85s with the bow mg plugged (ostensibly to facilitate ammunition stowage), but also I think it is probable that there were some non-typical KV-85 prototypes that retained the bow MG and were built on a KV-1S chassis...and at minimum, Kubinka has one.

2. The KV-85 (on the pedestal) in Avtovo (Saint-Petersburg)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...front_view.jpg has had a inaccurate restoration during which a MG was incorrectly added to the bow position. What's your source for this? You're talking about the one on the pedestal right? I think that your claim could be correct, but...I'd like to know how you know this, so we could all be sure.

Lightened the tank with a dusting of Polly scale British brown drab. I will go over with a very thin coat of Tamiya Field grey to blend it all together.

1. KV-85 versus Kubinka <span title="" closure_uid_n80ypd="58" ze="is a mistake. " ye="je omyl ." style="background-color: #fff">is a mistake.
<span lang="CS">

The Russians produced two prototypes KV-1S with 85 mm cannon.
Were rejected by the military - a few places in the interior.
Two further prototypes of the new big tank turret- the chassis of the KV-1S. On these prototypes were covered hole on the gun.



prototype KV-1S with 85 mm cannon

</p></span>



prototype KV-85 with new turret and KV-1S hull - blasting test






production KV-85




regards
Tankan
</span>

I'd like to know what information has made you believe that the Kubinka KV-85 and the Avtovo KV-85 are both inaccurate or "mistakes".  That's what interests me because this information does not appear to be readily available from any source I have access to.  Please share.

Basic books for KV tanks





regards
Tankan

Your evasiveness is disappointing.  I had hoped to learn.  Good day, sir.

Looks great Ethan, your painting skills are amazing.

As far as the debate goes for the accuracy of my KV-85, I like the MG to stay on. I appreciate both sides of the argument/discussion. Ethan did a great job and I for one love what he did. I also agree with Jeff: "it's good enough for me".

Ethan do you think it's possible to paint on numbers like this KV-85?

FYI, for those of us who don't speak Russian (which is most of us), the books pictured above are "History of KV Tanks, Part 1, and Part 2" (published in 2001) respectively, by author and tank collector, Mr.Maxim Kolomiets.

As to the issues discussed, here's my findings...and proof.

The so called "mistake" on the Avtovo, St. Petersburg Kv-85 appears to be a genuine mistake on a restoration and is discussed in the following:

Taken from website http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...&amp;Itemid=50 . Sources for this information are given in the website.

As to the "test" status of the Kubinka KV-85, it appears that it may or may not be a real KV-85 depending on who you believe. It does seem to be THE prototype that led to the KV-85 series:

(<u>See id.</u>) Sources for this information are given in the website.

So...it appears that the ball mounted MG existed on at least one example. Whether you call the Kubinka specimen a KV-1S (which it appears to be...mostly) or a KV-85 (which the museum calls it) is up to you. Looks like the only difference between the early KV-85s (i.e. the early ones based on the KV-1S chassis) and the one in Kubinka is that production models had the MG removed and plugged. As I said before, if Kubinka says its a KV-85, then that's good enough for me.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any sources that seemed to quote Mr. Kolomiets (or his above mentioned books) on this subject...but that doesn't mean he hasn't discussed it in his writings (which are extensive).




<p class="plain"></p>

Ummm (cough cough) it's looking great so far Ethan! I wish I had took the plunge on one now. (I think I already said that though. ) Guess I'm just stuck with a KV-1.


- Jeff

Ethan, that paint work is great. I have to try that on my next build. I really like the subtle way the black shows through and defines the edges of the tank. Great work sir!

Duane,

Anything is possible. I believe you wanted to collect it tomorrow. Have you built the lower hull yet?

Ethan,

Going to use my KV-1 lower hull and use the KV-2 for my SU-152.

Whoa, THE KV-85 prototype?!? Actually, that makes perfect sense! I heard that the Avtovo memorial was pieced together as best they could from what they had at the time which explains the understandable detail errors,and it makes perfect sense that the Kubinka tank is in such good shape because it was theKV-85proof of concept . . . a one of a kind treasure. Seen with this new perspective I thinkthis could quitepossibly the ultimate WWII RC tank. Wow!

Jeff, <span lang="CS">several references to your trying to explain the situation.
Your claim about the existence of KV-85 Kubinka museum is a mistake - based on the mislabeling on the web site.
Again and understandable for you - KV-85 tank is chassis KV-1S - a large turret - the turret ring to the hull - and 85 mm gun D-5T ing.Petrova designer.
Everything else is just a test tanks.
Your stubborn claim that Kubince is KV-85 to deceive the modelers what goes wrong then the model tank.
regards
Tankan</span>