GHQ Models Forums

Many have put ‘a soviet heavy artillery tractor’ in their wish lists for 2015-16. As GHQ would likely only choose to produce only one in the future, between the Komintern and the Voroshilovets, which heavy Soviet artillery tractor would you prefer to see GHQ model?

Some data to consider:
Both are cab behind engine, fully tracked, cargo bed behind cab designs, so they are roughly similar in general appearance. The Voroshilovets is somewhat more modern looking than the Komintern in my opinion. Both were purpose built for army use, to tow artillery and recover tanks. Both could tow the heaviest division and corps level artillery pieces such as all 152mm weapons [7-8t], the 203mm B-4 [17-19t], and the 280mm BR-5 mortar [18-19t]). Both were fitted with 100Kn winches for recovery work.

Komintern:
Produced: 1798 by the Kharkov Steam Locomotive factory between 1934 and 1940
Survival: 568 still in service by end of war in 1945
Drawbar Pull: 14 (+) tonnes
Payload: 2 tonnes
Top Speed: 30 KpH
Max Gradient: 33 degrees


Voroshilovetz:
Produced: 230 by the Kharkov Steam Locomotive Factory between 1939 and 1941
893 at the Stalingrad Tractor factory from 1939 to 1942
1123 total
Survival: 336 were still in service at wars end in 1945
Drawbar Pull: 22 tonnes
Payload: 3 tonnes
Top Speed 42 KpH (under full tow load speed dropped to 11 KpH off road)
Max Gradient: 42 degrees

Between the two I think the suspension of the Komintern would be easier to sculpt than that of the Voroshilovetz but I’m not a sculptor so my opinion is of little value here.

So please vote:
A. Komintern
B. Voroshilovets

As I already know many of you (like me) would be ‘happy with either’ I chose not to make this an available answer for voting purposes.

By the way for years GHQ has made one of the most common heavy artillery tractors in the Red Army, the Stalinetz S-65 (kits R19 and R31). While able to tow the very heavy artillery pieces, this tractors terribly slow speed (7-8 KpH max, 2-5 KpH under load) and lack of payload space made it less than optimal for this purpose.

Best Regards,
Leif

PS…
all data taken from Jochen Vollert’s excellent book “Tyagatshiâ€￾
for excellent images of these tractors I recommend Mr Oliver Missing’s Engines of the Red Army pages:
http://www.o5m6.de/komintern.html
http://www.o5m6.de/voroshilovez.html

I'd take either, but I'd rather have the Komintern.
A

Hi Leif

If I could only pick 1 heavy tractor it would be B - Vorshilovets. I would actually like to see the Komintern as well at some point.

We seem to have a lot of prime movers for the Germans and Western Allies so I would like to see the Russians get a few more. There are several medium tractors to choose from as well.

Pete

Hi RedLeif !
Very interesting question.

I vote "B" : I prefer "Voroshilovetz" tractor because it has a more modern look and because it was the successor of the "Komintern" tractor.

Maybe a pack from GHQ with the two models (3 Voroshilovetz / 2 Komintern).
(it's a joke : I don't want to ask too much ! if we could have one of them, it will be very great !).

I'd like to see both, but limited to one only, I select Komintern. My reason - more were built.

Don S.

Great idea for a post.

Option A for me - it justs looks older and more Soviet to me.

Already voted, but in explanation-
Both the last given reasons for A.
Older look, more built, and more available earlier.
Would have been more plentiful for winter war, khalkhin gol, Poland 39, etc.

Thanks for all the replies to this little survey.
I too am voting for the older, poorer performing Komintern tractor because more were produced, more survived the war, and they were produced earlier which makes them suitable for a wider range of scenarios.

Perhaps GHQ will someday make the Komintern, Voroshilovetz and even the STZ-5 (the most highly produced Soviet military tractor of WWII and the inspiration for the German RSO). I would like it if GHQ produced the ML-20 152mm gun -howitzer with the Komintern as its included prime mover (in a 2/2/2 pack like so much of their other artillery sets).

Anyway thanks again for reading and replying,
Leif