Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Criteria for judging the greatest tanks

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Criteria for judging the greatest tanks

    Hi guys,

    I would like to use this thread to discuss, and take on board your suggestions as well, regarding the criteria you think we should be using to determine which tank or tanks were the 'greatest' (or 'best', or whatever accolade we decide) of WW2. The aim is to start a new poll thread on this topic, and rank these fighting vehicles in order according to our collective opinion.

    Guys, I'm hoping that we have gotten past the days when too many members will vote for certain types of (usually German) tanks merely because they were the most famous or because they "looked cool"; but of course, members should still feel free vote for them if they stand up well to the agreed criteria we are going to decide on. To help steer us in the right direction, I think deciding on the criteria up front - as a separate discussion - is the best way to go about this.

    Some members will no doubt roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right, so we're heading for yet another tank poll!"
    I'm hoping to make this much more than just "another tank poll". I'm hoping to make it a true milestone poll and discussion; a milestone to demonstrate that our ability to evaluate an enduringly popular topic has transcended the cliched pap and stereotyped nonsense all too often seen before when tanks have been discussed; and that we have reached new heights of maturity and wisdom on account of our very considerable collective experience discussing this stuff over a number of years.

    I genuinely believe that we are better at this now, and I would like the new poll thread - when we have worked out its precise form - to reflect that. Accordingly, I would like to start a new poll thread in similar spirit to my 2008 '3 Greatest Tanks of WW2' poll but also take the opportunity - incorporating my learning and experience since that time - to refine both the criteria and the options, with the help of you guys, my fellow members and good friends here. With this in mind, my intended approach this time will be in three (or possibly four - we can see as we go) proposed stages:


    Stage 1 - A thread purely to discuss and consult with you guys, on the full list of criteria we should use when assessing a WW2 tank. (Bear in mind, this will be for tanks proper only. Tank destroyers and other gun-carrying tracked AFVs not properly classifed as tanks will be dealt with in a separate poll thread/s.) I would like to offer the criteria from my old thread as a starting point for discussion, so please pay careful attention to the opening post of that thread, which is quoted in post #2 below.

    Based on my old criteria as per post #2 below, I invite your comments, feedback and suggestions for additional important criteria I may have overlooked back then; or refinements/amendments to the criteria I did present. Please note that this discussion will be ONLY about whether or not each and any particular criteria should be used; there should be no extended discourse into the matter of what weighting should be given to each particular criterion. That will be for stage 2.


    Stage 2 - Once I have assembled the full list of criteria that have sufficient support (by consensus and my own endorsement), I will start a second thread to discuss the weighting of each of the selected criteria. The reasons for treating this as a separate discussion are, firstly, that some of the suggested criteria from Stage 1 may - at my discretion (and I'm asking you all to trust me here) be discarded, amalgamated, separated or otherwise modified to achieve the final form; and secondly, that the matter of weighting will probably be highly contentious in its own right, to the degree that it could adversely affect the discussion of selection of the criteria themselves and I will be trying to avoid this pitfall as far as I can.


    Stage 3 (optional) - Discussion as to which tank types should be included in the poll; bearing in mind that we are allowed up to (I think?) 30 different options in a poll here. In previous polls such as this old one, I have gone for the idea of breaking up some types into different main sub-types; such as long and short gun PzKpfw IV; 75 and 76mm Sherman; 76 and 85mm T-34 etc. However, I also made it multiple choice so members could vote for both variations if they wished. I'm now tending to lean more towards not doing this. However, if I see a serious division of opinion among you all, we may need to decide that one way or the other before opening the main poll.


    Stage 4 (or stage 3 if we don't need to resolve the above matter separately) - the main poll itself, to decide the greatest tank or tanks of WW2.
    Last edited by panther3485; 04 Mar 12, 21:44.
    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

  • #2
    The opening post from the old poll:

    Here is the opening post from my 2008 '3 Greatest Tanks of WW2' poll:

    Following some favourable feedback on another thread, here is an opportunity both to vote and to have your say, on which three out of the 25 tanks listed should be regarded as the greatest of WW2, and why.

    From my own observations, one of the recurring problems we seem to have with threads like this (be it best tank, best fighter plane or whatever) is that we usually neglect to set up the criteria properly before starting. Of course, we may not necessarily end up agreeing on all the criteria anyway but at the very least I think we need something to start with as a reasonable basis. So, I've given some careful thought to a set which, I believe, should be weighed in the balance when judging each tank. There are 10 criteria. Nice round number.

    I recommend that you give at least some consideration to each of these criteria, for each of the 25 candidates. However, you may feel that some criteria should carry more weight than others, for whatever reason. Your choice entirely.

    The 10 criteria will be listed in short and then followed by very brief notes, comments or dot points so (hopefully) there should be no doubt or dispute as to what each one means. Here goes:

    Suggested Criteria for Assessment
    (Not necessarily in order of importance)

    1. Balance of fundamental attributes

    2. Battle efficiency & user friendliness

    3. The ‘edge’ factor: Competitiveness and viability against enemy tanks

    4. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause

    5. Reliability & mechanical stamina

    6. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field

    7. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s

    8. Production & consumption of resources

    9. Psychological factors

    10. Contribution to the advancement of tank design


    1. Balance of fundamental attributes

    One general 'measure' often used to judge the excellence of a tank is the degree to which it is thought to have successfully balanced the following fundamental attributes:
    • Firepower
    • Mobility
    • Protection
    Was too much emphasis placed on one or two of these attributes, to the detriment of the other one or two? (Bearing in mind to some extent at least, the intended battlefield purpose of the tank.) If so, how much did it matter? Or did the designers get the balance just about right, or even perfect?


    2. Battle efficiency & user friendliness
    • Situational awareness, threat detection and target acquisition
    • Provision for communications (even if not fitted sometimes, as this is not a fault in the tank itself).
    • Efficiency of crew layout & distribution of tasks
    • Ergonomics & working space
    • Ease of operation for all crew members
    • Equipment, fittings, devices or structural factors that enhance or detract from efficiency
    • Comfort
    3. The ‘edge’ factor: Competitiveness and viability against enemy tanks.
    How much of an edge did this tank have over its opposition and how long was it able to maintain its edge or at least its competitiveness?


    4. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause
    • Extent, scope and importance of practical success realized
    • Proven suitability for original or main intended purpose
    • Proven adaptability and success in other purposes or roles called upon, both in standard configuration and any major variants
    • Overall impact
    5. Reliability & mechanical stamina
    How good was the reliability and stamina of this tank, compared with its peers and/or adversaries?

    6. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field
    Some tanks delivered very good or excellent battlefield performance but were also relatively expensive and difficult to run, maintain and repair. Others were much less expensive and difficult but may still have delivered very adequately, if not spectacularly well. Under this criterion, we should evaluate the full 'cost' of running the tank, to be weighed against whatever battlefield benefits it delivered.

    7. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s
    Some tanks are more difficult to ship/transport and deploy than others but of course the requirements and situation of the user nation also come into the picture. This needs to be evaluated.

    8. Production & consumption of resources
    War isn't just about battles, it's also a struggle of resources. This includes materials, manufacturing capacity, transport, fuel, human labour ('man hours') and drain of skills and technical assets. Did the tank in question make the best or most optimal use of available resources or was it too much of a burden, when weighed against its overall effectiveness?

    9. Psychological factors

    Hard to measure but we know they were there. Depending on the case in question, these might include:
    • Effect on enemy morale
    • Positives/negatives for own morale
    Or anything else you might think of that falls under this general heading.

    10. Contribution to the advancement of tank design
    How advanced was this tank? Did it have some significant innovations or new ideas, later copied by others? Did it represent an important step forward in tank design? How influential was it? Did it inspire, or lead to, much improvement or development on either side? To what degree can we look back and truthfully say, "Yes, that was a real milestone in tank design"?
    ____________________________________

    OK guys, there you go. If you are not totally clear on any point, please feel free to query it.

    Btw, you are being asked to vote for only three (3) tanks. Please honour this request and restrict yourself to three only out of the 25 that have been listed. For example, if you were totally convinced that the M4 medium was the outright greatest tank of WW2, you could use two of your votes on it, one each for the 75mm and 76mm versions. Of course, that would only leave one vote for something else. Same applies if you vote for both the T-34/76 and T-34-85.

    You may question one or two of my final candidates or think that something that should be included in this 'final 25' is missing. I do not claim to be perfect in my selection; however, I have given it a great deal of thought.

    Consider carefully and choose wisely, my friends.

    But above all, have fun as well!
    Last edited by panther3485; 04 Mar 12, 12:47.
    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

    Comment


    • #3
      The 25 tank types in the old poll:

      For those who are curious and haven't checked the old poll thread, these were the 25 types up for voting:

      Matilda II
      Crusader
      Churchill
      Valentine
      Cromwell
      Comet
      Somua S-35
      PzKpfw 38(t)
      PzKpfw III
      PzKpfw IV (short 75mm)
      PzKpfw IV (long 75mm)
      Tiger I
      Panther
      Tiger II
      Type 95 Ha-Go
      Type 97 Chi-Ha
      T-34/76
      T-34-85
      KV-1
      IS-2
      M3 Medium
      M4 Medium (75mm)
      M4 Medium (76mm)
      M26 Pershing
      Sherman Firefly


      ... and just a reminder, everyone: We are using this thread to decide what criteria we should be applying but at this stage, we should not become bogged in discussion on the weighting of those criteria. That will be for stage 2. This stage, Stage 1, is for deciding which criteria to apply only.

      Of course, if anyone thinks my original set of criteria are pretty close and don't need a heck of a lot of improvement, please don't be shy about saying so!
      Last edited by panther3485; 04 Mar 12, 12:11.
      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

      Comment


      • #4
        I would be willing to be that the thing that happens when you prove the Tiger (EXHAUSTION) is a legend is what conspired to keep this thread unanswered.
        Human beings are the only creatures who are able to behave irrationally in the name of reason.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KICK View Post
          I would be willing to be that the thing that happens when you prove the Tiger (EXHAUSTION) is a legend is what conspired to keep this thread unanswered.
          If the expressions of enthusiasm on the Sherman Snap Poll thread (W. Allied Armor sub-forum) are any indication, a new - and hopefully better designed - WW2 tank poll should receive considerable support. This thread is the first step. However, since posting it late last night (about eleven hours ago ) I've heard nothing but the chirping of crickets in response, apart from your post just now.

          I hope this is not a portent.
          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello folks,

            Panther I am glad to see this issue revisited!! It will be interesting to see if anybody's opinions have changed.

            As tanks are considered Armored Fighting Vehicles, I believe if you are going to judge a tank accurately, one of the criteria should be armor.
            Not just the thickness, but the actual style, and/or quality of manufacture.

            While I understand very little about metallurgy and think you would have to be a metallurgist to know the differences between RHA vs. Cast vs. Face Hardened; or Chromium vs. Mild, vs. High Carbon; or Long Grain vs. Short Grain. H*ll I am not even sure if I am using these terms correctly .

            I think most everybody on the forum understands the differences between the different manufacturing styles, IE. Rivited vs. Welded armor, and Flat vs. Sloped.

            Is there a way to work that into the final draft?

            Cheers,
            Deter

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by deterrumeversor View Post
              Hello folks,

              Panther I am glad to see this issue revisited!! It will be interesting to see if anybody's opinions have changed.

              As tanks are considered Armored Fighting Vehicles, I believe if you are going to judge a tank accurately, one of the criteria should be armor.
              Not just the thickness, but the actual style, and/or quality of manufacture.

              While I understand very little about metallurgy and think you would have to be a metallurgist to know the differences between RHA vs. Cast vs. Face Hardened; or Chromium vs. Mild, vs. High Carbon; or Long Grain vs. Short Grain. H*ll I am not even sure if I am using these terms correctly .

              I think most everybody on the forum understands the differences between the different manufacturing styles, IE. Rivited vs. Welded armor, and Flat vs. Sloped.

              Is there a way to work that into the final draft?

              Cheers,
              Deter
              At the present, armour is included as one of the fundamental attributes in criterion #1 of the original poll; although obviously it does also impact on criterion #3 for a start, as well as perhaps a few of the others indirectly. We could look at ways of expanding this particular facet on its own; and if it was properly thought out I would have no objection in principle. However, I am guessing that other members would likewise require similar expansions on the mobility and firepower factors, drilling down to the details, as well as some of the other attributes of a tank.

              I think what we need to do for the purpose of a poll is reach a summing-up of the overall effectiveness of any given attribute. And the essential purpose of armour, of course, is to provide protection. What we want to get at, in any such poll, is how good that protection was relative to (a) the likely range of threats and (b) other tanks of the same type at that particular time; i.e. what it is realistic to expect of a tank of that type and weight, at this particular stage in the development of tanks.

              The combination of thickness; slope angle and/or curves; armour type; armour composition/qualities, hardness, tensility and fabrication methods will - ultimately - all combine to give a certain overall degree or level of protection. IMO, that's what we really need to evaluate with regard to armour, for the purposes of a poll. Then of course, there are secondary protection measures that can help to minimize damage when/if a tank is penetrated. These matters also go to crew survivability so IMO, they should be factored into the overall protection matrix. So, when evaluating the firepower/protection/mobility balance, it's not nearly as simple as some folks might have us believe because there are all sorts of factors that influence each one of those basic attributes and their balance to each other. There is nothing saying we shouldn't discuss the minutae of the whys and werefores along the way; but IMO we do need to boil it all down to relatively simple statements of the essentials for the criteria, when constructing the poll.

              Specific suggestions as to how we might improve and refine all this, and yet finish up voting on the fundamental essence of what's needed for our evaluations, will of course be duly considered. It's likely that some peoples' suggestions will be directly the opposite of others. This is to be expected. But even if only small things come out of it to help the process, it is still worthwhile IMO. The final juggling act will be mine, of course.
              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

              Comment


              • #8
                Criteria for judging the greatest tanks

                Fire Power ...gun size effectiveness in destroying enemy armor

                Protection form enemy fire power.. Armor

                Psychological effect on the enemy


                “Attack with aggression, but always have a plan of retreat”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
                  Criteria for judging the greatest tanks

                  Fire Power ...gun size effectiveness in destroying enemy armor

                  Protection form enemy fire power.. Armor

                  Psychological effect on the enemy


                  “Attack with aggression, but always have a plan of retreat”
                  Those things are certainly important, Martin, and we should definitely include them in our deliberations. However, we should also not forget that fighting other tanks - critical as it might become in certain situations - is a relatively small part of the roleset and function of a tank of the battlefield.

                  And on top of that, there are decisive factors that play a role beyond the battlefied itself. From the drawing board, to the factories, to supply and logistics, to maintenance and repair etc etc; all of which contribute to keeping a tank in action.
                  "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not a fan of #3,#9, or #10.

                    In short, I think if these are included then we are likely to find a tank gaining an unfair "double dip" on a single battle worthy statistic. Also, I have tried to qualify tank qualities using mathematic formulas before and found that seperating out the fundamental attributes to be logical. In fact, I counted four seperate attributes as such:firepower, mobility, armour, and balance of the other three.
                    Counting the balance of the other three as a seperate entity is important, as I beleive you agree according to your list, because it gives tanks which are built for specific duties within the group a fighting chance against the general "all-purpose" types. Furthermore, the "all-purpose" types get their attributes counted in all three categories, and their high level of balance gets its voice heard in the "balance" category as well, and without over-emphasization.
                    "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      P.S. Thanks for doing this Panther
                      "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        Those things are certainly important, Martin, and we should definitely include them in our deliberations. However, we should also not forget that fighting other tanks - critical as it might become in certain situations - is a relatively small part of the roleset and function of a tank of the battlefield.

                        And on top of that, there are decisive factors that play a role beyond the battlefied itself. From the drawing board, to the factories, to supply and logistics, to maintenance and repair etc etc; all of which contribute to keeping a tank in action.
                        I think this may be as big a problem as determining best tank. People, even subconsciously, will tend to choose a criteria that puts their favourite in poll position.

                        My starting position would be to use Alan Jolly's view as a starting base:
                        There are two purposes for which tanks exist and for which at present there are no substitutes. The first of these is to provide direct fire support for infantry as opposed to the indirect fire of the artillery. Artillery provides a greater weight of fire but can only deal with an area target and must therefore cease during the last 150 yards of the infantry's advance to their objectives. This is where they usually suffer the bulk of their casualties from small arms fire, and it is here that the tank must fill in the gap by shooting with weapons of pin point accuracy up to the moment that the infantry close with their enemy.
                        The second basic purpose for which the tank exists is to provide the hard core of the mobile portion of an army. This faster portion which provides the decisive action in battle is composed of armoured divisions, the tanks of which provide a concentration of mobile firepower which can disrupt, disorganize and pursue an enemy whose front has been broken or cracked by the slower infantry divisions and their supporting armour and infantry. The tank has one other significant purpose and that is to fight other tanks. However, the two fundamental purposes are to provide direct fire support of a nature which cannot be produced by artillery and to form the hard core of the mobile portion of an army.
                        That needs to be balanced with the best possible machine that can actually be built and supplied in reasonable numbers, one that does the job required. Given that the US is always going to be the arsenal against the Axis, due to logistical issues, that may mean an upper limit of 35 tons.

                        Further, do we compare the performance of the tanks to the task at hand, or to each other? Some tanks would also be more useful to one army than another. This is due to a whole host of factors from combat style to terrain fought over. For example, fighting in Italy, or Burma, is going to be different from the Steppes.

                        Do we also only compare tanks that actually fought in one campaign, or can we surmise an alternative that existed that could do better.

                        Longlevity, numbers built and varients built all serve to illuminate how useful that tank was to a nation. I would suggest a minimum of 450 tanks and be in service by 6.6.44. This may upset fans of the M26, M24, IS-3, Centurion and Comet, but the best tank of WW2 should really have had had a chance to make an impact in WW2 imo.

                        One method to determine best modern tank is here .

                        Just some considerations and good luck trying to keep everyone happy .
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
                          "I'm not a fan of #3,#9, or #10.

                          In short, I think if these are included then we are likely to find a tank gaining an unfair "double dip" on a single battle worthy statistic."
                          I'm not sure how that would necessarily be unfair, especially in relation to #10. One could just as easily argue that if a particular characteristic, or set of characteristics, are sufficiently important and wide-reaching then they should indeed gain credit in more than one area of our criteria? So it could easily be seen as unfair not to do it that way? To my mind, the argument cuts just as easily both ways; but still, I do see where you are coming from with that and it is certainly worthy of re-consideration.


                          Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
                          "Also, I have tried to qualify tank qualities using mathematic formulas before and found that seperating out the fundamental attributes to be logical. In fact, I counted four seperate attributes as such:firepower, mobility, armour, and balance of the other three.
                          Counting the balance of the other three as a seperate entity is important, as I beleive you agree according to your list, because it gives tanks which are built for specific duties within the group a fighting chance against the general "all-purpose" types. Furthermore, the "all-purpose" types get their attributes counted in all three categories, and their high level of balance gets its voice heard in the "balance" category as well, and without over-emphasization."
                          Now, this I most definitely like!

                          So, instead of having simply 'Balance of Fundamental Attributes' as per my original #1, we could have merit separately assessed in the following areas:

                          (1) Firepower
                          (2) Mobility
                          (3) Protection/survivability
                          (4) Balance of (1), (2) and (3) combined.

                          I agree with you totally, that this would be a more equitable way to approach it, and give some of the more 'specialized' tanks - such as the Churchill for example - a fairer shake of the stick; yet at the same time remain fair to the all-rounders.

                          David, I like the cut of your jib. Go to the top of the class! +1
                          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
                            P.S. Thanks for doing this Panther
                            My pleasure, it's a labour of love for me. Thanks for your input, and I think I'll probably be using the breakup of fundamental attributes along lines very similar to, if not precisely the same as, your suggestion here which is simple but has great merit IMO.

                            Part of the reason for my original list of ten criteria back then, was that apart from a desire to cover all the necessary bases I was trying to keep to the magic number of 10, and end up with 10 x 10 = 100 for a 'final score' in my own mind; even though many others probably would not use it that way in any case.

                            My thinking since then is that this is not necessary; we can have 8, 9, 11, 13 or whatever we like as long as we don't have too many or it'll all get too unwieldy. Also the criteria do not need to be, and perhaps should not be (still open to opinions on this) equally weighted; but that discussion will be for Stage 2. This stage is just to thrash out the list of criteria.
                            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "I think this may be as big a problem as determining best tank. People, even subconsciously, will tend to choose a criteria that puts their favourite in poll position."
                              Absolutely true, Nick, and don't we just see it all the time?

                              What I'm trying to do here is take the process in logical steps, checking and verifying the important points of each step as we go. While this does not actually prevent anyone from attempting to skew the criteria to ensure that their particular favourite comes out on top, it does mean they'll need to submit their suggestions for consideration here, before there is any chance of it influencing the poll proper and this gives us all the opportunity to debate it before it gets set in concrete.

                              Also, in the interests of fair play, while I have obviously yet to decide on the final set of criteria for this new poll I felt that putting up what I previously believed to be the best set I'd used for a poll so far - so folks can at least see the style of my thinking - was a worthwhile gesture of sincerity.


                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "My starting position would be to use Alan Jolly's view as a starting base:
                              That needs to be balanced with the best possible machine that can actually be built and supplied in reasonable numbers, one that does the job required. Given that the US is always going to be the arsenal against the Axis, due to logistical issues, that may mean an upper limit of 35 tons."
                              Mr. Jolly's views are certainly well worth taking on board and IMO should be very helpful towards the starting points for at least some of the elements in our list of criteria.


                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "Further, do we compare the performance of the tanks to the task at hand, or to each other?"
                              I think it's important to cover both, as far as we reasonably can.


                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "Some tanks would also be more useful to one army than another. This is due to a whole host of factors from combat style to terrain fought over. For example, fighting in Italy, or Burma, is going to be different from the Steppes."
                              Absolutely, and this was already part of my thinking back in 2008, because it had some influence on my wording of criteria 4 and 7 in that old poll:

                              4. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause

                              7. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s

                              Of course, we may produce a consensus here that this is insufficient and if that happens, we can look at ways of expanding on the concept.


                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "Do we also only compare tanks that actually fought in one campaign, or can we surmise an alternative that existed that could do better."
                              That's a good question, and one that so far as I can see opens a whole can of worms. Would there be a simple and equitable way you can think of, to deal with this, and one that the majority could easily agree with? I can't think of one at the moment.


                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "Longlevity, numbers built and varients built all serve to illuminate how useful that tank was to a nation. I would suggest a minimum of 450 tanks and be in service by 6.6.44. This may upset fans of the M26, M24, IS-3, Centurion and Comet, but the best tank of WW2 should really have had had a chance to make an impact in WW2 imo."
                              This also goes to a tanks usefulness as mentioned before (to the nation and the side it fought on) so I'm inclined to agree that any type not seeing a certain minimum amount of active service, in certain minimum numbers, should be excluded from the poll. We have the opportunity here, to discuss exactly where to draw the line on that.


                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              "One method to determine best modern tank is here .

                              Just some considerations and good luck trying to keep everyone happy ."
                              Keep everyone happy? I think we both know that's just about impossible.

                              I'll make a genuine effort to be as fair and balanced as I can, consistent of course with my particular individual take on how this whole question should best be approached, and what criteria we should definitely keep (that last little bit was for your benefit, David. )
                              Last edited by panther3485; 05 Mar 12, 06:52.
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X