Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Criteria weighting for 'best tank' polls

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

  • Criteria weighting for 'best tank' polls

    Hi members,


    In this thread, I Invite you all to have your say on how much weight should be given to each of the 13 criteria in our forthcoming 'best' ('greatest?') tank of WW2 polls. Yes, there will be 13 polls; one for each criterion.

    Some of you may feel that each of these criteria should be given equal weight; in other words each will be worth the same number of points as all the others. At the 'default' 20 points that I intend to apply, the tank that is found to measure up best against a particular criterion will receive the full 20 points, with the others in descending order of preference down to 0 points for the tank that is deemed to be the least worthy of the bunch against that same criterion.

    Others may feel that some of these criteria should be given more weight than others. Which criteria to adjust, and by how much extra or less weight, is to be decided here.

    As with the previous thread, I will consider all suggestions carefully but in cases of contention the final discretion will be mine. A preliminary boundary I wish to set is that the criterion with the greatest weight should not exceed the criterion with the least weight by more than a factor of x4. In other words, if 10 points are given to the criterion with the lowest weight, then the maximum for the highest weight will be 40. My reason is that allowing greater disparity than this will reduce the lowest weighted criteria to a point of such insignificance that they would become just about irrelevant and I do not see any of the 13 criteria as being of such low relative importance. (If I felt that way about any one of them, then I should not have included it in the first place.)

    I would suggest, then, that the default number of 20 points for a criterion can - if a reasonable majority consensus is deemed by me to have been reached - be decreased to a minimum of 10, or increased to a maximum of 40. Keeping to increments of ten, then that gives us 10, 20, 30 or 40 points. If there is too much difficulty reaching a consensus on how much a particular criterion should be worth, then I shall apply either the default 20 or some other figure I deem to be appropriate, at my discretion. So all of the criteria are starting out with 20 points each, requiring a reasonable majority consensus (as interpreted by me) to change them upwards or downwards as outlined.

    This is a very important part of the process, because weighting will significantly affect outcomes. Please try to be forthright and balanced in your approach to this question, and try to resist the temptation to 'skew' the weighting to give an unfair/inappropriate advantage to your particular favourite, or disadvantage to tanks you may dislike.

    With this in mind here are the 13 Criteria, bearing in mind that the final wording of explanation/inclusion under each heading is subject to reasonable adjustment if found necessary:


    List of Criteria for Assessing the Greatest Tanks of WW2

    Proposed New ACG Poll Threads, March/April 2012


    1. Firepower (20 points)
    Performance of main armament relative to other tanks of its time, in terms of both HE and AP efficiency
    Ability to quickly and accurately bring main armament to bear
    Accuracy and effectiveness of gunsight
    Rate of fire, initial and sustainable

    2. Mobility (20 points)
    Speed under varying conditions (on and off road)
    Range under varying conditions (on and off road)
    Ability to negotiate rough terrain, obstacles and gradients
    Ability to cross soft ground
    Steering and agility

    3. Protection & Survivability (20 points)
    Degree of primary protection offered by thickness, layout, slopes/curves and quality of armour
    Extent to which methods of fabrication and construction affected overall strength, integrity and effectiveness of armour shell
    Features or design flaws that either enhanced or compromised effectiveness of armour
    Measures to minimize effects of a penetration (e.g. ammo stowage and fire control)
    Ease and safety of exit from vehicle

    4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection (20 points)
    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 fundamental attributes of firepower, mobility and protection for the most effective overall package. 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 role set/classification of the tank.) If so, how much did it matter? Or did the designers get the balance just about right, or even perfect?

    5. Battle efficiency & user friendliness (20 points)
    • 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
    • Quality of cross-country ride
    • Comfort & minimization of fatigue

    6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements (20 points)
    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?
    Psychological elements: 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.

    7. Actual performance in battle (20 points)
    Notwithstanding the intended role set and design attributes of the tank, how good and effective was its actual battlefield performance and combat record, in the battles, campaigns, theatres and terrain where it was used?
    How effective was it in real life, with regard to being able both to support a breakthrough and exploit it afterwards (degree of approach to the ideal of the 'main battle tank')?

    8. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause (20 points)
    • 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
    • Numbers built & time-span of service in the war
    • Longevity of viable service as a first-line gun tank
    • Overall impact

    9. Reliability & mechanical stamina (20 points)
    How good was the reliability and stamina of this tank, compared with its peers and/or adversaries?

    10. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field (20 points)
    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.

    11. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s (20 points)
    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.

    12. Production & consumption of resources (20 points)
    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?

    13. Contribution to the advancement of tank design (20 points)
    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"?


    So, there they are. Please consider.

    The deadline for finalizing this part of the process will be seven days from now. So we've all got a week to debate and make our case here.
    Last edited by panther3485; 25 Mar 12, 01:59.
    "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
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    Hi members,


    In this thread, I Invite you all to have your say on how much weight should be given to each of the 13 criteria in our forthcoming 'best' ('greatest?') tank of WW2 polls. Yes, there will be 13 polls; one for each criterion.

    Some of you may feel that each of these criteria should be given equal weight; in other words each will be worth the same number of points as all the others. At the 'default' 20 points that I intend to apply, the tank that is found to measure up best against a particular criterion will receive the full 20 points, with the others in descending order of preference down to 0 points for the tank that is deemed to be the least worthy of the bunch against that same criterion.

    Others may feel that some of these criteria should be given more weight than others. Which criteria to adjust, and by how much extra or less weight, is to be decided here.

    As with the previous thread, I will consider all suggestions carefully but in cases of contention the final discretion will be mine. A preliminary boundary I wish to set is that the criterion with the greatest weight should not exceed the criterion with the least weight by more than a factor of x4. In other words, if 10 points are given to the criterion with the lowest weight, then the maximum for the highest weight will be 40. My reason is that allowing greater disparity than this will reduce the lowest weighted criteria to a point of such insignificance that they would become just about irrelevant and I do not see any of the 13 criteria as being of such low relative importance. (If I felt that way about any one of them, then I should not have included it in the first place.)

    I would suggest, then, that the default number of 20 points for a criterion can - if a reasonable majority consensus is deemed by me to have been reached - be decreased to a minimum of 10, or increased to a maximum of 40. Keeping to increments of ten, then that gives us 10, 20, 30 or 40 points. If there is too much difficulty reaching a consensus on how much a particular criterion should be worth, then I shall apply either the default 20 or some other figure I deem to be appropriate, at my discretion. So all of the criteria are starting out with 20 points each, requiring a reasonable majority consensus (as interpreted by me) to change them upwards or downwards as outlined.

    This is a very important part of the process, because weighting will significantly affect outcomes. Please try to be forthright and balanced in your approach to this question, and try to resist the temptation to 'skew' the weighting to give an unfair/inappropriate advantage to your particular favourite, or disadvantage to tanks you may dislike.

    With this in mind here are the 13 Criteria, bearing in mind that the final wording of explanation/inclusion under each heading is subject to reasonable adjustment if found necessary:


    List of Criteria for Assessing the Greatest Tanks of WW2

    Proposed New ACG Poll Threads, March/April 2012


    1. Firepower (20 points)
    Performance of main armament relative to other tanks of its time, in terms of both HE and AP efficiency
    Ability to quickly and accurately bring main armament to bear
    Accuracy and effectiveness of gunsight
    Rate of fire, initial and sustainable

    2. Mobility (20 points)
    Speed under varying conditions (on and off road)
    Range under varying conditions (on and off road)
    Ability to negotiate rough terrain, obstacles and gradients
    Ability to cross soft ground
    Steering and agility

    3. Protection & Survivability (20 points)
    Degree of primary protection offered by thickness, layout, slopes/curves and quality of armour
    Extent to which methods of fabrication and construction affected overall strength, integrity and effectiveness of armour shell
    Features or design flaws that either enhanced or compromised effectiveness of armour
    Measures to minimize effects of a penetration (e.g. ammo stowage and fire control)
    Ease and safety of exit from vehicle

    4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection (20 points)
    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 fundamental attributes of firepower, mobility and protection for the most effective overall package. 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 role set/classification of the tank.) If so, how much did it matter? Or did the designers get the balance just about right, or even perfect?

    5. Battle efficiency & user friendliness (20 points)
    • 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
    • Quality of cross-country ride
    • Comfort & minimization of fatigue

    6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements (20 points)
    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?
    Psychological elements: 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.

    7. Actual performance in battle (20 points)
    Notwithstanding the intended role set and design attributes of the tank, how good and effective was its actual battlefield performance and combat record, in the battles, campaigns, theatres and terrain where it was used?
    How effective was it in real life, with regard to being able both to support a breakthrough and exploit it afterwards (degree of approach to the ideal of the 'main battle tank')?

    8. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause (20 points)
    • 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
    • Numbers built & time-span of service in the war
    • Longevity of viable service as a first-line gun tank
    • Overall impact

    9. Reliability & mechanical stamina (20 points)
    How good was the reliability and stamina of this tank, compared with its peers and/or adversaries?

    10. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field (20 points)
    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.

    11. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s (20 points)
    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.

    12. Production & consumption of resources (20 points)
    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?

    13. Contribution to the advancement of tank design (20 points)
    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"?


    So, there they are. Please consider.

    The deadline for finalizing this part of the process will be seven days from now. So we've all got a week to debate and make our case here.

    Point 13 I'm not too sure about. If we are talking about WW2 tanks, only the contribution to other WW2 designs should be considered imo.

    Also point 9 reliability and mechanical stamina could come under mobility imo.

    I personally would like to see fewer catorgaries:

    Firepower : Includes AP and HE, as well as soft factorsd such as ease of target acquisition and optics.
    Armour : Includes survivability.
    Mobility : Tactical and operational, including reliability and ease of maintenance.
    Strategic value : Ease of production, easy to transport, upgradability, value to own army overall.
    Overall Effectiveness : Includes balance of fundamental attributes, edge factors, morale etc.

    Thats 5 factors of about equal weight, say 20 points each, for a total of 100. The best gets 20 points, the worst gets 0 and the rest will be a judgement call inbetween.

    To use an example the King Tiger
    Firepower : 20 points. The king Tiger had the best holepuncher of any tank, had a decent HE round, great optics and carried a decent number of rounds.
    Armour : 20 points. Unbeatable front armour, and side armour exceeding that of many mediums.
    Mobility : 0. Too thirsty, cannot cross bridges and chews up the road preventing trucks supplying the tank.
    Strategic value : 0. It would have been better not have actually produced them.
    Overall effectiveness : 3. As a defensive weapon its great gun and excellent armour will be useful against enemy armour. Otherwise a pointless venture.

    Just some thoughts
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      Point 13 I'm not too sure about. If we are talking about WW2 tanks, only the contribution to other WW2 designs should be considered imo.

      Also point 9 reliability and mechanical stamina could come under mobility imo.

      I personally would like to see fewer catorgaries:

      Firepower : Includes AP and HE, as well as soft factorsd such as ease of target acquisition and optics.
      Armour : Includes survivability.
      Mobility : Tactical and operational, including reliability and ease of maintenance.
      Strategic value : Ease of production, easy to transport, upgradability, value to own army overall.
      Overall Effectiveness : Includes balance of fundamental attributes, edge factors, morale etc.

      Thats 5 factors of about equal weight, say 20 points each, for a total of 100. The best gets 20 points, the worst gets 0 and the rest will be a judgement call inbetween.

      To use an example the King Tiger
      Firepower : 20 points. The king Tiger had the best holepuncher of any tank, had a decent HE round, great optics and carried a decent number of rounds.
      Armour : 20 points. Unbeatable front armour, and side armour exceeding that of many mediums.
      Mobility : 0. Too thirsty, cannot cross bridges and chews up the road preventing trucks supplying the tank.
      Strategic value : 0. It would have been better not have actually produced them.
      Overall effectiveness : 3. As a defensive weapon its great gun and excellent armour will be useful against enemy armour. Otherwise a pointless venture.

      Just some thoughts
      Thanks for the thoughts, Nick, but for a start I disagree about criterion #13 although influence during WW2 itself would be considerable in a few cases at least.

      As for the rest, rather late don't you think? This thread is for discussion of weighting of the criteria. Discussion of the criteria themselves was in the previous thread which has been open for how long now? Almost three weeks! I would draw your attention to my very first post on that first thread, where I said, in part, the following (extra bolding for emphasis in selected places):

      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      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. ...

      ... 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. ...


      ... 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.

      ... 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. ...
      So, stage 1, which was the first thread, is now to be regarded as complete. We are now in stage 2. (I did make one major deviation and that was to begin discussion of what was going to be stage 3 - the tank types to be included in the poll - during stage 1 but I did have a particular reason for doing that.)

      During the later days of the stage 1 thread, I believe I announced at least once, and at least a couple of days before posting this thread, that the criteria themselves were being locked in. Not a murmur from anyone then, but that would have been the final opportunity to propose something as comprehensively different as what you are suggesting here. Certainly I will not now entertain a radical re-structuring of the criteria along the lines you suggest.

      Having said this, one thing you've mentioned here does make considerable sense within the overall structure of criteria as they exist now. Your suggestion that Reliability and Mechanical Stamina should come under Mobility does make a lot of sense and if there is no great amount of disagreement from the membership I would like to adopt that suggestion. This would bring us from 13 criteria to 12. I would also have a look at the list of criteria and if necessary, group the strategic factors in sequence simply for the sake of tidiness and making it easier for folks to get their heads around those particular factors. But that's about as far as I'd be prepared to go with re-structuring of the criteria themselves. I will, however, consider any and all further suggestions for 'fine tuning' of the wording under each criterion, as previously indicated.

      Shortly, I will re-post the list of criteria with Reliability incorporated under mobility, for the approval of the members. Thanks for that suggestion (albeit belated).
      Last edited by panther3485; 25 Mar 12, 07:42.
      "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
        Minor revision

        Latest adjustments to.....

        List of Criteria for Assessing the Greatest Tanks of WW2


        Proposed New ACG Poll Threads, March/April 2012



        1. Firepower (20 points)
        Performance of main armament relative to other tanks of its time, in terms of both HE and AP efficiency
        Ability to quickly and accurately bring main armament to bear
        Accuracy and effectiveness of gunsight
        Rate of fire, initial and sustainable

        2. Mobility (20 points)
        Speed under varying conditions (on and off road)
        Range under varying conditions (on and off road)
        Ability to negotiate rough terrain, obstacles and gradients
        Ability to cross soft ground
        Steering and agility
        Reliability & mechanical stamina

        3. Protection & Survivability (20 points)
        Degree of primary protection offered by thickness, layout, slopes/curves and quality of armour
        Extent to which methods of fabrication and construction affected overall strength, integrity and effectiveness of armour shell
        Features or design flaws that either enhanced or compromised effectiveness of armour
        Measures to minimize effects of a penetration (e.g. ammo stowage and fire control)
        Ease and safety of exit from vehicle

        4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection (20 points)
        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 fundamental attributes of firepower, mobility and protection for the most effective overall package. 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 role set/classification of the tank.) If so, how much did it matter? Or did the designers get the balance just about right, or even perfect?

        5. 'Soft' factors impacting efficiency (20 points)
        • 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 - the 'user frienliness' factor
        • Equipment, fittings, devices or structural factors that enhance or detract from efficiency
        • Quality of cross-country ride
        • Comfort & minimization of fatigue

        6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements (20 points)
        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?
        Psychological elements: 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.

        7. Actual performance in battle (20 points)
        Notwithstanding the intended role set and design attributes of the tank, how good and effective was its actual battlefield performance and combat record, in the battles, campaigns, theatres and terrain where it was used?
        How effective was it in real life, with regard to being able both to support a breakthrough and exploit it afterwards (degree of approach to the ideal of the 'main battle tank')?

        8. Contribution to the advancement of tank design (20 points)
        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"?

        9. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause (20 points)
        • Extent, scope and importance of practical success realized over the entire span of service
        • 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
        • Numbers built & time-span of service in the war
        • Longevity of viable service as a first-line gun tank
        • Overall impact

        10. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field (20 points)
        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.

        11. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s (20 points)
        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.

        12. Production & consumption of resources (20 points)
        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?

        __________________________________________________ __________________________

        I've done a bit of a re-shuffle, to group the criteria that relate more to the strategic side of things at the end. The former criterion entitled 'Reliability and Mechanical Stamina' is now incorporated as part of the Mobility criterion, as suggested by Nick. I've also changed the title of criterion #5 from 'Battle efficiency & user friendliness' to 'Soft factors impacting efficiency'; with 'user friendliness' now included as part of the material under that heading. Otherwise, no change.

        Assuming these relatively small adjustments do not incur too much disapproval, I would now like all those who are interested to join in discussion of the relative weighting of the criteria, as detailed above. Or do we just stick with 20 points across the board for each criterion? I await your input. That is the main intended business of this thread. However, further minor adjustments to wording of the suject matter under each criterion can also be implemented during this stage, as we go along.
        Last edited by panther3485; 25 Mar 12, 09:57.
        "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


        • #5
          Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
          Latest adjustments to.....

          Proposed New ACG Poll Threads, March/April 2012

          1. Firepower (20 points)
          Performance of main armament relative to other tanks of its time, in terms of both HE and AP efficiency
          Ability to quickly and accurately bring main armament to bear
          Accuracy and effectiveness of gunsight
          Rate of fire, initial and sustainable

          2. Mobility (20 points)
          Speed under varying conditions (on and off road)
          Range under varying conditions (on and off road)
          Ability to negotiate rough terrain, obstacles and gradients
          Ability to cross soft ground
          Steering and agility
          Reliability & mechanical stamina

          3. Protection & Survivability (20 points)
          Degree of primary protection offered by thickness, layout, slopes/curves and quality of armour
          Extent to which methods of fabrication and construction affected overall strength, integrity and effectiveness of armour shell
          Features or design flaws that either enhanced or compromised effectiveness of armour
          Measures to minimize effects of a penetration (e.g. ammo stowage and fire control)
          Ease and safety of exit from vehicle

          4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection (20 points)
          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 fundamental attributes of firepower, mobility and protection for the most effective overall package. 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 role set/classification of the tank.) If so, how much did it matter? Or did the designers get the balance just about right, or even perfect?

          5. 'Soft' factors impacting efficiency (20 points)
          • 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 - the 'user frienliness' factor
          • Equipment, fittings, devices or structural factors that enhance or detract from efficiency
          • Quality of cross-country ride
          • Comfort & minimization of fatigue

          6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements (20 points)
          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?
          Psychological elements: 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.

          7. Actual performance in battle (20 points)
          Notwithstanding the intended role set and design attributes of the tank, how good and effective was its actual battlefield performance and combat record, in the battles, campaigns, theatres and terrain where it was used?
          How effective was it in real life, with regard to being able both to support a breakthrough and exploit it afterwards (degree of approach to the ideal of the 'main battle tank')?

          8. Contribution to the advancement of tank design (20 points)
          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"?

          9. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause (20 points)
          • Extent, scope and importance of practical success realized over the entire span of service
          • 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
          • Numbers built & time-span of service in the war
          • Longevity of viable service as a first-line gun tank
          • Overall impact

          10. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field (20 points)
          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.

          11. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s (20 points)
          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.

          12. Production & consumption of resources (20 points)
          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?
          I don't like the change simply because it dilutes a very important aspect of a fighting machine. If the crowd votes to use the 20 point system with MOBILITY at 20 valued then Reliability and mechanical stamina will have a much smaller value since they are only a portion of this. This is one of the aspects of the Sherman and other tanks that made it shine and of the Panther and Tigers that limited their effectiveness often. This would mean the Tiger II is only losing 3 or so points for being a mechanical nightmare, I would want to see this value higher.

          I would vote for an assessment of value points for each criteria since a category like contribution to the advancement of tank design and "the edge" should not be weighed as highly as performance factors, IMO.
          Last edited by JBark; 25 Mar 12, 18:04.
          John

          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

          Comment


          • #6
            The following is an idea for weighting and some ideas how some attributes can be scored. The following gives a score out of 200.


            1. Firepower (20 points)
            Use KwK40 75mm as benchmark for 10pts. 88L71 is 20pts. 37mm is 1 pt.
            2. Mobility (20 points)
            Churchill is 19pts, PzIV is 10pts, KV-1 is 1pt.
            3. Protection & Survivability (20 points)
            King Tiger is 20 pts, Sherman is 10 pts.
            4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection (10 points)
            Great balance = 10pts, adequate balance is 5pts, poor balance is 1pt.
            5. 'Soft' factors impacting efficiency (20 points)
            Don't know how to call this one, but is very important.
            6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements (10 points)
            Probably best as a yes or no answer ie yes is 10pts, no is 0pts.
            7. Actual performance in battle (40 points)
            Again difficult to determine, as so many factors can effect the outcome.
            8. Contribution to the advancement of tank design (10 points)
            Again probably best as a yes or no option.
            9. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause (20 points)
            Difficult to determine for most years in frontline service and number built should factor highly. T-34 on max here and Sherman on slightly behind, say 29pts.
            10. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field (10 points)
            Probably best as a yes or no answer to was it (relatively) easy to maintain.
            11. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s (10 points)
            Up to 35 tons = 10pts. 36-45 tons = 5pts. 45+ tons = 0pts.
            12. Production & consumption of resources (10 points)
            Wouldn't know where to start. Weight may be a good indicator, ie the greater the weight, the more expensive the tank.
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JBark View Post
              I don't like the change simply because it dilutes a very important aspect of a fighting machine. If the crowd votes to use the 20 point system then MOBILITY then Reliability and mechanical stamina will have a much smaller impact then I think they should. This is one of the aspects of the Sherman that made it shine and of the Panther and Tigers that limited their effectiveness often. This would mean the Tiger II is only losing 3 or so points for being a mechanical nightmare, I would want to see this value higher.

              I would vote for an assessment of value points for each criteria since a category like contribution to the advancement of tank design and "the edge" should not be weighed as highly as performance factors, IMO.
              If at least one or two others feel as you do, the possible solutions I see are:

              (a) Return 'Reliability and Mechancial Stamina' to the status of a separate criterion, as it was before; or
              (b) Give extra weight to Mobility; 30 or even 40 points instead of the default 20.

              I tend to agree that some factors should arguably be given more weight than others, although which ones and how much is where I am looking for opinions from the membership here. I am still in the process of thinking this through myself.
              "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
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                The following is an idea for weighting and some ideas how some attributes can be scored. The following gives a score out of 200.


                1. Firepower (20 points)
                Use KwK40 75mm as benchmark for 10pts. 88L71 is 20pts. 37mm is 1 pt.
                2. Mobility (20 points)
                Churchill is 19pts, PzIV is 10pts, KV-1 is 1pt.
                3. Protection & Survivability (20 points)
                King Tiger is 20 pts, Sherman is 10 pts.
                4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection (10 points)
                Great balance = 10pts, adequate balance is 5pts, poor balance is 1pt.
                5. 'Soft' factors impacting efficiency (20 points)
                Don't know how to call this one, but is very important.
                6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements (10 points)
                Probably best as a yes or no answer ie yes is 10pts, no is 0pts.
                7. Actual performance in battle (40 points)
                Again difficult to determine, as so many factors can effect the outcome.
                8. Contribution to the advancement of tank design (10 points)
                Again probably best as a yes or no option.
                9. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause (20 points)
                Difficult to determine for most years in frontline service and number built should factor highly. T-34 on max here and Sherman on slightly behind, say 29pts.
                10. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field (10 points)
                Probably best as a yes or no answer to was it (relatively) easy to maintain.
                11. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s (10 points)
                Up to 35 tons = 10pts. 36-45 tons = 5pts. 45+ tons = 0pts.
                12. Production & consumption of resources (10 points)

                Wouldn't know where to start. Weight may be a good indicator, ie the greater the weight, the more expensive the tank.
                OK Nick, summing up what you've presented here:

                The following 5 criteria receive the default 20 points:
                Firepower; Mobility; Protection/Survivability; Soft factors; Value to user

                The following 6 criteria have their points values reduced to 10:
                Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection; Edge/Psychological; Advancement of Design; Maintenance/Repair cost; Transportability/Deployment; Production/Consumption of Resources

                And the Actual Performance in Battle criterion is worth 40 points.


                Your weighting preferences are duly noted. I'm inclinded to agree with you regarding performance in battle receiving the highest possible weighting. Not sure about the rest yet. Let's see what some of the other members think.
                Last edited by panther3485; 25 Mar 12, 20:51.
                "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


                • #9
                  I second Nick's system.
                  Task Force Regenbogen- Support and Paras

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dashy View Post
                    I second Nick's system.
                    I assume this includes Nick's weighting preferences? If so, duly noted (let me know if I have misunderstood).

                    As for Nick's 'system' per se, not sure I'll be going with that because my idea is more based on incremental ranking than bracketing. On one hand, I'm guessing that some members will simply wish to vote for whichever tank they think should get top points, and won't want to bother with either system. On the other hand, for those who wish to rank these tanks in order of merit against a descending scale, an incremental points system would capture that in the best way.

                    An idea is coalescing in my mind, that will allow not only both of those preferences but also variations in between the two. More on this later. Let's decide the weighting first.


                    Edit: If there is very strong support for Nick's system (over anything else), I'll re-consider that too. But let's concentrate on the weighting for now.
                    Last edited by panther3485; 25 Mar 12, 21:33.
                    "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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle;2206042[B
                      1. Firepower[/B] (20 points)
                      Use KwK40 75mm as benchmark for 10pts. 88L71 is 20pts. 37mm is 1 pt.
                      Do you have a specific 37 mm gun in mind, like say the French SA 18? Or did you mean 37-40 mm guns as a class?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I get the idea of using these guns as 'benchmarks' to help us with the scaling of points but I can't help thinking that these choices maybe place a bit too much emphasis on AP capability; and not enough on HE? If we have 20 points as the maximum award for firepower (and that is not yet decided, btw), then I would have thought that a more indicative and balanced 'benchmark' for 10 (half of 20) points would have been the 75mm M3 as per the Sherman? It had an AP capability that was better than average when first introduced, falling to below parity by 1944 but still useful. HE capability remained above average for guns in that calibre range (75-76mm) but was overshadowed by bigger guns in the last year of the war. The KwK40 was superior for AP but inferior for HE. Its placing would therefore depend on where you want the emphasis but if statistical data are any indication, HE was more generally and widely useful in the overall workload of a tank than AP. So there would have to be some thought involved there. (pondering, pondering)
                        Last edited by panther3485; 26 Mar 12, 00:03.
                        "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


                        • #13
                          List of Criteria for Assessing all 13 as you set can be applied to all tanks as per you list

                          I think that the criteria for weighting (points) should be different for each of the criteria based on the importance of the criteria points

                          1. Firepower ……………30 (20 points)

                          2. Mobility ……………..30 (20 points)

                          3. Protection & Survivability……………30 (20 points)

                          4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection ……………..40 (20 points)

                          5 'Soft' factors impacting efficiency …………..20 (20 points)

                          6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements …………….30 (20 points)

                          7. Actual performance in battle ………………..30 (20 points)


                          8. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause …………..20 (20 points)


                          9. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field ………….10 (20 points)

                          10. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s ……………..20 (20 points)

                          11. Production & consumption of resources ………………10 (20 points)

                          12. Contribution to the advancement of tank design …………..10 (20 points)

                          hope I got it right

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

                          “The Engine of the Panzer is Its Weapon just as much as the cannon”
                          Generaloberst Heinz Guderian

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                            Do you have a specific 37 mm gun in mind, like say the French SA 18? Or did you mean 37-40 mm guns as a class?
                            I think there are enough grey areas to use all those similar to the 37mm's as one class, even if some weapons were superior eg 2pdr. Perhaps add one point but in the greater scheme of things there would be little actual battlefield effect of changing one with another for 39-45 overall. If we were talking about 39-41 then a distinction should probably be made, but for all of WW2 I wouldn't bother.

                            In some categories I don't think most of us (all?) have enough knowledge of some tanks specs, eg ergonomics, to judge one against another on a scale. Likewise with maintenance. Are some tanks easy and some difficult? I can have a decent go at yes and no. Is a Valentine easier to maintain and keep in the field than an M4? I wouldn't know. Both are very good, but relative to each other?

                            Likewise, I would generally place German gun control systems and optics above their opponents. However, in the case of the Panther, the commander cannot control the rotation of the turret, and the gunner has very limited width of vision, thus leading to longer times to shoot at a taget once acquired (20-30 seconds iirc). How much of this is countered by the accuracy afforded by superior optics I wouldn't know? Probably depends on range.

                            This is why for some questions I would simply ask a yes/no question for some categories. Eg Sherman is easy to maintain, Tiger is not. Valentine is reliable, Panther is not.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
                              "List of Criteria for Assessing all 13 as you set can be applied to all tanks as per you list"
                              Does this mean you agree with JBark, that we should stick to the 13 criteria settled in the previous thread, with 'Reliability and Mechanical Stamina' being a separate criterion in its own right? Or do you prefer the 'latest edition' of 12 criteria, with Reliability coming under Mobility?

                              Please clarify.


                              Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
                              "I think that the criteria for weighting (points) should be different for each of the criteria based on the importance of the criteria points

                              1. Firepower ……………30 (20 points)

                              2. Mobility ……………..30 (20 points)

                              3. Protection & Survivability……………30 (20 points)

                              4. Balance of Firepower/Mobility/Protection ……………..40 (20 points)

                              5 'Soft' factors impacting efficiency …………..20 (20 points)

                              6. The ‘edge’ factor and Psychological elements …………….30 (20 points)

                              7. Actual performance in battle ………………..30 (20 points)


                              8. Value to the user nation/s and/or to the Allied/Axis cause …………..20 (20 points)


                              9. Effort/cost of routine running & maintenance, and repair in the field ………….10 (20 points)

                              10. Transportability & deployment issues, considering overall situation & needs of the user nation/s ……………..20 (20 points)

                              11. Production & consumption of resources ………………10 (20 points)

                              12. Contribution to the advancement of tank design …………..10 (20 points)

                              hope I got it right

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

                              “The Engine of the Panzer is Its Weapon just as much as the cannon”
                              Generaloberst Heinz Guderian
                              Thanks Martin. Definitely worth thinking about; and some of your weightings are very close to, or the same as, what I would have said myself.
                              "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