Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Mobility

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • richard g
    replied
    Thanks P, so much info around here........ Guess I am not a Sherman fan, particularly after reading Belton Cooper's Death Traps but I do admire a WWII outset design tank like the PzKpfw IV which was a good, honest, allrounder with a killer gun.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by richard g View Post
    " ... M4 appears to have suffered from a few inadequacies in it's suspension design and layout so affecting it's cross country, soft and rough terrain, performance. ... "
    From my reading, the main issue was a relatively high ground pressure, compared to some other tanks (not all), so the soft terrain performance was nothing to write home about. Rough terrain and obstacle ability wasn't all that bad, though, IIRC.


    Originally posted by richard g View Post
    " ... Don't know how much the later HVSS(?) design improved that. ... "
    It provided a substantial improvement. IMO, taking all key criteria into account (not just mobility) the late model Sherman with HVSS, 76mm gun and wet jacket ammo stowage was clearly better than any version of the PzKpfw IV and arguably better than T-34-85 to boot.


    Originally posted by richard g View Post
    " ... Surprised that the PzKpfw IV got no votes at all, maybe because it was generally quite adequate without being noteworthy."
    True, the PzKpfw IV didn't get a single primary vote at Level 1 but at Level 2 it did quite well in the rankings and this is what gained it equal 8th position with the M3 Medium.

    Leave a comment:


  • richard g
    replied
    Thanks for the welcome P, yeh, I am being superficial in my comments in not referring to the criteria so more of a general impression thing seeing that the poll has ended. M4 appears to have suffered from a few inadequacies in it's suspension design and layout so affecting it's cross country, soft and rough terrain, performance. Don't know how much the later HVSS(?) design improved that.

    Surprised that the PzKpfw IV got no votes at all, maybe because it was generally quite adequate without being noteworthy.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by richard g View Post
    With the poll closed my impression is that the M4 had no better than average mobility while the Matilda II was good. It was the tank of choice in some Pacific jungle areas of operation after all.
    First up, welcome to ACG, richard g.

    (and ... sorry you arrived too late to participate in these 12 polls, I think you would have enjoyed them.)

    Well, I guess it depends on what things you factor into the mobility criterion. The Matilda may have had better performance against certain types of obstacles; I'm not sure. However, the M4 was clearly much faster, as well as being considerably more mechanically reliable than any of the earlier British tanks. Speed and mechanical stamina have to count for something when reckoning mobility, surely?

    Leave a comment:


  • richard g
    replied
    With the poll closed my impression is that the M4 had no better than average mobility while the Matilda II was good. It was the tank of choice in some Pacific jungle areas of operation after all.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Final Scores for 'Mobility'

    Final Scores for the 'Mobility' poll:

    1st - T-34 (38.7)
    2nd - M4 Medium (35.6)
    3rd - Churchill (31.4)
    4th - BT-5/7 (31.2)
    5th - Cromwell (29)
    6th - PzKpfw 38(t) (27.3)
    7th - PzKpfw III (24.1)
    Equal 8th - PzKpfw IV and M3 Medium (24)
    9th - Panther (22)
    10th - Tiger I (18.7)
    11th - IS-2 (18)
    12th - Somua S-35 (16.4)
    13th - Valentine (14.6)
    14th - M 13-40 (14.2)
    Equal 15th - Crusader and Type 97 (13.1)
    16th - KV-1 (12)
    17th - Char B-1 bis (9.8)
    18th - Matilda II (7.6)
    19th - Tiger II (6.5)


    Comments:

    The general trend from high to low is fairly reasonable here IMO, with those tanks in the top and bottom three positions being called correctly, or nearly so. I think it's also appropriate that the Panther should be somewhere near where it finished here or maybe even a tad lower because of its mechanical issues; except maybe it should have finished up below IS-2 because of those same issues, even though the Soviet tank was slower? (I'll have to check my own placings again as I cannot remember exactly where I put these two in relation to each other. Edit: Yes, I put the IS-2 one notch above the Panther so I'm not going mad. Just yet. ).
    I would be inclined to question some of the other finer placings too. For example, I think the PzKpfw 38(t) should have rated a bit higher; somewhere in the top 4 would have been my thinking. I also believe the Type 97, which was more reliable than the Crusader and had a diesel engine, should not have come out as low as this. Another one is the M3 Medium. I believe its overall mobility factor was not significantly lower than that of the M4 so why the 6-place difference in the rankings here?


    What do you think, guys?
    Last edited by panther3485; 12 Aug 12, 02:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by dutched View Post
    Ok Paul here goes,

    Excellent: Cromwell, Pzkfw V, T-34, M13/40;M14/41;M15/42, Pzkfw 38 (t).
    Good: M4, Pzkfw III, Pzkfw IV, Sumoa S35, Tiger I, Tiger II.
    OK: IS-2, Crusader, KV I, Type 97, M3.
    Poor: Char B, Valentine, Matilda, Churchill.

    Tha,

    Ed.
    Thanks Ed. All entered on the spreadsheet.

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    Thanks Ed.

    I have recorded your vote for the BT-5/7 as #1.

    Could you please indicate which of the remaining tanks you would like to put in each of the following brackets:

    Excellent (36)
    Good (24)
    OK (12)
    Poor (0)

    (Note: Please see post #2 on each poll thread for the precise method that applies to that thread. It does vary a bit. If you have any further queries, please PM me.)
    Ok Paul here goes,

    Excellent: Cromwell, Pzkfw V, T-34, M13/40;M14/41;M15/42, Pzkfw 38 (t).
    Good: M4, Pzkfw III, Pzkfw IV, Sumoa S35, Tiger I, Tiger II.
    OK: IS-2, Crusader, KV I, Type 97, M3.
    Poor: Char B, Valentine, Matilda, Churchill.

    Tha,

    Ed.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by dutched View Post
    Mobility:

    20 Matilda II
    31 Crusader
    21 Churchill
    19 Valentine
    02 Cromwell
    10 Somua S-35
    18 Char B 1 bis
    06 PzKpfw 38(t)
    08 PzKpfw III 18
    09 PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined)
    11 Tiger I
    03 Panther
    12 Tiger 2
    05 M 13-40/14-41/15-42
    16 Type 97 Chi-Ha
    01 BT-5/7
    04 T-34 (76 and 85 combined)
    15 KV-1
    13 IS-2
    17 M3 Medium
    07 M4 Medium (all versions combined) Mobility.


    The listing is heavily skewed, many vehicles have fallen in the same or very similar statistical band. Again reliability issues have not be taking into consideration
    Thanks Ed.

    I have recorded your vote for the BT-5/7 as #1.

    Could you please indicate which of the remaining tanks you would like to put in each of the following brackets:

    Excellent (36)
    Good (24)
    OK (12)
    Poor (0)

    (Note: Please see post #2 on each poll thread for the precise method that applies to that thread. It does vary a bit. If you have any further queries, please PM me.)

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    replied
    Mobility:

    20 Matilda II
    13 Crusader
    21 Churchill
    19 Valentine
    02 Cromwell
    10 Somua S-35
    18 Char B 1 bis
    06 PzKpfw 38(t)
    08 PzKpfw III 18
    09 PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined)
    11 Tiger I
    03 Panther
    12 Tiger 2
    05 M 13-40/14-41/15-42
    16 Type 97 Chi-Ha
    01 BT-5/7
    04 T-34 (76 and 85 combined)
    15 KV-1
    14 IS-2
    17 M3 Medium
    07 M4 Medium (all versions combined) Mobility.


    The listing is heavily skewed, many vehicles have fallen in the same or very similar statistical band. Again reliability issues have not be taking into consideration

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    For this one, I'm going to go with the easy majority and choose T-34 as my benchmark/champion tank. I rate three others as excellent, with 10 tanks getting a 'Good' rating, five scoring OK and two getting 'Poor', as shown below:

    Excellent - PzKpfw 38(t), M3 Medium, M4 Medium
    Good - Churchill, Valentine, Cromwell, Somua S-35, PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, Tiger I, Type 97, BT-5/7, IS-2
    OK - Matilda II, Crusader, Char B-1 bis, Panther, M 13-40/14-41/15-42
    Poor - Tiger II, KV-1

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    I voted the Tiger I - not because it was the most mobile tank, but simply because its mobility has generally been underrated, often considered a lumbering oaf on the battlefield. In fact, under the right conditions and in the rights hands, the Tiger I could be quite the nimble fellow. Its wide tracks were ideally suited for the terrain on the Eastern Front and its steering system was quite advanced and very responsive.
    After considering gas consumption, early teething issues and tactical limitations on its mobility (bridges) I couldn't see rating this one so highly.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    I voted the Tiger I - not because it was the most mobile tank, but simply because its mobility has generally been underrated, often considered a lumbering oaf on the battlefield. In fact, under the right conditions and in the rights hands, the Tiger I could be quite the nimble fellow. Its wide tracks were ideally suited for the terrain on the Eastern Front and its steering system was quite advanced and very responsive.
    Thanks, Skob. Your vote for Tiger I has been registered.

    I agree, the general mobility of that tank is often under-rated. For a beast of that weight, it was remarkably agile and mobile; as you say, in the right hands (and under the right conditions).

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Skoblin dares to be different...

    I voted the Tiger I - not because it was the most mobile tank, but simply because its mobility has generally been underrated, often considered a lumbering oaf on the battlefield. In fact, under the right conditions and in the rights hands, the Tiger I could be quite the nimble fellow. Its wide tracks were ideally suited for the terrain on the Eastern Front and its steering system was quite advanced and very responsive.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by 97th Foot View Post
    It was a toss up between the T34 and Churchill for me. In the end I went for the Churchill, of course this may be down to my reading to many posts by Nick the Noodle

    As to the rest;

    Excellent (36) - T-34, M-4.
    Good (24) - Cromwell, PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw 38(t), BT-5/7.
    OK (12) - IS-2, Valentine, Somua S-35, Char B-1 bis, Tiger I, Panther,
    M 13-40/14-41/15-42, Type 97 Chi-Ha, M3 Medium, IS-2.
    Poor (0) - Tiger 2, Crusader, Matilda 2, KV-1.
    Thanks Neil.
    All recorded.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X